I completely forgot about this little gem! For all you sceptical historians out there this one does exactly what it says on the tin and shuts up those bloody idiots you end meeting at parties who go on and on about Catholic conspiracies!

Here's a decent review.

http://www.martialedge.net/forum/political,-social,-and-cultural-dimensions-/9%1011%11-what-the-architects-say/

My reply:

Re:9/11- what the architects say 0 Minutes ago
Hi all,

just popped on because Jamie asked me to have a gander.

To be honest I havent had time to read every post and link, sure its nothing I havent heard before.

I also realize everything I say here will be shot down as it normally is by other people but for what its worth.........

1. The online 9/11 conspiracy movies are just that - fake conspirators wanting to be the next Michael Moore and we all know he speaks the truth don't we

2. Tower collapse. The towers collapsed because the steel supports were superheated by the explosion of the fuel on the airplanes that smashed in to them, which caused the supports to twist and buckle just enough for the towers to collapse.
There is a myth conception flying around that the steel melted, not true, the pools of melted metal were from the airplane not the supports, but the supports were heated enough to buckle them, hence collapse!

Then of course the smart alecs say the water fountains were cut off so that the fire would not be extinguished - LIES!

When the planes smashed in to the buildings they alo broke the water mains leading to the fire extinguishers, hence the sprinklers could not extinguish the flames!

3. Pentagon. Purportedly there was no plane wreckage, not true, there was abundant wreckage.

4. Missing people. A plane full of people kept quiet by men in black, do we really need to go in to details of how credulous that is?

5.Bush was behind the attacks. No offence but Bush couldn't organise a piss up in a bar.

6. Government conspiracy - possibly involving Blair. You gotta be kidding me. You need a lobotomy to believe that one.

7. How does a government silence hundreds of cabin crew, pilots, ground staff, military, civilian workers etc, etc.

It only takes one person to slip up then kaboom!

And Osama admitted to the attacks!

Thankyou for your time,

Regards,

Den.

Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable

Nice one Den.

Talk about shoehorning anything you want into a prediction. Absolutely no specifics ever given. Well, a few dodgy claims given post hock (or after the event).

Hah... Well, it's sells I suppose. People want and need more than going to their dreary 9 to 5 jobs, so they fill the void with nonsense.

It's like having a Big Mac, tastes good for a few minutes, but you soon relaize after looking under the bun, that it's totally crap for you.

And that's all before I even ask about some solid prof....

Guys, I just realized the replies on this thread have nothing to do with the original topic!

Aha! I see the problem now. Here is "The Real Da Vinci Code" link:

http://www.zavvi.co.uk/dvd-12.5+to+14.99-Television-Documentary-The-Real-Da-Vinci-Code/694585/cr33cc.r10.1/p.jsf

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Da-Vinci-Code/dp/B000EDWLUA

Of course he upset a fair few believers

http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/decoded.htm

Interesting that a disgruntled Amazon reviewer titled his comments as "One for the Sceptics"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/product/B000F5S250?showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

One for the sceptics - I wonder if he knows what the word means

Den.

The truth is is IS one for the sceptics. It was a great sceptical expose of The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail and the whole Da Vinci Code pseudohistory craze. However, the reviewer in this case clearly wasn't fond of sceptics.

Jesus hairy christ,

I swear im not going to comment on a history topic here ever again,

I keep getting busted

Stick to what you know Den,stick to what you know............

Regards,

Den.

Don't be silly, Den. You will know far more about history than I do about science! We are both willing to learn and I think it is important that sceptics understand both. My reason for this is that these pretty much represent the two disciplines concerned with the establishment of true facts. They both take sceptical processes, neither deal in absolutes and both are concerned with the use of reliable evidence. History differs in that it does take on a certain degree of anecdotal evidence, but it immediately assesses the bias of this primary source information.

Cheers Jamie,

I was half joking when I said that but I finnd since putting myself 'out there' as a sceptic people expect me to have all the answers and im trying but.........

regards,

Den.

Interestingly I just listened to Bill Bryson's 'history of nearly everything'. However even though I read it years back I forgot it was more a science history than anything else.

Not what I was looking for, crash course in world history, but veryengaging and refreshing nonetheless and highly recommended to anyone.

Regards,

Den.

As an interesting side note, subjects such as mathematics and psychology are not sciences!

Its a misconception many people have, now im struggling with the psychology one because Im going for a Bsc Psychology, but technically the physcists, Biologists and chemists etc will state Psychology is not science.

Strange eh

Regards,

Den.