... government abandoned FAA/NORAD security protocol in order to allow the attack?
i ask this, because people really seem to think that the article disproves any theory that certain government officials were involved on some level, but it seems to only deal with a limited amount of versions of the theory.
2006-09-10 00:47:21 · 5 answers · asked by list 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, looking at the link provided by the other answer - you apparently missed the part that says:
"...to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories..."
Which means they picked either the theories that were getting the widest circulation, or the biggest coverage - and chose to de-bunk those.
I've looked through the article - and I don't see anywhere in where they claim that they have debunked ALL conspiracy claims regarding 9/11.
Also, considering how many of those theories have been based on at best, incorrect information, at worst, outright lies (like the F-16 pilot who supposed shot down Flight 93) - it's hard to give creedence to any of the conspiracy theories.
Now, does that mean that there wasn't a conspiracy behind 9/11, and blowing up the World Trade Center. But the fact that they (Popular Mechanics in this case) haven't refuted every conspiracy theory - also doesn't mean those conpsiracy theories are true.
You don't specifically state what the "abondoned FAA/NORAD security protocol" was - however, the "No Stand-Down Order", and "Intercepts not Routine" entries seem to deal with what you might be suggesting.
2006-09-10 01:33:53 · answer #1 · answered by Flint 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they make the most extravagant claims and then challenge others to refute them. That's not a rational way to approach any issue. Get the facts first, and then draw a conclusion.
JMB
2006-09-10 07:55:29 · answer #2 · answered by levyrat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I didn't read the article because I quit reading Popular Mechanics years ago. Their editorial stance became a bit too much for me. I'd take anything in there with a grain of salt.
2006-09-10 07:54:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Popular Mechanics is like readers digest - a tool written by and for the conservative. It's like Disney/ABC doing a "documentary" about 911 which is full of lies, yet tries to make the previous administration look bad, and the current one look good.
2006-09-10 07:50:34 · answer #4 · answered by ceprn 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Will you ever SHUT UP ?
2006-09-10 11:07:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋