Popular Mechanics fact checker defends "Debunking 9/11 Myths"

DPrival78

note: i use the word "defends" very loosely:

http://www.v911t.org/M/Pop%20Mech%20-%20Goyette.mp3

lalalalaaaaaaaa

The Popular Mechanics guy obviously messed up with the DNA comment, but besides that he was pretty sensible. Anyone serious about investigating a crime, looks at the evidence that is available to them. They don't speculate about evidence that might exist but isn't available. And the analogy he made about the seven-year-old asking questions is a good one.

q. why is the sky blue?
a. because of the atmosphere
q. why is there atmosphere?
a. because we need to breathe
q. why do we need to breathe?
a. because we need to live
q. why do we need to live?

The seven-year-old is never satisfied with the answers given to them, even though the answers are valid and explain a lot. Same thing goes with conspiracy theorists.

rebornFixer

Saturnal wrote:

The Popular Mechanics guy obviously messed up with the DNA comment, but besides that he was pretty sensible. Anyone serious about investigating a crime, looks at the evidence that is available to them. They don't speculate about evidence that might exist but isn't available. And the analogy he made about the seven-year-old asking questions is a good one.

q. why is the sky blue?
a. because of the atmosphere
q. why is there atmosphere?
a. because we need to breathe
q. why do we need to breathe?
a. because we need to live
q. why do we need to live?

The seven-year-old is never satisfied with the answers given to them, even though the answers are valid and explain a lot. Same thing goes with conspiracy theorists.

Exactly, thank you!

even flow?

Saturnal wrote:

The Popular Mechanics guy obviously messed up with the DNA comment, but besides that he was pretty sensible. Anyone serious about investigating a crime, looks at the evidence that is available to them. They don't speculate about evidence that might exist but isn't available. And the analogy he made about the seven-year-old asking questions is a good one.

q. why is the sky blue?
a. because of the atmosphere
q. why is there atmosphere?
a. because we need to breathe
q. why do we need to breathe?
a. because we need to live
q. why do we need to live?

The seven-year-old is never satisfied with the answers given to them, even though the answers are valid and explain a lot. Same thing goes with conspiracy theorists.

Funny how you didn't answer, "why we need to live". Seems you can see the problem with the answers about 911. Too many answers to "why we live" for their to be one perfect one.

Aye reborn!

spat

Saturnal wrote:

The Popular Mechanics guy obviously messed up with the DNA comment, but besides that he was pretty sensible. Anyone serious about investigating a crime, looks at the evidence that is available to them. They don't speculate about evidence that might exist but isn't available. And the analogy he made about the seven-year-old asking questions is a good one.

q. why is the sky blue?
a. because of the atmosphere
q. why is there atmosphere?
a. because we need to breathe
q. why do we need to breathe?
a. because we need to live
q. why do we need to live?

The seven-year-old is never satisfied with the answers given to them, even though the answers are valid and explain a lot. Same thing goes with conspiracy theorists.

lol thats a horrible example. those are simple questions nobody demands evidence for. people asking questions about 911 arent feeble minded 7 year olds these are intelligent citizens of the world who demand answers to things that have NOT been explained. Why can't the average person see these pictures from building 7 and video from the pentagon? and like the interviewer said, where is the DNA to match with the hijackers? simple question he couldn't answer. theres no other way to reframe that. as a matter of fact there was a lot of dead air on the side of the pop mechanics guy where he was left stumped. i think the interviewer did a great job.