William Anderson wrote: > > ok, that "common sense" (enemies watching close) convinced *this* idiot, > > now how are you going to convince me that a plane *did* crash against > > the pentagon? > > http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14 should suffice ... thanks William, I was actually wondering because I'd seen those same "Hunt the Boeing" pictures and questions, long time ago, and was left with the doubt. The answers in that blog sound very reasonable (and I had previously heard of only a few eyewitnesses). And one very important thing is that the way the questions are put is very manipulatory. I remember attending this scientist's class, then first part of his course discussed the scientific method, and he placed a lot of emphasis on how defining the question or problem, is most of the time, a strong lead towards the answer, and how he had to be very careful at defining his problems in order to make his work with complete responsibility. And from the blog, I liked this sentence a lot "If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible." I for one, have always believed such tall buildings are very risky (so big you can't evacuate quickly enough) but I could never expect what we all saw on that morning. aardvark wrote: > > > From: javier velasco <lists at mantruc.com> > > > > > from NASA for kids (or idiots): > > > http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp > > > > ok, that "common sense" (enemies watching close) convinced *this* > > idiot, > > actually, i meant the explanations were oversimplified because > they were targetted at children... as such, they leave a lot out... but > i included the link because it's official NASA speak... I only meant that such simple evidence was enough to dissipate my doubts.