Originally Posted by minicivan (Post 17688540)

Guilt by Association
Soon after the Popular Mechanics report appeared, conspiracy buffs began parsing the names of the various researchers who contributed to the article, noting the odd coincidence that Benjamin Chertoff, then the head of the magazine's research Department, has the same last name as the then newly appointed head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. In a rare instance of reportorial initiative (most 9/11 "Internet researchers" rarely venture beyond Google), Christopher Bollyn phoned Ben's mother, who volunteered that, yes, she thinks Michael Chertoff might be a distant cousin. "Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece," read the headline on Bollyn's next American Free Press story. "This is exactly the kind of `journalism' one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq," he concluded. Later, a headline was added to his article: "Ben Chertoff: Propagandist & Illuminati Disinformation Tool."

As often happens in the world of conspiracy theories, a grain of truth--it's possible that Ben and Michael Chertoff are distantly related--was built into a towering dune. In fact, Ben and Michael Chertoff have never spoken. And no one at Popular Mechanics had any contact with Michael Chertoff's office while preparing the article. Moreover, Ben was one of many researchers on the story, not the author. (Then, of course, there's the question of why Ben--and his colleagues--would be eager to get involved with one of the greatest crimes in history.) But in the world of 9/11 conspiracy theories, coincidence is proof of collaboration.

Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 17688723)

you'll never convince people that 9/11 was a demo job despite the fact that it looked exactly like a text book demo job. even demo teams can't get it right everytime with weeks of careful planning yet building 7 came down in it's own footprint with minimal structual damge.

i like the pentagon attack better. it's one of the most secure buildings in the world yet they only show the public a few frames from one camera. walk into any 7/11 and you'll see at least 3-4 cameras.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 17688847)

you say demo experts can't get it right every time but they got this one textbook right- right after 2 100 story buildings collapsed adjacent. that makes sense.


and certainly the pentagon attack was rigged due to comparing a video to 7-11.

hat's off, puzzle solved.

Originally Posted by Alky (Post 17688970)

isn't it good to doubt some things? what's the problem?

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 17688296)

12clicks bought it and made it a gay dungeon...

Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 17688979)

There's a marked difference between doubting or questioning things and jumping to wild conclusions based on no real evidence.

Originally Posted by Alky (Post 17688970)

isn't it good to doubt some things? what's the problem?

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 17689033)

you are assuming i have never doubted this, researched it and applied critical thinking to the subject.

that's an incorrect assumption.

Originally Posted by Alky (Post 17689049)

you completely avoided the question, and made assumptions about my intent.