I happen to be a skeptic of the 9/11 conspiracy. I'm not posting here to argue/debate with the believers. It's obvious they will believe it no matter what evidence is shown to them. I think it's great that they have all of this passion, misguided, but at least they have a passion. This link is here for anyone that is looking for the truth, and would like to examine evidence that is based on more than just youtube videos, and documentaries from so called experts. I already know that the believers wipe their ass with pages from this link, so no need posting that as a response.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1227842.html

Owned.

Counter 'owned'

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

:D

Checkmate

:lol:

????

How does the AE911 site debunk Ryan Mackey's criticism of DRG's paper?

Or am I just supposed to be impressed by a handful of architects and mechanical/electrical engineers?

:unsure:

Don't tell me you though Makey impressed me?? I'll give him 1 more credit point than Roberts but since Roberts has none that doesn't say much does it??

What did Ryan Mackey get wrong in his paper?

What did AE91Truth get wrong??

Collectively or individually?

Collectively they misrepresent themselves as the professionals with the necessary training and expertise to comment on the structural failure of the towers.

Individually they haven't produced any papers of sufficient detail to be peer reviewed. They just provide soundbites and youtube videos.


Now, this thread started with someone posting a link to Popular Mechanics.

This was countered with a link to David Ray Griffins supposed debunking of Popular mechanics.

I countered this with Ryan Mackeys paper pointing out the errors in DRG's effort.

You then post a link to AE911truth and somehow think that will make it all ok.

Perhaps you could actually point out the errors in the paper I linked to, cause I can't see any.

Right. Richard Gage doesn't have a whole presentation he gives. Just sound bites and youtube clips...... oooook.

No. I did it just for the hell of it. When was Mackey's paper peer reviewed again??

Of course you can't. Then again I can't either cause I haven't read it nor would I waste my time.

You see Mackey has an attitude that would make him say something like, "Individually they haven't produced any papers of sufficient detail to be peer reviewed. They just provide soundbites and youtube videos" and that's just a waste of my time.

So by this logic you would say that Mark Roberts WTC7 paper is garbage?? Well at least we agree on something.

Ummmmm nooooooo

You see when someone makes a comment or a claim and says "Listen to me I know what I'm talking about because I'm an engineer (or architect)" then it is beholden on them to present their case in an arena where other engineers (or architects) can comment.

But if that same person says "Listen to me, I know what I'm talking about", then they are not using their profession to bolster their case and are not expected to publish their claims in a peer review arena, but rather their claims will be considered on their own merit, not on the basis of being presented by an engineer (or architect).

David Ray Griffin is a theologian who presumes to critique the findings of engineers who contributed to the Popular Mechanics paper.

Ryan Mackey is a NASA scientist who presumes to critique DRG's critique.

It's a good read.

Funny. I was asking about Roberts in that post.

The point of this post wasn't really to argue/debate information. It was merely to show another side to the story.

The OWNED comment was really a good point though. I think maybe now I'll buy into this conspiracy theory because of a book written by a theologist, whom obviously must be overly qualified in the concept of physics.

The second point, I believe it was titled CHECKMATE, that was a very good point also. I like how they use dis proven logic to still support their claim, and support those claims with fallacy. But it must be true because 174 architects and engineers believe it. Let's all take a vote, and the most amount votes for one particular theory wins. That is what the point of 174 is right? Of course, the number 174 doesn't have a reference point. There are key numbers missing. How many engineers are there in the United States? The world? Of those numbers, is 174 the majority? the minority? Even if all those people really are who they say they are, and really do support the 9/11 conspiracy theory, it still does not address the fundamental flaws presented by said theory.

Here is a video of a controlled demolition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...earch&plindex=1
Notice the large amount of explosions? It's a lot more than a few puffs of clouds. Notice how the bottom of the building is destroyed, and the rest of the building falls on to it? The lower floors collapse first, and work up the building, collapsing each floor as it hits ground level. The WTC collapses do not look like this at all. The collapse begins at the level of the planes impact, crushing each floor below it as it goes. It also doesn't fall into it's own footprint, because the surrounding buildings were also damaged in the collapse.

The only building thats collapse looks like a controlled demolition is WTC7. But the only part of the collapse that looks like a controlled demolition is the falling part. Controlled demolition uses explosives to weaken a building, allowing for gravity to take it down. Two falling buildings, regardless of the cause of the failure, will fall the same way, and that is towards the ground. If WTC 7 collapsed from a controlled demolition, where were the explosions? All you see is a burning building, that appeared unstable enough from collateral damage of the other towers collapsing, that it was evacuated and had a safety perimeter around it, finally collapsing.

The biggest part of the conspiracy that is flawed, is why go to all the trouble that they did? Placing controlled demolitions, training terrorist pilots to fly, hitting the building with a plane, etc. If they wanted a new pearl harbor, why not place a small nuclear device in a copier machine and detonate it in one of the buildings? Then say that a terrorist did it? That would be a much easier conspiracy for the evil masterminds to do, and it would have less of a trail to follow.

I can't believe I even bothered debating this. I shouldn't have wasted my time with people that don't use common sense.

There are currently around about 160 people viewing this forum, of which about 100 are not members.

I wouldn't say that you have wasted your time. :)

I'm not arguing. Just foolin about.

I'm not arguing. Just foolin about.

So what you are saying here, is that you haven't looked at both sides of the evidence and assumed it was wrong before even reading it. Did you read the pm article either? Or just the book that countered it? Did you even read Griffins book? I'm sorry to say that your comment completely invalidates any argument you have until you've read both sides of the story. I "wasted" my time on watching the Loose Change video and reading most of the forums, and many other truther websites, so that I could see both sides of the story. At first viewing of Loose Change I actually thought it was a genuine idea, and maybe not that far out there. Upon closer inspection, I realized the numerous flaws and the substantial lack of evidence to support it. After watching it, I decided that I wasted my time, not beforehand.

Well in that case, I'm glad I posted. Hopefully someone will read this and think for themselves instead of buying into a conspiracy because it's cool.

oooooo look, here's another one (incomplete but still a good read)....

http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin

Read the Commission report and the NIST report. I won't read these two papers based on the attitude of the authors.

Not saying some don't buy into it for that reason but not me. if you're happy with the Commission report and NIST that's you're right. However there's many unanswered questions. And as far as truther sites, I question most if not all theories out there jst as much as I question the official reports.

So would you entertain the notion that the official account could be correct?

From what I've seen and read, no I wouldn't.

Hello Boon,

Can you tell me who writes the articles re: 9/11 for Popular Mechanics?

And let me ask you one more thing... have you ever been involved or a witness to an event that was reported in the media (news, radio, tv)?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Experts.

*giggle*

Hey Patches, are you also Boon?

*giggle*

No.

Here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=9

People who know what they're talking about.
300 of them.

Waiting for Boon. Thank you very much. I think Boon can speak for him/herself.

That's ok. Other people can read also. ;)

If you read all of the article, at the end it shows a bunch of sources. It only says "by the editors" on the web page about the authors. I'm sure you can do more research and find out who it is. They are also on a history channel show talking about the conspiracy theory. I don't own the actual print magazine, which probably cites the authors more specifically. The source is often more important than the author anyway.

I have had experience with the news. Not a whole lot, but some. I was in a military intelligence company in South Korea. Some of the info we gathered ended up in the News the next day. I've also been to events that were covered by the news, like a marathon for instance.

Here is a link talking about writing this article in PM. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1230517.html

Thanks for your response, Boon!

Do you know who is the head (cabinet secretary) of our "Homeland Defense" agency? (You know, this is so reminiscent of another age and another country and another dictatorship language..)

Anyway, just in case you don't know, it is Michael Chertoff. (Chertoff just happens to be only part American... he has dual citizenship.)

His relative is employed by the Popular Mechanics folks. And his relative is the one who is responsible for the Popular Mechanics article. I dunno about you, but I find this to be at the least, a conflict of interest.

The reason I asked you about news events is, I've seen write ups of events I've been there for, and never has the press gotten the story right. They seem to have a pre-destined summary, and they twist and bend first-hand statements in such a way that they support the outcome they want for the headline. In my life, this has happened twice.

Here's a follow-up question. Do you think it is possible that Popular Mechanics put a particular slant on things? I guess, most simply, I'm asking if you think it is possible that the media (magazines, newspapers, TV, radio) have an agenda of their own, and do you think they can and will ignore facts or twist facts to fit this agenda? Do you think our government pays people to publish stories that support their own agenda?

Thanks again for your answers.

:rolleyes:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...721.html?page=9

If you want to be paranoid, and believe that the whole world is bought off, save for the few conspiracy theorists, then feel free too.

Some reporting is biased. Everyone sees everything differently, and outrageous headlines sell papers, get viewers, etc. Any article that you read, is obviously skewed in some direction. If you pay attention, you can pick out what is real, and what is opinion even from a very biased story. If you read the PM article, and think it has a hidden agenda as a cover up, then there is no help for you. Any article you read against the conspiracy, is faked/a lie/bought off/whatever. Then, any nut job "scientist" that figures some bs out that proves the whole world is lying, no matter how credible he is, or isn't, will be right, as long as it's for the conspiracy. My point is, that you are going to believe what ever you want to believe, regardless of how obvious and blaring the truth is. The attack on the US back in 9/11 was obviously a terrorist attack.

If it was some undercover evil world conspiracy, do you really think that they would be dumb enough to leave any evidence? The conspiracies that do happen, you'll never know about.

What I see in this thread is Boon and Patches O'Houlihan making well-reasoned and well-defended responses, and the truthers making snide comments without posting any sources to back themselves up. I'd hand this thread to the skeptics.