The science in the 9/11 attack is very weak, as there are many variables and possible explanations for what may have happened during the event. Since there isn’t solid evidence, paranoid people used this open end to come up with superstitions of what happened on the day of the hijacks. People “Say video footage of the buildings falling points to [controlled] demolition due to the way the towers bend before collapsing.” (The Guardian) There was even proof of the presence of chemical residue, which suggests that explosives could have possibly been used. However, the Guardian is a British national newspaper. Such sources cannot be trusted because they are not peer edited and can potentially boast biased content. The media is known for manipulating viewpoints for situations, so obviously such a week source of information shouldn’t be trusted with obtaining factual
The science in the 9/11 attack is very weak, as there are many variables and possible explanations for what may have happened during the event. Since there isn’t solid evidence, paranoid people used this open end to come up with superstitions of what happened on the day of the hijacks. People “Say video footage of the buildings falling points to [controlled] demolition due to the way the towers bend before collapsing.” (The Guardian) There was even proof of the presence of chemical residue, which suggests that explosives could have possibly been used. However, the Guardian is a British national newspaper. Such sources cannot be trusted because they are not peer edited and can potentially boast biased content. The media is known for manipulating viewpoints for situations, so obviously such a week source of information shouldn’t be trusted with obtaining factual