ATTN: Please Read -- Real Information from real, accredited persons

This article, from Popular Mechanics Magazine (a credible source) debunks the top 16 conspiracy theories...and provides intellectually sound proof:

Debunked


Please read the last 2 pages...they give excellent source info as well as intellectual references

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Templarius]

Originally posted by Templarius
This article, from Popular Mechanics Magazine (a credible source) debunks the top 16 conspiracy theories...and provides intellectually sound proof:
Debunked

Popular Science is a credible source? That rag may be interesting to read, but credible, hard science and without agenda - it is not.

Just glance at the type of words used in that short biased article header, words like "curdles" "wild conspiracy tales" "peddled" "blurry photos" "sketchy eyewitnesses" "razed" "outlandish" "extemists".

Do these words sound like it should be contained within an unbiased and objective reporting?
Also arent these the guys that reported *cough* breaking news that the existing Area 51 base had MOVED elsewhere erroneously?

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

[edit on 6/14/2007 by greatlakes]

Well, IMO, the adjectives used accurately describe the theories they are debunking. Also, those are statements by the author, not from the actual sources.

Also, it is Popular Mechanics, not Popular Science...

Here is the article you mentioned on Area-51 (however, this article cites no credible sources -- and I agree, it's rather funny to read):

Area-51 Article

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Templarius]

Templarius, if you really think Popular Mechanics offers "intellectually sound proof," read this:

www.amazon.com...

...you might see PM in a brand new light.

Please, you are missing the point, it is an article in which the SOURCES give its credibility, not the magazine itself. The magazine cannot publish false quotes, because that is libel and that is punishable by law, thus, the quotes used from listed, detailed, CONTACTABLE, sources are accurate or PM would be facing several lawsuits...

[edit on 14-6-2007 by Templarius]

Originally posted by Templarius
Please, you are missing the point, it is an article in which the SOURCES give its credibility, not the magazine itself (the magazine cannot publish false quotes, because that is libel and that is punishable by law)

No, I am not missing the point. The sources have an agenda. Sources are only as sound as their logic and accuracy. All the PM points have been refuted. Reading only one side of a highly controversial issue and concluding it is accurate and true because you believe the sources is not a reliable way to arrive at the truth. I am suggesting to you that if you read the refutation of PM's arguments you will understand what they're really up to.

David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology and a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories that implicate members of the United States government in the attacks.[1] Along with John B. Cobb, Jr. he is considered a foundational thinker in Process theology.
source

Dr. Griffin, notice that it is not Rev. Dr., is hardly an accredited engineer nor student of political science. I'll reserve my own judgements of Process Theology to "debating religious doctrines and philosophies are tricky in that they are personally subjective."


[edit on 14-6-2007 by Ahabstar]

Well, I should have expected this -- there will be no one willing to actually read it and look into the sources before taking up their flag and attacking anyone who tries to put something out that threatens their security of mind.

THUS, I will no longer post anything on this topic -- because I don't need to waste anymore of my time on a pointless dispute of ego.

Be happy that you can say these things and not end up dead -- there are a few countries I could name where most people on this website would no longer walk this earth because of their comments towards their government. Take that into consideration next time you attack your own liberties.

Thank you, and g'day


[edit on 14-6-2007 by Templarius]

Can you give use the refuted parts so we don't have to go buy a book and wait a week to get it and read it?

Nice link... A refreshing breath of fresh air and common sense.

Originally posted by Templarius
Be happy that you can say these things and not end up dead -- there are a few countries I could name where most people on this website would no longer walk this earth because of their comments towards their government. Take that into consideration next time you attack your own liberties.
[edit on 14-6-2007 by Templarius]

Oh, I see. This isn't really a search for truth. You think questioning the government's version is an attack on our own liberties. Actually I'm using my liberty granted by the constitution.

And it's funny because, considering everything that's happened as a result of belief in the government's version--wire tapping, no habeus corpus, torture, cia prisons, etc.--I'd think just the opposite, that questioning the validity of their story might actually help to restore our dwindling liberties.

Originally posted by snoopy
Can you give use the refuted parts so we don't have to go buy a book and wait a week to get it and read it?

Yeah, why read a whole book? There are many good articles out there. Here's one. www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Originally posted by Templarius
Well, I should have expected this -- there will be no one willing to actually read it and look into the sources before taking up their flag and attacking anyone who tries to put something out that threatens their security of mind.

Have already read it, bought the issue when it came out, some good points, some straw men, and a seriously wrong air defense analysis.

There is lots of evidence there WERE protocols in place for interceptin airliners and shhoting them down, that were followed in a random case on a moment's notice but never used right on 9/11. A piece I did:
Standard Procedure on 9/11
And another covering other issues with the air defense.
Air Defense masterlist

Otherwise too boring to comment on.

THUS, I will no longer post anything on this topic -- because I don't need to waste anymore of my time on a pointless dispute of ego.

Be happy that you can say these things and not end up dead -- there are a few countries I could name where most people on this website would no longer walk this earth because of their comments towards their government.

I am appreciative about that, thanks for the reminder sir.

Take that into consideration next time you attack your own liberties.

Hmmmm, yes, using your liberties is attacking your liberties. Thank god we have our libeties still intact to... not... use.

Originally posted by yuefo

Originally posted by snoopy
Can you give use the refuted parts so we don't have to go buy a book and wait a week to get it and read it?

Yeah, why read a whole book?

There are many good articles out there. Here's one. www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Ah yes, Mr Griffin the philosopher. Well it's a nice book review. But maybe on a discussion forum, people can actually discuss issues instead of passing of other peoples books to discuss thigns for them. Maybe we can have threads that are nothing but references to books. Here's how it would go:


Person 1 "Go read book A"

Person 2 " Ah, that is refuted in book B"

Person 1 "Yes, but THAT is refuted in book A"

Person 2 "I knew you were going to go there, but the answer to that rebutle can be found in book B".

Is that what we're gonna do now? I can't imagine it's that hard to actually bring up information and discuss the information.

We have had ATCs here on this forum who have verified that there were no procedures for intercepting such events that happened on 9/11. There are now, but there weren't then. At most then it consisted of escorting a hijacked plane to a landing place where they could negotiate. There were no procedures for hijacked planes being used as missiles.

And of course there's the Payne incident. Which is the ONLY interception over the continental US. And it took over an hour and a half to intercept. And they couldn't do a thing but watch.

Originally posted by snoopy
Is that what we're gonna do now? I can't imagine it's that hard to actually bring up information and discuss the information.

That's great if you want to do that. I don't. The topic was the validity of the PM 911 piece because of its sources. If you want to get into discussions about the specifics of 911 here or on any of the many ATS 911 threads, go ahead. Here I simply wanted to respond to the OP's two points: 1) that PM's sources are credible, and 2) that makes them right. I don't agree with either assertion.

Snoopy: check the first link - see if that jogs your thinking at all. Maybe not. But they knew to take off, it was not offshore, they'd discussed shootdowns over the Stewart case, they would've on 9/11... somehow it was all there, it just didn't come together.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Snoopy: check the first link - see if that jogs your thinking at all. Maybe not. But they knew to take off, it was not offshore, they'd discussed shootdowns over the Stewart case, they would've on 9/11... somehow it was all there, it just didn't come together.

Once again. Didn't say it was offshore. Said it took over an hour and a half to intercept. Longer than the time they had on 9/11. Or maybe that part wasn't jogged in your memory? And are you suggesting that had they shot down the planes that you wouldn't think there was a conspiracy? Somehow I seem to think a lot of people here would be claiming it was shot down on purpose as part of a conspiracy. Either way you get to win right?

It would be great if Snafu could chime in again since he was an ATC working on 9/11 and understands very well how these things work. He's done a great job of explaining it in the past.

You must look at any media source's owner to judge its credibilty.

Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Communications, Inc.

Hearst Communications, Inc. was founded by William Randolph Hearst.

William Randolph Hearst went to Harvard and was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon (ΔΚΕ or Dekes).

Delta Kappa Epsilon was founded at Yale College on June 22, 1844.

Five Presidents of the United States were Delta Kappa Epsilon members: Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

These are the basics, I'll let you research more on your own.

[edit on 6/14/2007 by Spoodily]

Please look into to what Spoodily posted ,it just may open your eyes as to what the media spoon feeds us.Good post Spoodily!