James Meigs and David Dunbar,
Well I saw Loose Change, 2nd Ed. a week before this video. As a computer scientist for 20 years with a B.S. Computer Science (summa cum laude) and a M.S. Information technology (4.0 GPA), I was looking as usual to do some analysis of what I was taking in. From as many sources as possible, pro and con. Looking for the rational counter-argument that must exist to rebut these outlandish claims that our government could have done this to its own.
I draw no premature conclusions, even as I write this. So, drowning in the sea of partisan propaganda in the mainstream media, what better source to get some nonpartisan, science-based analysis than Popular Mechanics? Hooray! Eagerly, I checked out this debate.
Man, was I disappointed. You got your asses kicked, flat out. These two youngsters made you look like the fools that you are. For a couple of guys representing a science magazine, all you did was throw around the "conspiracy nut" label, like the GOP throws around the "liberal" label (yeah, they called you liars, which was not proper debating either). You had nothing. I saw no science from representatives of a "so-called" science magazine. You debunked nothing. Most memorable, your claims discounting evidence in the first hours/days after incidents was laughable. This is the BEST time, the most CREDIBLE time, when the data is the FRESHEST. One of
the most important investigative techniques is to document a crime or accident while the scene is as fresh as possible. But you laughably dismiss this with claims that evidence collected "after the dust settles" is more credible. When is that? When the scene is disturbed, deteriorates or becomes contaminated? When peoples memories fade, or they are coached what to say? Congratulations. You succeeded in only exposing yourselves as frauds.
In addition to calling the Loose Change guys "conspiracy nuts", you made baseless, broad, sweeping statements condemning basically all conspiracies--as if none were ever true. Ahhh, and then your broader goal was exposed. Character assassination, viewer manipulation. Predictably, you drew a parallel to the Kennedy conspiracies. I was actually waiting for it, and that made me laugh. Thanks for the amusement. Then, in the same lying breaths, you stated that asking questions and being skeptical is OK? What? And so, like magic, your hypocrisy was plain for all with a shred of
intellect to see. By laughing at your opponents, you showed you had no facts. So as far as I am concerned, you failed at your objective, and in fact you strengthened your opponents' positions.
So, my only question is why you behaved this way? Did you knowingly sell out your country for personal gain? 30 pieces of silver?
Unless you can convince me otherwise, I will not read your magazine again. Not after the dishonest tactics I saw. Also, the Hearst subscriptions at my place of work? I will be personally making sure they are not renewed as well. Only a small token, but that is the price you will pay for trying to deceive me.
