Like the Popular Mechanics "white wash" had me ROTFLMAO!
2006-12-23 08:10:03 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why is it that you can't see the truth when it's so obvious? If you would actually look at the evidence you'd see the truth but you don't because you don't want to be wrong.
There were four different security cameras that had the pentagon in clear view. Minutes after the attack, the tapes were confiscated and the staff were told if they talked about it they would go to jail.
The people inside the pentagon during the so called terrorist attack all said they heard a series of booms going off at similar intervals. And the released video from the pentagon shows no plane. Now explain how a passenger jet got hijacked,and flown into the pentagon, not without first losing its wings, engines, oh, and everything else that makes up a passenger jet, and makes a hole in the building the size and length of a missile. During all this happening, people outside during the attack saw an extremely silvery bright fire similar to a missile, and the people inside hear precisely timed booms going off, and the windows of all the building very close lost no windows to the extreme heat, pressure, and tremblings that would be caused by an airplane crashing into the ground. Oh yeah, and the wreckage. A single engine (that has been confirmed by the plane's maker) to not be on the plane in any location. And the scrap metal. If a passenger jet crashed into the ground and blew up, there would be gigantic pieces of metal from the body, or wing parts. But none were found, the biggest pieces were able to be picked up and taken away by a single person.
2006-12-23 08:42:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Popular Mechanics piece was pretty accurate about the what the science, facts and experts say about conspiracy claims... when they actually make claims.
Most of the so-called "facts" that point to conspiracy don't exist, but when examined, the conspiracy theorists don't back up their arguments with facts or science.
There's a reason why there have been multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers on the accepted version of 9/11 events (the mechanics and science involved in the building failures, etc), but not one peer reviewed scientific paper has been published that supports conspiracy claims.
That's really the gold standard for B.S. detection - the standards involved in peer-reviewed publishing. The conspiracy sites usually cite, as "experts," people who are talking about science that they are not actually experts in.
2006-12-23 08:17:09 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Going Postal's answer is the precise reason the thoughts of Jesus and different thoughts interior the bible are believed with the point to be authentic. If a rumor, incorrect information, or a lie (intentional or not) is exceeded round lengthy sufficient and to sufficient human beings, it turns into customary as truth. Then, no count number what the data antagonistic to, those who trust it to be authentic will strive against to the death to preserve it. His answer is likewise the precise reason no one tries to "verify" the muse of what they trust. "all of us says so, hence, it should be authentic." Why might want to they verify? And, in the experience that they comprehend the originator (man or woman or e book) they received't verify no matter if or not they wanted to for worry of showing disrespect and a chance repercussions from others who nonetheless trust it to be authentic. We see this perpetually with so called "city legends", chain letters, and political correctness. i'm, with the help of no ability, denying the existence of a author. that's some thing for each man or woman to pick for themselves. yet to refuse to question ourselves and others and to refuse to admit when we've made a mistake, no count number what the problem, is punctiliously irresponsible and a disservice to ourselves besides as anybody round us.
2016-12-01 03:05:27 · answer #3 · answered by marconi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So, bogus...like your New York Times? Or how about Scientific American? Your paranoia is huge man. Of course, in reality, I have this sneaking suspicion you are far too intelligent to buy into that crap and this is another attempt to pick a fight. Of course, I could be mistaken...
2006-12-23 08:26:01 · answer #4 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
And you believe infowars crap?
Just say no to conspiracy theories!
They are worse than drugs & obviously rot the gulliable's brains.
2006-12-23 08:34:02 · answer #5 · answered by Bad M 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Look who it is meant to convince, the sheep that listen to Rush Limbaugh.
2006-12-23 08:14:08 · answer #6 · answered by Al Dave Ismail 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There is only one.. and that is PM... It has been so discredited that it is not worth further discussion.
2006-12-23 08:13:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
so
can you prove one thing they have in there wrong?
didn't think so
2006-12-23 08:11:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋