Refuting of Points in Mysteries of 9/11

[PattdownManiac]

I didn't really have an agenda on the 9/11 conspiracy theories or know them well. Yesterday I watched the video mysteries of 9/11 which focused pretty much only on the falling of the wtc. Their arguments for it being a planned explosive demolition made sense. Now I'm open minded, and I'm ready to see a video or read something that refutes the specific points made in this video.

Can I be directed anywhere? And I'm not trying to say it was a conspiracy or not, I just want to learn both view points. Especially against specific points on the conspiracy side.

[bobman0330]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=1
http://wtc.nist.gov/

[Hopey]

lolloosechange

[PattdownManiac]

Well those links don't cover the specific points I speak of. Popular Mechanics obviously had a preset agenda and then talked to people who would back it up.

[niss]

Just curious ... Popular Mechanics' "preset agenda" is to sell magazines. Show tell me again how debunking 9/11 would sell them more magazines than coming out with a litany of omg conspiracy theories?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Their arguments for it being a planned explosive demolition made sense. Now I'm open minded, and I'm ready to see a video or read something that refutes the specific points made in this video.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Popular Mechanics obviously had a preset agenda and then talked to people who would back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't say you're going to be open minded if you are in fact the complete opposite. It's so easy for conspiracy theorists to denounce any refutation of their claims by just stating, as if it were a given fact, that the denouncers have an agenda. Using this logic, how could you ever be convinced otherwise? How can someone PROVE to you the agenda of a publication that debunks 9/11 myths?

[PattdownManiac]

The media would get alot of viewers if they presented a special on alternative theories of 9/11 but they don't. Why don't they?

I wish I could have such an open mind that I don't watch the video refered to in my post, then present links that will undoubtedly debunk the video I have not seen. And Popular Mechanics is obviously such an impartial source. Their 16 or however many points adequately explain the hundreds of things that do not make sense.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
The media would get alot of viewers if they presented a special on alternative theories of 9/11 but they don't. Why don't they?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a radical fringe position that has no facts to support it?

[ QUOTE ]
Their 16 or however many points adequately explain the hundreds of things that do not make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, a lot of stuff doesn't make sense to me about that day either. It was one of the most incredible events in human history. The question is can you seperate "stuff that doesn't add up" and present some actual facts and evidence? If so, I'm all ears.

[latefordinner]

I am totally undecided on what really happened, bu what I really still can't decide is if using Occam's razor supports the official government view or the conspiracy view. ie; which side should have the burden of proof?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
I am totally undecided on what really happened, bu what I really still can't decide is if using Occam's razor supports the official government view or the conspiracy view. ie; which side should have the burden of proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

The one that presents actual facts and evidence should be seen as the actual view. Any other theories have the burden of proof. And make no mistake, the general conspiracy theories do not present a SHRED of hard evidence.

For example, did a plane really fly into the Penagon? Yes. People died. Just go visit the family members of those who were on board the plane. Now someone goes and speculates it wasn't really a plane that flew into the Pentagon. Fine. Go find some evidence of what happened to the people who boarded Flight 77 that morning and then get back to me.