Popular Mechanics - Debunking 911 myths

This article came out about a year ago, i tried searching to see if anyone discussed it but couldn't find anything:

www.popularmechanics.com...

The de-bunking has been de-bunked.

There was a huge post on this, try serching again.

The 9/11 Research Site has a rebuttal up here:
911review.com...

It divides PM's claims into supported, debunked, and not analyzed.

Turns out that PM has connections to the current administration, too. Go figure.

The conspiracy theorists like to claim that the P.M. article has been debunked, but in fact, it has proven to be correct in every instance.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The conspiracy theorists like to claim that the P.M. article has been debunked, but in fact, it has proven to be correct in every instance.

Prove it Howard,

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

by Jim Hoffman
911research.wtc7.net...

march2005

ATS
Popular Mechanics 911 debunk workings of a Bush Cabal cover-up!

Popular Mechanics' & Other CIA Front Organizations


[edit on 20/2/2006 by Sauron]

Aw, Sauron, did you really even have to respond to that? lmao

I mean, ANOK at least told him to search again, and I posted a link to a site with a fair critique of each PM claim. But then Howard bluntly posting, with no sources or additional info even vaguely hinted at, gives all us conspiracy theorists the *facts*, i.e. that PM is correct in every single instance. Well, golly gee whiz.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Aw, Sauron, did you really even have to respond to that? lmao

sorry, it pissed me off. I was going to post what I was really thinking, but it's not proper for this forum.


[edit on 20/2/2006 by Sauron]

Originally posted by bsbray11
The 9/11 Research Site has a rebuttal up here:
911review.com...

It divides PM's claims into supported, debunked, and not analyzed.

Turns out that PM has connections to the current administration, too. Go figure.

That's a typical fallacy that conspiracy theorists like to use. Look at 99% of the conspiracy sites out there, they're all trying to sell a book, tape or something. So you can say everyone has their own agenda.

SuperBeing, where on that link does the site try to sell you anything?

Nowhere!

If you'd even looked at it you would know this. The link has exactly what I described: the PM article's claims, with commentary from the 9/11 RS, with each claim either being supported, debunked or not analyzed. There is one small link at the top that says "books," and when you click on it, it says it's not completed but offers a link to another page, and that's it. And you have to browse two pages off that one before you even come to that.

If you want to criticize the article, then criticize the article. It must suck that you can't chalk everything up to people just trying to make money.

Originally posted by SuperBeing

Originally posted by bsbray11
The 9/11 Research Site has a rebuttal up here:
911review.com...

It divides PM's claims into supported, debunked, and not analyzed.

Turns out that PM has connections to the current administration, too. Go figure.

That's a typical fallacy that conspiracy theorists like to use. Look at 99% of the conspiracy sites out there, they're all trying to sell a book, tape or something. So you can say everyone has their own agenda.

That is patently untrue. Most 9/11 research sites are NOT selling something. Although of course some of them do.

But a MAJORITY do not. Your 99% nonsense is the fallacy.

And what "fallacy" were you even referring to?

It is NOT a fallacy that the senior researcher for the PM article was Benjamin Chertoff who is a cousin to Michael Chertoff. It is a fact.

It's also not a fallacy that PM is owned by the Hearst corporation, one of the largest media oulets in the World.

It's also not a fallacy that government policy is dictated by corporations who are now the United States Government.

It's also not a fallacy that Hearst have a good reason to lie to you to help maintain the corporate grip on America.

Do the math...

It's an ad hominem fallacy. I'm not saying it's a fallacy that a connection exists. What i'm saying is it's a fallacy using this as an argument. Focus should be put into their research and not any connections they have.

A skeptical, impartial person should be able to look at evidence presented to them by both sides, ignore their affiliations and base their decision on the merits of their arguments.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by SuperBeing]

Originally posted by bsbray11
SuperBeing, where on that link does the site try to sell you anything?

Nowhere!

Well you answered your own question by showing me just exactly where they do try to sell you something (and/or are in the process of doing so). But you missed the point of what I was trying to say, which i'll get to after this quote:

If you want to criticize the article, then criticize the article. It must suck that you can't chalk everything up to people just trying to make money.

I agree with you on this, CRITICIZE the article, this goes for the poster who decided to criticize PM because they have connections ot the current administration. That's the point i'm trying to make.

Btw, I didn't criticize this debunking the debunk article, I merely pointed out that it's not just the administration that has an agenda, so cut that crap out and focus on the research.

I plan to read this article on the weekend, however, and give it serious thought.

Wow it's amazeing how many dis-info agents are on this forum CatHerder,Howerd,SuperBeing it's so obvious this is government sponsored propaganda you're trying to push on us lucky I don't fall for your tricks only the sheeple do.

I've went over the 911review article on the weekend and found it to be well done at times, at other times I found it to be stretching a little. But this was the case for PM. Overall, though, it does leave questions open and ask for further research to be done.

At one point in the article it writes

The handsome rewards Romero has enjoyed since his retraction may make many envious of his albatross.

In the link it provides, we see that New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology were given rewards by NDPC, Wall Street Journal, Influence Magazine, and U.S. Senator Pete Domenici.

Now, the question I have here is how secret is this conspiracy? If these organizations are rewarding Romero and the institute for retracting his comments, then that would suggest people inside each of these organizations know the 911 attacks was an inside job. If this is the case, how many more organizations know this? Are we to believe that a secret like this can be kept by a very large number of people? Not only keep the secret, but also defend the actions by rewarding those like Romero. It seems a bit far-fetched, but other questions still require further examination.

Wow it's amazeing how many dis-info agents are on this forum CatHerder,Howerd,SuperBeing it's so obvious this is government sponsored propaganda you're trying to push on us lucky I don't fall for your tricks only the sheeple do.

That's just hilarious.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by SuperBeing]

Magazines, journals, and other media sources being "in" on it at some level should not be surprising.

Check this out:

In an October 1977, article published by Rolling Stone magazine, Bernstein reported that more than 400 American journalists worked for the CIA. Bernstein went on to reveal that this cozy arrangement had covered the preceding 25 years. Sources told Bernstein that the New York Times, America’s most respected newspaper at the time, was one of the CIA’s closest media collaborators. Seeking to spread the blame, the New York Times published an article in December 1977, revealing that “more than eight hundred news and public information organisations and individuals,” had participated in the CIA’s covert subversion of the media.

“One journalist is worth twenty agents,” a high-level source told Bernstein. Spies were trained as journalists and then later infiltrated – often with the publishers consent - into the most prestigious media outlets in America, including the New York Times and Time Magazine. Likewise, numerous reputable journalists underwent training in various aspects of “spook-craft” by the CIA. This included techniques as varied as secret writing, surveillance and other spy crafts.

Source.

The NYT article was published December 25, 1977. The article's contents can be confirmed here (a US government website) with this:

December 25, 1977- The Times examines the CIA's relationship with the press chronicling how the CIA shapes public opinion by having agents disguised as accredited journalists within newspapers and major news services (mostly overseas) who, in their reporting, orchestrate propaganda campaigns against foreign countries with the hope these occasional false reports and blatant inaccuracies get disseminated through American news outlets.

NOTE: In the October 20, 1977 issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Carl Bernstein disclosed Times' reporter Cy Sulzburger in his early years as a foreign correspondent, cooperated with the CIA by sharing information on certain sources in order to gain access to classified material. In fact, one memo shows Sulzburger was regarded as an ``active asset by the agency''; even The Times itself, according to the magazine article, provided a cover for 10 CIA operatives from 1950 to 1966. The story further claimed the publisher of the paper at the time, Arthur Hays Sulzburger, the uncle of Cy Sulzburger, had signed a ``nondisclosure'' statement with the agency, which was an agreement not to reveal the source of their information. The Times denied the allegations. A libel suit was never brought against Bernstein or the magazine.

That was over 28 years ago. Think the CIA has been slacking off with infiltrating the media?

The number of corporations operating major media sources has actually dropped substantially in past years.



Source.

When the same corporations that are in bed with the government and relate to the massive and monopolized military-industrial complex get a tight enough grip on all of your sources of information, you can bet your ass that you'll be hearing all kinds of crazy b.s. without so much as a resource for a second opinion, short of investigating every single issue for yourself. Help sell some b.s. and get a pat on the back.

This wouldn't be the first time an independent media was commandeered by a state. The Nazis did the same thing.

911physics.co.nr... Has an excellent article debunking Popular Mechanics.
I have to fix up a couple grammar/spelling mistakes though...

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
911physics.co.nr... Has an excellent article debunking Popular Mechanics.
I have to fix up a couple grammar/spelling mistakes though...

Ouch... how is anyone expected to take something like that seriously if they make grammar and spelling errors?

I mean you dont have to be a expert but stuff like that should be addressed.

I'm all for a good conspiracy but I get the feeling many on this site are backwards on who needs to prove what. It is the espouser of a conspiracy's job to PROVE the conspiracy, not others job to DISPROVE the conspiracy. It's falty logic and intellectually bankrupt.

It's like saying "I ate a tuna sandwich for dinner, and a grizzly bear did not attack me, thus tuna sandwiches must prevent bear attacks"

If you have a theory, prove it. Don't assume it's right and challenge others to disprove.

The gov has a story on 9/11. PROVE it's wrong. It's not PM or anyone else's job to PROVE your conspiracy theories are wrong.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Apoc]

Originally posted by Apoc
It is the espouser of a conspiracy's job to PROVE the conspiracy, not others job to DISPROVE the conspiracy. It's falty logic and intellectually bankrupt.


- - -
It's not PM or anyone else's job to PROVE your conspiracy theories are wrong.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Apoc]

Are you saying that no one can criticize a theory if the evidence offered in proof is of questionable value, or even outright wrong?