16-year-old debunks new Popular Mechanics book!!!

chipmunk stew said:
Erm...at least he makes a valiant attempt:
http://www.911movement.org/Debunking_Debunking_9.doc (this will download a DOC)
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10687&view=findpost&p=6725832
Click to expand...

I read most of that last night. My wife was wondering why I was laughing so hard last night. The building 7 info is especially terrible. I don't think Mike or debunking911 will be making any site changes.
In fact I wonder if he read his own paper
"The penthouse on the top of WTC 7 collapsed 6 seconds after the building fell, far away from the reported fires in WTC 7."
I suspect he means before....

But the fact that a 16 year old could put together 59 pages on the subject is impressive enough
 
Last edited:
His writing style isn't too bad for someone at a young age. When it comes to writing, the kid gives a thumbs up from me.

It's too bad he is such a lousy researcher or refutes with poor logic.

Two examples I've seen so far (on page 6) is that he talks about "experts only having an opinion". The problem he doesn't seem to understand is there is a difference between an educated and ignorant opinion. Anyoneone can have an opinion, but some opinions are worth more then others based on their education and experience.

Zack doesn't have any experience with blowing up buildings, not paid to design buildings, or explosives whatsoever. Yet he believes that his opinion is equal those who have made a career out of the three. I just hope when he gets out of high school that he understands this. I've been put down many times for saying ignorant opinions (not 9/11 related) and I have learned that speaking out of ignorance is not a way to bring up an argument.

Another problem I have is he labels theorists as "skeptics". A skeptic is someone who demands to be convienced and doesn't necessary take sides. The flaw with theorists they claim to be skeptics, but at the light, say "nothing will convience me otherwise". The truth movement in general is a great example of this, because they refuse to believe the hijackers are dead or the hole in the Pentagon wasn't 16 feet. These aren't signs of a skeptical movement, but people with an agenda.

EDIT:

Popular Mechanics wont dare debunk the admitted fact that Osama Bin Laden is CIA
Click to expand...

Yep, poor researcher. Osama was never trained by the CIA; merely funded and had equipment via Pakistani ISI. It was just another simple case of "The enemy of the enemy is my friend" during the Cold War. Osama Bin Laden did not demostrate any hostility or hatred towards the United States at the time and the USA had no reason (from a tacitical standpoint) to not help him against the Russians.

But he was CIA? No evidence or documents behind that whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
MarkyX said:
The flaw with theorists they claim to be skeptics, but at the light, say "nothing will convience me otherwise". The truth movement in general is a great example of this, because they refuse to believe the hijackers are dead or the hole in the Pentagon wasn't 16 feet. These aren't signs of a skeptical movement, but people with an agenda.
Click to expand...

Exactly, well said. This is the difference between incertitude and incredulity.
 
Ugh, reading more, he is just your average CTer that takes everything without doing his own bit of research.

He actually brings the "planes crashing into the Pentagon" as proof that they had prior knowledge.

Crashing a plane is not the same as using it as a weapon. Two different scenarios.
 
Same Old, Same Old

This is right along the lines of Chris Morganti's effort to debunk 9-11 Myths. He makes the usual, "No serious people in the 9-11 Truth Movement believe X, so this is just a strawman." For example, discussing Flight 175:

Again, Popular Mechanics debunks what they call “one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories”, that a military plane or something else besides Flight 175 hit the WTC. This is not one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Let's see, it appears in Loose Change, the head of Scholars for 9-11 Denial believes it, all the various no-planers believe it... sheesh, seems to me that the kid ought to be getting a lot of grief from his fellow Deniers.
 
Just wait until Rick Ratjer gets rolling on this. He'll have the 9/11 death toll revised down to 68 in no time.
 
Brainster said:
This is right along the lines of Chris Morganti's effort to debunk 9-11 Myths. He makes the usual, "No serious people in the 9-11 Truth Movement believe X, so this is just a strawman." For example, discussing Flight 175:



Let's see, it appears in Loose Change, the head of Scholars for 9-11 Denial believes it, all the various no-planers believe it... sheesh, seems to me that the kid ought to be getting a lot of grief from his fellow Deniers.
Click to expand...

its funny, the pod theory was everywhere, LC1 had it (along with birnbachs "windowless" quote) and every CT site had a page about it

LC2 removes it due to "time constraints" (and are even apologetic about it)

and in the span of a about 2-3 months the pod theory died completely (i suspect due largely to its removal from LC2)

so i ask, who are the sheep here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom