Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Popular Mechanics did a report on this recently. I haven't examined their source images and videos, so I can't vouch for the authenticity of the report beyond the facts that it is logical, PM is a widely respected publication, and I have never seen them publish crap in the years that I've been a reader. I will, however, acknowledge that they have been known to have a moderately conservative strongly pro-military (it might be a stretch to say pro-war) bias in topic choices and presentation of information.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y |
Yes I have that issue. In my opinion it only attacks the weakest conspiracy theories like the plane under the pod, the missle into the pentagon etc. Basically the things that can't be proven easily one way or the other. It doesn't touch on many of the documented smoking guns. I wish they would of at least given it an honest shot.
They don't even mention Silverstein admitting to it collapsing?
You'd think they would want to clear that up so the entire 9/11 conspiracy theorists can stop wondering. It's easy do defeat a "conspiracy theory" when you pick the weakest points and theories, and don't let the people you are debunking give a rebuttle. PM provides many links to sites that show the clips of him admitting to the demolistions, so it's unlikely that they couldn't have known about it in their investigations.
The whole reason this "conspiracy theory" got started was because 1. It looked like a demolition we've all seen before, and 2. Silverstein definetly admitted to it. They choose to ignore the Silverstein quotes? Sounds like a bogus attempt to debunk one of the biggest conspiracy theories there is.