9/11 Myths Deunked

A book that EVERYONE at ATS needs to see to get a little dose of reality: search.barnesandnoble.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...

Another ignorant sheep, how many are there? :S

So who is ignorant? The 'intelligent' one who only looks into evidence that supports his position, or the 'ignorant sheep' that's willing to look into evidence for both sides of the issue before making a decision?

Originally posted by Double_DKool
So who is ignorant? The 'intelligent' one who only looks into evidence that supports his position, or the 'ignorant sheep' that's willing to look into evidence for both sides of the issue before making a decision?

Are you joking?! The man that wrote that article is the cousin of Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. He was paid by the notorious Hearst Corporation to write an article discounting conspiracy theories regarding the attacks on 9/11. The whole thing is nonsense.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by Double_DKool
So who is ignorant? The 'intelligent' one who only looks into evidence that supports his position, or the 'ignorant sheep' that's willing to look into evidence for both sides of the issue before making a decision?

Are you joking?! The man that wrote that article is the cousin of Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. He was paid by the notorious Hearst Corporation to write an article discounting conspiracy theories regarding the attacks on 9/11. The whole thing is nonsense.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

is that the same guy that owns Fox News?...yeah it sure does pay to know exactly WHO the author is..just to be sure of the motives behind it.

Really? So who is David Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth and Tracy Saelinger and Erik Sofge, not to mention the editing team of Popular Mechanics. I'm sure all these people are related to some top government people, huh? I'm sure they all checked each other's research, especially the editors.

EDIT:

That is a list of ALL the reporters working on the article.

/EDIT

If what you say is true, and the article and book are populated by obvious lies, Popular Mechanics is risking its reputation. And did you check out the experts consulted for the article? I'm sure all these people are either related to Michael Chertoff or really, really blind and dumb.

Really, people, to quote a science principle, Ohkam's Razor (sp?) states that the simplest explanation must be true. Stop wrapping yourselves in your lies! The truth, here, is really only hidden to those who hide it from themselves.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Double_DKool]

original quote by: Double_DKool
Really, people, to quote a science principle, Ohkam's Razor (sp?) states that the simplest explanation must be true. Stop wrapping yourselves in your lies! The truth, here, is really only hidden to those who hide it from themselves.

Who are you trying to convince? Me, or you? While OR is a popular track to run on these days.. I have often felt that OR was a lazy mans way of explaining away a question without ever having to think about it or prove it. And the truth, as you so spin it, could be laid to rest once and for all if the GOVT would just release all the photographic evidence; if they wouldnt have cleaned up the damn debris from the tower as fast as humanly possible; if they didnt go and get all overzealous with the challenging of the foundations of the Constitution in 911's aftermath; they wouldnt have hindered the 911 commisions investigation; they wouldnt have treated the criminal act of 19 people as a legal reason for invading two countries. I could go on and on and on and on... but I think that my point is made... NOONE... not the people either for, nor against the conspiracy theory can say with absolute certainty what is the undisputable truth. The only ones that can do that are the Govt(people ) in charge of releasing the information that could solve the many puzzles that have formed due to the lack of cooporation from said officials.
So dont come in here and preach that we all need a dose of reality... because my good sir..I live there; firmly entrenched, thank you.

AND FOR THE RECORD: O's Razor's principle's are for science; not politricks there is a proufound difference.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by TONE23]

Benjamin Chertoff, the article's primary author, is Popular Mechanics' senior researcher. And if he is indeed part of the group of people against the 9/11 Truth-Movement, then it would make sense that all researchers below him... at least the ones who worked on this piece would be anti-truthmovement as well. That's common-sense.

When confronted by the American FreePress on this, specifically whether or not he was cousin to Michael Chertoff, he lied and said "I don't know." They then contacted his mother who said of course he was.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Here's Prison-Planet's reprint of American FreePress's article.... in it, the writer (NOT Alex Jones) says that he CONTACTED BENJAMIN CHERTOFF DIRECTLY and he himself said that he was the SENIOR RESEARCHER of the piece. Right there in words, so you can understand it.

www.prisonplanet.com...

Not to mention....

That the whole 911 truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the CT-ANTI spectrum of thought.

My take

I am not alone in this theory by any means; but, I think that whether there were bombs in the towers or not...is irrelevant. I feel that whether a plane hit the pentagon or not... again, irrelevant. Whos says the Govt had to "do it" to capitalize upon it with unparrelled ferver. It's better if they dont do it so that they hav e plausible deniability. I feel that the tower and pentagon debates are merely distractions from the truth; because in the end they do not change the truth.
So... mjaybe you are right.. maybe OR does work in politricks after all.. because the simplest answer already lies at our feet.... the govt didnt "do it" they merely capitalized on it and thats the opinion Im sticking with until I can be proven contrary. I used to think it was terrorists(in 2001-2002) then I started looking into it and went to the other extreme(the govt is evil..yada yada yada(2002-2005). Now, I stand at my current perspective and I am liking the view.

But I have to agree with Firebat here; this article is propoganda. from a most dubious source

Originally posted by TONE23
I am not alone in this theory by any means; but, I think that whether there were bombs in the towers or not...is irrelevant. I feel that whether a plane hit the pentagon or not... again, irrelevant.

Exactly. Right now, the Truth "Movement" or whatever it is now is splintered and sectored into different groups that follow different theories. The details and logistics of that day are still in question, at least as far as the government's probable role in the attacks as far as the conspiracy theories are concerned. But the bottom line, among these conspiracies is that at the very least, the government had prior knowledge to the plans and they very clearly accomodated for the attacks to be carried out, if not orchestrating the whole thing itself.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

So, can anyone post a single example where the evidence presented by PM is wrong?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, can anyone post a single example where the evidence presented by PM is wrong?

Unless they've found new evidence, then definitely.

First, can anyone post a single example of what PM is suggesting in this book?

Originally posted by firebat

When confronted by the American FreePress on this, specifically whether or not he was cousin to Michael Chertoff, he lied and said "I don't know." They then contacted his mother who said of course he was.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Wrong. This has been pointed out so many times its odd that its still being passed off as true.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by Vushta

Wrong. This has been pointed out so many times its odd that its still being passed off as true.

I apologize if I'm wrong and if I am, I stand corrected.

But do you by chance have handy the links to the threads and/or sources pertaining to that claim that this has been dismissed as not true?

EDIT: I just looked at my points and they read 666.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, can anyone post a single example where the evidence presented by PM is wrong?

First, can anyone post a single example of what PM is suggesting in this book?

Sure. Following a few links from the first one:

www.popularmechanics.com...

There are nine pages there of the original article. I haven't yet read the book, but it probably includes the points in the article.

And I agree TONE23. Yes, of course the government capitalized on the situation.

Another person at another forum had this to say:

3) DHSS Michael Chertoff was nominated for the position on January 11, 2005, and confirmed by the Senate on February 15th, 2005. The March edition of Popular Mechanics (which ran the cover story) was already out by then. Magazines aren't laid out and published overnight -- the various segments, particularly feature stories like this one take time to research, write, edit, have the layout performed, be printed, and ship to subscribers and newsstands.

4) Even if the two Chertoffs are related and if the editors and staff at the magazine's office are all "in cahoots," it took a fair amount of time for the article to progress from its inception to hard copy hitting the shelves. How could anyone at Popular Mechanics have known in advance that Michael Cherthoff would be confirmed by the Senate or sworn in as the new Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security in February?

Their original article is old news. Here is an objective review:

911review.com...

I'm still waiting for Vushta to show me that this guy didn't directly lie to a reporter that he was akin to Michael Chertoff. He said he didn't know. Reportedly, his mother said in an obvious sort of way that yes, of course, they were related.

I'd just like to see the threads and or sources that prove this wrong because I haven't seem them. (Granted, I don't pay as much attention to the 9/11 debate as some others on ATS).

The point is, if it IS true....why would he lie about whether he was Michael Chertoff's cousin?

Again, if it's not, I apologize for not being more in the loop.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Their original article is old news.

They asked for a single example of claims made. Of course web sites will come up with more bogus claims against the points made in the article.