Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

["Mark Rages" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 7/7/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Jonathan King wrote:
>
> > In any case, the real problem with the vast majority of conspiracy
> > theory stories is the implausibility of keeping (for decades) the kinds
> > of massive secrets that are usually required for the theories to "work".
>
>
> That's why I reject most conspiracy theories as implausible.  I agreed
> with Jerry Gamblin about the guys who made "Loose Change" and how they
> responded to the Popular Mechanics guys.  I don't know if this book is in
> the same mold.  But I'll say this:  Even if it is 100% baloney, it is
> worth noting that nearly every customer reviewer on Amazon is giving it 5
> stars, so people must be reading it.
>
> Mike

I found a really good site discussing 9/11 theories:

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

It's a geology professor in Wisconsin.

One thing to notice is that many of the conspiracy theories point out
something odd about the 9/11 events, but aren't clear on how that
relates to the conspiracy.  For example, they say the buildings fell
faster than gravity would collapse them... so what kind of force are
they suggesting caused the collapse?  And how does it benefit the
conspirators to use some force beyond gravity to accelerate the towers
downward? Nutty.

Also, see xkcd: http://xkcd.com/c258.html

Regards,
Mark
EMAIL:PROTECTED
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
EMAIL:PROTECTED

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion