[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Very OT: Zeitgeist, The Movie...(Skull and Bones)

At 5:01 PM -0700 8/3/08, Sean Echevarria wrote:
>At 2008.08.03 12:46 PM, Dave wrote:
>>And thanks for that pilot's page, whoever sent that. Good stuff 
>>there. I also looked at the pop mech debunking page. It looks to me 
>>like they do a good job of avoiding the questions, put up pictures 
>>that are contrary to the questions they're trying to answer, etc 
>>(ie: the pic that "answers" the question regarding the puffs of 
>>smoke that preceded the fall of the building. And they don't 
>>explain how it fell at the speed of gravity.
>The popular mechanics 911 debunking page referenced by Dave:

Trying my best to keep from jumping in with both feet here (a lot of 
my arguments are being made in far more cohesive form by other 
individuals, so I don't really have to).  However, just to play a 
little bit of pile-on here...

I saw the Popular Mechanics guys who put together the debunking 
article when they were first interviewed on Fox News.  It may be one 
thing to say that conspiracy theorists may have an agenda, but these 
guys seriously and unabashedly have the *opposite* agenda.

The whole purpose of the article was NOT to take an unbiased look at 
the evidence for or against a cover-up.  The purpose was to flat-out 
assert that any argument aside from the official administration 
explanation was factually bogus.  In fact, it was obvious that the 
sub-text under the author's attitude was "anybody who doesn't believe 
that 9/11 was accomplished solely by foreign terrorists is patently a 
nut-job".  The Pop Mechanics author was so chummy-chummy with the Fox 
News anchors interviewing him, I really thought I'd puke.

I agree that a great deal of skepticism is warranted in looking at 
all possible explanations for the occurrence -- and let me reiterate 
that this should be the case for BOTH sides of the fence.  But the 
Popular Mechanics article is written by individuals who meant it as 
propaganda masquerading as skepticism.  That's not the sort of data 
that's helpful for getting to the heart of this.

(Oh, and both the Pop Mechanics and Fox News guys conveniently 
sidestepped the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 
twenty minutes before it actually collapsed.)

"we're no longer sure where home is; homesickness is our only guide"