anomandar said:
Did you ignore what i posted in regards to PM article?
In case u missed it....
Popular Mechanics is a credible source and definately not biased. Just ignore the fact that Benjamin Chertoff (cousin of Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff) wrote the article. It's fine. Popular Mechanics is 100% unbiased and credible with the cousin of the Secretary of Home Land Security writing an article supporting the governments version.
I think nathan_wong0 and I are of the same opinion: your line of reasoning is faulty. You seem to be saying that arguments presented in PM are not valid because the motives of the author are biased. As if the motives of those flaunting these conspiracy theories are any less biased. We all have our biases. So dismissing PM's article because of who wrote it, rather than whether the content is valid, is just not rational.
The problem most conspiracy theorists seem to suffer from is an abject misunderstanding of how large-scale systems work. In particular, how organizational systems like government and big business work. Anyone with real experience working inside big systems, or with education in systems theory, would immediately understand the reasons for the many bad or delayed decisions and actions that were made on the day of 9/11.
It's often convenient to think that there is a conspiracy behind government failure, because the alternative is to think that government is ineffective or incompetant. (Or "stupid", as one of the other posters said.) We feel safer to think that government may do things we don't like, but at least they know what they are doing. But the sad truth is, most of the time, mistakes are made as a matter of course. Big systems simply don't work all that well.
For an entertaining introduction into how systems work, and why they fail, try the book "Systemantics" by John Gall. It's old now, but still in print and still as valid today as it was in the 70's when it was written.
P.S. PM is not the only source debunking 911 conspiracy theories.
