Popular Mechanics Followup article

[stewey]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...s_b__meigs.htm

I tend to agree with him.

September 12, 2006 -- ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals.
For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff. What had we done to provoke such outrage?

Research.

Conspiracy theories alleging that 9/11 was a U.S. government operation are rapidly infiltrating the mainstream. These notions are advanced by hundreds of books, over a million Web pages and even in some college classrooms. The movie "Loose Change," a slick roundup of popular conspiracy claims, has become an Internet sensation.

Worse, these fantasies are gaining influence on the international stage. French author Thierry Meyssan's "The Big Lie," which argues that the U.S. military orchestrated the attacks, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. And recent surveys reveal that, even in moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey and Jordan, majorities of the public believe that no Arab terrorists were involved in the attacks.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." Yet conspiracy theorists want to pick and choose which facts to believe.

Rather than grapple with the huge preponderance of evidence in support of the mainstream view of 9/11, they tend to focus on a handful of small anomalies that they believe cast doubt on the conventional account. These anomalies include the claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a commercial jet (but just right for a cruise missile); that the Twin Towers were too robustly built to have been destroyed by the jet impacts and fires (so they must have been felled by explosives), and more. If true, these and similar assertions would cast serious doubt on the mainstream account of 9/11.

But they're not true. Popular Mechanics has been fact-checking such claims since late 2004, and recently published a book on the topic. We've pored over transcripts, flight logs and blueprints, and interviewed more than 300 sources - including engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of investigative teams.

In every single case, we found that the very facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies are mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.

Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

We talked to Walter and, like so many of the experts and witnesses widely quoted by conspiracy theorists, he told us he is heartsick to see the way his words have been twisted: "I struggle with the fact that my comments will forever be taken out of context."

Here's another: An article in the American Free Press claims that a seismograph at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory picked up signals indicating that large bombs were detonated in the towers. The article quotes Columbia geologist Won-Young Kim and certainly looks authoritative. Yet the truth on this issue is not hard to find. A published Lamont-Doherty report on the seismic record of 9/11 says no such thing. Kim told Popular Mechanics that the publication's interpretation of his research was "categorically incorrect." Yet the claim is repeated verbatim on more than 50 Web sites as well as in the film "Loose Change."

Every 9/11 conspiracy theory we investigated was based on similarly shoddy evidence. Most of these falsehoods are easy to refute simply by checking the original source material or talking to experts in the relevant fields. And yet even the flimsiest claims are repeated constantly in conspiracy circles, passed from Web site to book to Web site in an endless daisy chain. And any witness, expert - or publication - that tries to set the record straight is immediately vilified as being part of the conspiracy.

The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world.

James B. Meigs is editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. The magazine's new book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts," is just out.

[grendel 13]

like i've said before, wether or not the gov. was involved, they failed the citizens of the united states. they failed at their number one duty, protect american lives.

[stewey]

like i've said before, wether or not the gov. was involved, they failed the citizens of the united states. they failed at their number one duty, protect american lives.

I won't disagree with you there. They could've done more to prevent the attacks.

[Now]

I won't disagree with you there. They could've done more to prevent the attacks.

Yes, like intercepting at least the last two planes, for example.

One of the researchers for this Popular Mechanics book was interviewed on radio, posted here on another thread, and he claimed that the government showed him photographs of the damage to WTC7. Why would they be showing the photographs to Popular Mechanics? Does anyone else have these photographs? If so, can you please post them so we can all see the damage which apparently brought the building down at near free fall speed, since this is something that NIST failed to explain or even address in the official report. There must be hundreds of photographs of the damage, since there were plenty of people snapping photographs that day, and they had about 8 hours to get shots of the damaged WTC7. Mind you, there should also be at least 5 different angles of the plane going into the Pentagon, being followed by a C-130 military cargo plane, not just 5 frames which show nothing.

He also claimed that they found the DNA of the hijackers in the rubble of the WTC. The interviewer then asked how they had DNA samples to compare them to, and he was completely stumped and had no answer. Don't be surprised if the majority of this book is as clumsy as that particular researcher. He believed that they found hijacker DNA in the molten rubble of the WTC without thinking any further. What an idiot.


Now.

[stewey]

Yes, like intercepting at least the last two planes, for example.

One of the researchers for this Popular Mechanics book was interviewed on radio, posted here on another thread, and he claimed that the government showed him photographs of the damage to WTC7. Why would they be showing the photographs to Popular Mechanics? Does anyone else have these photographs? If so, can you please post them so we can all see the damage which apparently brought the building down at near free fall speed, since this is something that NIST failed to explain or even address in the official report. There must be hundreds of photographs of the damage, since there were plenty of people snapping photographs that day, and they had about 8 hours to get shots of the damaged WTC7. Mind you, there should also be at least 5 different angles of the plane going into the Pentagon, being followed by a C-130 military cargo plane, not just 5 frames which show nothing.

I saw some threads on Fark with the WTC 7 structural damage. I do not remember where they are, but it was missing about a quarter of the first few floors. I will look for it for you.

He also claimed that they found the DNA of the hijackers in the rubble of the WTC. The interviewer then asked how they had DNA samples to compare them to, and he was completely stumped and had no answer. Don't be surprised if the majority of this book is as clumsy as that particular researcher. He believed that they found hijacker DNA in the molten rubble of the WTC without thinking any further. What an idiot.


Now.

I do not know about this one, but I do know that DNA is not that hard to get. If they knew where the hijackers were staying (what hotel), usually DNA is left behind (for example, a hair in a bed sheet). If they had Zarqawi's DNA, I can easily see them getting the hijacker's DNA.

[Now]

I saw some threads on Fark with the WTC 7 structural damage. I do not remember where they are, but it was missing about a quarter of the first few floors. I will look for it for you.

That would be good.

I do not know about this one, but I do know that DNA is not that hard to get. If they knew where the hijackers were staying (what hotel), usually DNA is left behind (for example, a hair in a bed sheet). If they had Zarqawi's DNA, I can easily see them getting the hijacker's DNA.

These are just your assumptions, there is no mention of how they obtained DNA samples and the Popular Mechanics researcher didn't know. Can you explain how they retrieved DNA which they knew was the alleged hijackers from the rubble of the WTC? And then can you explain how several of these alleged hijackers, whose DNA they say they found in the molten rubble and then matched to their mystery DNA, later appeared alive and well in a BBC report?


Now.

[Justice]

stewey

So was it the impact from WTC1/2 hitting the WTC7 or was it the fires and if it was the impact then why did the buildings closer to the towers not come tumbling down too as they must have both received more damage then WTC7 and why did it not fall the instance it was hit.

So the I guess we are down to fires but fires inside buildings is nothing new and no steel structured building has ever been toppled by fire before 9/11. Now I’m sure you are going to go on about unique factors involved and the unique structure of the building but looking at probabilities it is highly unlikely that 3 building would be destroyed by fire on the same day and the insurance had just been bumped up on all three buildings a few months before.

Smell the Coffey

[stewey]

stewey

So was it the impact from WTC1/2 hitting the WTC7 or was it the fires and if it was the impact then why did the buildings closer to the towers not come tumbling down too as they must have both received more damage then WTC7 and why did it not fall the instance it was hit.

So the I guess we are down to fires but fires inside buildings is nothing new and no steel structured building has ever been toppled by fire before 9/11. Now I’m sure you are going to go on about unique factors involved and the unique structure of the building but looking at probabilities it is highly unlikely that 3 building would be destroyed by fire on the same day and the insurance had just been bumped up on all three buildings a few months before.

Smell the Coffey

you spelled coffee wrong

Anyways, the difference between WTC7 and the other buildings was WTC7 was much taller. Anyways, why wouldn't the government just lie and use a car bomb? Would be much easier. The reason it didn't fall as soon as it was hit, was that the fire did the damage, and combined with the structural damage from the other two falling, it brought it down.

[Now]

Anyways, the difference between WTC7 and the other buildings was WTC7 was much taller.

You said the damage was on the first few floors. So what difference would its height make? Got some photos?

And you haven't responded to my question as to how they retrieved alleged hijacker DNA from the molten rubble.


Now.

[stewey]

You said the damage was on the first few floors. So what difference would its height make? Got some photos?

And you haven't responded to my question as to how they retrieved alleged hijacker DNA from the molten rubble.


Now.

The height makes a huge difference. The higher it is, the more likely it'll be unstable it will be higher up. This should be rather obvious. Again, trying to find the picture, but been busy lately.

Well for DNA, you can use anything. A hair, bone fragments, even ash. So it isn't hard to imagine they can get it from that.