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

Re: [Full-disclosure] **LosseChange::Debunk it??**



Ducki3 wrote:

There are too many things to debate and piece together (WTC 7, Cell phones
at high altitudes, Pre warning messages, Northwood, Pentagon Holes, Collapse
rates, etc.) and some of the conspiracy is utter bull and some seems
plausible to me. I guess it's up to every individual to make that conclusion
on their own by looking at "BOTH" sides, not one. And I'm not applying this
to you Paul but in general because I don't know what you have read and what
you haven't but when people haven't examine both sides and all of the
theories then you have ceased to be a free thinker. Because there isn't just
1 or 2 subjects in this conspiracy theory. There is more than a few dozen.

I've read the conspiracy theories extensively (probably close to 100 hours of reading - Shanksville, the Pentagon and the towers.) I've read the Popular Mechanics report. I've watched the PBS video three times. I've read the eyewitness reports and looked at the available photographs.

I think I'm pretty knowledgeable of the theories with all three incidents (twin towers, Pentagon and Shanksville). I haven't seen anything yet that can't be explained scientifically to my satisfaction, and I see huge holes in the conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are easy to believe. They sow together a few disparate and vague facts and make it appear as though they're all connected. They usually avoid addressing the difficult questions (e.g. where did the people on the flights go? How did they rig the towers for demolition without anyone noticing what they were doing? How did they know the towers would be attacked again?), and they tend to gloss over the known scientific facts (how could a plane disappear without leaving much wreckage? - Easily explained if you understand basic physics and the details of what evidence actually remained.) They also tend to steer the reader toward their foregone conclusions by selectively using the evidence. But they don't stand up to rational scrutiny.

--
Paul Schmehl (pauls@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/