SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation
DJT 13.87+1.5%Jan 16 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TigerPaw who wrote (76276)8/10/2006 3:35:32 PM
From: Rock_nj  Read Replies (1) of 362359
 
Michael Shermer, who wrote the Scientific American review re: 9/11, is a well known "skeptic". I've read his Skeptic Magazine articles on other matters (paranormal), and I honestly have to say that it was some of the sloppiest, most poorly researched and blatantly innacurate pieces of writing I have ever read in my life.

I knew a lot about one of the subject matters he was skeptical critiquing and I know that he did not even come close to getting his facts straight. Simple things such as how a person actually speaks or the techniques that they employ, he got them dead wrong and anyone could confirm that on their own. I was entirely unimpressed with his suppossed investigative journalism techniques. Why should I trust what he has to say about 9/11?

Notice how Michael Shermer avoids the topic of WTC-7 collapsing on the afternoon of 9/11/01 for no apparent worldly reason? Sure WTC-1 and 2 can be rationalized away as having suffered major strikes from aircraft and enduring jet fuel fires, but WTC-7 had neither and WTC-7 was a traditional steel framed box building with steel beams running throughout. The type of steel framed box building that had never prior to or since 9/11/01 collapsed due to fire. Why did Mr. Shermer not address this very unusual 9/11 event? Because he has no logical explanation for how two small fires brought down the mighty steel framed box building known as WTC-7. He will not go there, because there is no way to rationalize that building collapse away due to fire, even FEMA would not draw that conclusion. In fact, the theory that fire brought down WTC-7 is based on nothing, it's little more than an urban legend supported by nothing that has arisen to explain the building collapse.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News