It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Popular Mechanics vs Loose Change

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Haven't finished it yet, but so far wow, its a fierce debate. But yes, its ironic they wont debate the true investigators of the 9/11 scholars, and not just a film documentary maker



Because they are simply authors, like the writers of Loose change. They are not the experts themselves, they merely interviewd the experts and got their research from experts. They are not engineers or scientists, they are writers.

Scholars for Truth only has a couple of experts on their side as well, but it's still different than being just writers (yes a professor of philosphy is stretching it).




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae



Wouldn't the government just use planes instead of a cruise missile?


I have researched 9/11 for 3 years now, very heavily.

There is aircraft wreckage (heck anyone should know that) it couldn't of been a cruise missile.

What ever it was, was an aircraft of some sort.


Have you gone mad man???
How can you possibly assume that a plane hit the pentagon?
There was no damage done to the grass, there was no debree, there was only a 10 foot hole in the pentagon! It's obvious to me and I believe MANY others that a plane did not hit the pentagon. What did cause that hole, IDK. My best explanation would be a cruise missle. I know for a fact that if a plane did hit the pentagon it would have caused A LOT more damage than it did. It would have also left A LOt more debree than it did.
It is IDIOTIC to believe after all seeing the evidence that a plane hit the pentagon...
A plane did not crash into the pentagon!!!

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Techsnow]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

But his mother, whom has nothingto loose, says yes.

A conundrum, no doubt.
If you read the quote above, you'll see that it explains his mother's statement. She said they might be distant cousins, in the same way you and I might be cousins. But, turns out they aren't. I'm all for attacking people with facts, but this just isn't one of them. It's a falsehood.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by nataylor]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor


A conundrum, no doubt.
If you read the quote above, you'll see that it explains his mother's statement. She said they might be distant cousins, in the same way you and I might be cousins. But, turns out they aren't. I'm all for attacking people with facts, but this just isn't one of them. It's a falsehood.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by nataylor]

Mmkay. Thanks for clearing that up then. They must've been "paraphrasing" the quote then.




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
It is IDIOTIC to believe after all seeing the evidence that a plane hit the pentagon...
A plane did not crash into the pentagon!!!

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Techsnow]


Goodness... I was thinking justthe opposite. Sometimes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... it IS just a duck.

Besides there being no evidence of anything other than a plane, I have met a few people who actually saw it happen. Even if there was video, the CTs wouldn't want to believe it.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Why are we dismissing the plane debris that is clearly all over the lawn, and in the Pentagon wreckage?

As to the debate, really it was a radio version of what we do here..."Well my sources said yours are wrong, and you're a liar" etc.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
First off I think you can dismiss the cruise missle theory. Although it definately wasn't a 757. PM guys seemed to be stretched thin on things to say and they almost sounded like politicians.
On a separate note, wasn't there missle protection around the pentagon>????



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
At the time, no there were no defense systems of any kind. There are now.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nQuire


My favorite part is that of PM now being on the record as claiming the famous Pentagon "exit hole" was caused by the landing gear of 77, a contention that is so absurd on its face that it will be very interesting to see how they're going to try to sustain the illusion of credibility and professionalism on their part in the future.
[edit on 11-9-2006 by nQuire]


Committed to a view? No change possible without losing credibility? If scientists adhered to that notion there would be no scientific progress. Science will hold a view until better evidence comes along disproving the former. Thanks to the scientific method they will then change their view (albeit slowly most of the time). The PM editors are presenting themselves as representatives of science. If new evidence from reputable scientists comes along showing that the landing gear did not cause the exit hole I will no longer lend credibility to the PM guys if they do not change their position on it.


[edit on 13-9-2006 by tooblue]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
First of all: Just where is the evidence for their claim? Lecturing about the scientific method is good. But not when it's being followed up by the statement that PM was representing science here. They presented sheer hypothesis as fact here, and offered nothing to back it up, except for their questionable reputation.

If scientists adhered to the notion that postulating absurd fantasies as fact was actually science, there would be no scientific progress, either.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
>First of all: Just where is the evidence for their claim<
The evidence, as they stated, comes from the thousands of engineers and other scientists that studied the event. This was a soundbite debate, what can one expect?


>Lecturing about the scientific method is good. But not when it's being followed up by the statement that PM was representing science here.<

PM was saying what they had learned from the engineers etc. In that, they were representing the scientists view, yes. Would it have made a difference if a structural engineer came on and made the same statements? The content would be the same regardless.

>They presented sheer hypothesis as fact here, and offered nothing to back it up, except for their questionable reputation.<

Sheer hypothesis? Hardly. The hypothesis stage has long since been passed and a Conclusion has been reached. Listen to the show again, you'll hear them give references as back up. If thats not good enough for a soundbite debate, so be it.

>If scientists adhered to the notion that postulating absurd fantasies as fact was actually science, there would be no scientific progress, either. <

We finally agree on something!! It would indeed stop progress!
My favorite scientific absurdity: Way back in the days of yore rural folk believed rocks fell from the sky. Science, in its wisdom, claimed the rocks were actually coming from volcanoes. Rural folk persisted in their belief and scientists persisted in belittling the ignorant masses. Until a fellow scientist took the claim seriously and studied a storm of rocks that fell on a village. His study concluded, with overwhelming evidence, that rocks do indeed fall from the sky. Hence the discovery of meteorites.


[edit on 13-9-2006 by tooblue]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

tooblue
Would it have made a difference if a structural engineer came on and made the same statements? The content would be the same regardless.


No, it obviously wouldn't have made a difference, as implied in my critique. The content needs to convince by merit, not by association to questionable reputations and/or academic insignia, which it in no way does.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
This is all BULL SHOOT...

PM is a bunch of lying pusses... They REFUSE to debate ST911 and cancel a scheduled debate with them TWO HOURS prior only to debate "Dylan Avery" a week or two later? WTF are they so afraid of?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
...yep, that proves it. Nothing creditable, no facts, not nothing. A radio show being cancelled proves the whole thing. You put an awful lot of faith in a radio debate.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
The only thing cancelling a npr radio debate prooves is that Popular mechanics believes they have a possibility of loosing a debate with them.

That ofcourse, says alot, but considering popular mechanics are editors, not researchers, it doesnt really say much other then they like to talk alot of trash, but not back it up



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
it doesnt really say much other then they like to talk alot of trash, but not back it up


Like I said... totally discredits them.

If you write a book and present it AS FACT, schedule a debate to peddle it and SUPPORT you case, then you cancel it to debate lesser competition...

Totally discredited.

Steven Jones would have debated any of them anywhere.
Fetzer too.
Griffin too.
Ryan too.
half of this site too.

Anytime, anywhere. the difference in attitude on this is VERY telling to even "homer simpson" as someone said earlier.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Some of my favourite moments from the video:


JASON BERMAS: I'd just like to thank you for the opportunity to take on the government's lies and Popular Mechanics, which is a Hearst yellow journalism publication’s lies, as well.

~*~*~*~*~

JASON BERMAS: If I may address that for one moment? If that's true, then why in 2004 did American Airlines spend tens of thousands of dollars to put cell phone towers in their planes so people could make those calls? Why spend tens of thousands of dollars three years after the fact, if they worked so well on September 11? What he's saying is a total lie.

~*~*~*~*~

DYLAN AVERY: I mean, it's not our best evidence. I mean, there’s tons of things you can discuss besides the cell phone.

JASON BERMAS: Just the fact the plane is not there, I think, is our best evidence, and anyone can see that.

~*~*~*~*~

DYLAN AVERY: The initial impact on the Pentagon was no more than 20 feet wide,

~*~*~*~*~

DYLAN AVERY: Well, real quick, I just want to jump in and say, Kevin Ryan has been open about his statement. He has always been public about the fact that he worked for the -- I don’t remember the exact name, but it was a subdivision of Underwriters Laboratories, which did water testing. But it was the fact that he got the higher-up from -- he got the word from his higher-ups that they actually had certified the steel and, I mean, his science still adds up.

DAVID DUNBAR: In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.

DYLAN AVERY: Oh, okay.

~*~*~*~*~

JAMES MEIGS: Jason, I think it's telling that every time you disagree with something you call the people a liar.

JASON BERMAS: I'm not calling anybody a liar, sir. I'm calling you a liar, because you are a liar.

~*~*~*~*~

MEIGS: [snip] People died. We're talking about real human beings here, you know. This wasn't a movie. This isn’t a parlor game.

JASON BERMAS: We are talking about real human beings --

DYLAN AVERY: Bermas, Bermas, relax for a second.

JASON BERMAS: -- and we respect them with the truth, sir.

DYLAN AVERY: Relax for a second.

~*~*~*~*~

JAMES MEIGS: You know, conspiracies have a way of constantly expanding. You just listed a whole range of government agencies. Apparently the fire fighters we talked to, we at Popular Mechanics, other journalists, our friend David Corn at The Nation is accused to being part of this massive cover-up. The fact is, there are always little details that don't always add up until you finish your research.

DYLAN AVERY: Mr. Meigs, you’re still not addressing the evidence.

JAMES MEIGS: But when you really dig down, every single one of these has a clear explanation. And if there's areas that don't, let's continue to dig. We should be skeptical. We should ask questions. By all means, we fully support the effort to get to the bottom of any remaining questions.

... it's a complete mystery to you guys that PM is not interested in spending their time debating conspiracy theorists?

[edit on 13-9-2006 by vor75]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
vor, we're not asking them to debate "conspiracy theoriests."

Its not like we're expecting them to go on "thetruthisoutthere.com" and makea debate, but its ironic that the only people they DO debate are those whom are amateur, unqualified, and unimportant people, whom they know they can twist words with and come out of a shuffle. If anything, they only ARE debating conspiracy theorists.What they refuse to do, is to actually debate the scholars themselves, whom are professionals, are not amateur filmmakers, or conspiracy theorists.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join