9/11 Myths Deunked

Originally posted by firebat
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.
[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Apparently, this is what was really said:

"I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him. "

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

So, whether or not he was related, he never met the guy and never communicated with him, or so he says.

Originally posted by Double_DKool
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.

You didn't even look at the site and probably never even clicked the link. It categorically dismisses much if not most of what PM's article had to say with hard facts backed by research.... the thing is, it debunks parts of BOTH sides of the argument. It's a credible piece and it rips apart any credibility PM had in that article.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Originally posted by Double_DKool

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.

Did you even read the site? Considering how fast you responded, I seriously doubt it.

Are you here for a discussion, or trolling for PM?

And another quote from Ben Chertoff:

I e-mailed Benjamin Chertoff again to get a comment, his reply:

Thank you for not disclosing my e-mail address.

No, I'm not related to Michael Chertoff. In fact, the first time I'd ever heard of him was when he was nominated as head of homeland security -- at least a week after we'd gone to press with the story (magazines are "long
lead," meaning we close an issue months before its publish date).

My name isn't very common, so, last year, it was an honest answer to say Ididn't know whether I was related when asked -- and I said that to a "reporter" who'd called my direct line, without any introduction to let me know he was going to do anything with the conversation.

As for my mother, that quote is patently absurd. She was contact by someone who called himself "chris," and never identified himself as a reporter. And her answer -- at least what she swears she said -- was "he might be a cousin." Neither she nor I knew -- in the end, after trying to find any
relation to Mike Chertoff, I've come up empty handed. But, again, I can tell you this with certainty: I've never met him, nor have I had any contact with him. Ever. And the same goes for me extended family. I have about as much of a relationship with Michael Chertoff as Old McDonald has
with Ronald.

(And for the record, I can only assume you're brothers with Peter Falk.)

I'd recommend would be conspiracy theorists contact Michael Chertoff's office if they want to investigate a nonexistent relationship -- I imagine he has much more detailed files on this sort of stuff than I do.

And, either way, as you said -- the facts in the story are easily verifiable, AND I was only one of 9 reporters working on the story.

Facts are facts, no matter how much people dislike them.

B

forums.randi.org...

Of course, those were from forums, so who knows if it's true. But as the quote said, if people REALLY wanted to know the truth, instead of speculating about it becuase of coincidences in names, contact Michael Chertoff's office or Ben Chertoff. And again, as mentioned in the above quote, he was one of NINE reporters working on the story, not to mention all of the experts consulted.

Can anyone find the original quote? Is it from a verifiable source? Who should you be worried about, the people in the public eye trying to be honest, or the the sneaky conspiracy theorists?

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Double_DKool]

I didn't read the whole site (that I posted a few posts before this one). I was on a quest for the original quote of what Ben Chertoff said, which is what was being discussed. I realize that wasn't the ORIGINAL quote, but again, can anyone find that? I'd be interested in finding it from a credible source.

EDIT:

And I'm not trolling for PM. I came across the article because of some of my searches based on ATS stuff. I have no relations with PM.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Double_DKool]

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Double_DKool]

So did YOU email Ben Chertoff or is that from a forum where someone else said they emailed Ben Chertoff?

Besides the fact that there's no way to verify that "email" to be really from Ben Chertoff, there's no way to know for sure that you didn't make that up yourself.

But I will take your word for it and I stand somewhat corrected on that one point... yet it's meaningless to the 9/11 debate as it changes nothing about my overall position. The Hearst connection is really all that's needed to debunk PM.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

No, someone on that forum emailed him, which is why I acknowledged that it can't be verified, but instead of believing 9/11 conspiracy sites, we could actually try to do some of the research ourselves.

And it's funny, the one poster said the site was objective, when the large title says: "Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth" I read some of the site. I did notice that some 'evidence' they tried to use to debunk the PM article was tenuous at best, but not proof of much at all.

I may actually buy this book, because I liked this part;

We understand that not all conspiracy theorists agree with all conspiracy theories. Some prominent theorists even claim that certain theories they deem less plausible have been “planted” in order to make the entire movement look ridiculous. We don’t take sides in these debates. We simply checked the facts.

from this page; www.popularmechanics.com... because its true.

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 16/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

It's at least worth it to look at evidence from both sides of the issue, instead of just the popular conspiracy theory sites and books.

Originally posted by zoldmyzoul
I may actually buy this book, because I liked this part;

And yet another obvious difference between PM and the real 9/11 truth movement-- they're SELLING that as a book wheras most reputable 9/11 truth-experts are GIVING it away because it's so important.

And the fact that you might buy it because you LIKED that they said they "don't take sides in the debates" they "just look at the facts" is completely indicative of the mindset of those who refuse to believe that the U.S. Government had any malevolent role in the 9/11 attacks.

Originally posted by firebat
And yet another obvious difference between PM and the real 9/11 truth movement-- they're SELLING that as a book wheras most reputable 9/11 truth-experts are GIVING it away because it's so important.

And the fact that you might buy it because you LIKED that they said they "don't take sides in the debates" they "just look at the facts" is completely indicative of the mindset of those who refuse to believe that the U.S. Government had any malevolent role in the 9/11 attacks.

That wasnt the part I liked, please have another look at my post.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 16/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by zoldmyzoul
That wasnt the part I liked, please have another look at my post.

It's in your own words...check your own post. It was the crux of the entire passage that you quoted.

That whole passage basically says that PM didn't take sides in the debates, the squabbles between the different types of 9/11 theorists... they just looked at the facts. THEY ALL SAY THEY LOOKED AT THE FACTS. It's a meaningless statement to include in the first place.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by zoldmyzoul
That wasnt the part I liked, please have another look at my post.

It's in your own words...check your own post. It was the crux of the entire passage that you quoted.

There was a little more to his post than that.

Originally posted by Double_DKool
There was a little more to his post than that.

Originally posted by zoldmyzoul
I may actually buy this book, because I liked this part;

We understand that not all conspiracy theorists agree with all conspiracy theories. Some prominent theorists even claim that certain theories they deem less plausible have been “planted” in order to make the entire movement look ridiculous. We don’t take sides in these debates. We simply checked the facts.

THIS was the passage he quoted. First, PM states that they acknowledge that not all people who think there was a 9/11 conspiracy agree with the facts as the various groups present them to be.... some reputable 9/11 conspiracists even say they're concerned that certain theories are ridiculous and possibly planted to make the entire thing look unbelievable to the average joe.

But PM? They're above all that... They just looked at the facts. Which is EXACTLY what every single 9/11 conspiracy theorist says out there. Just because they say "what we say is truth because we used the facts" doesn't mean you automatically and blindly believe that! LOL!

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

Originally posted by Double_DKool
If what you say is true, and the article and book are populated by obvious lies, Popular Mechanics is risking its reputation.

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.

If something is published, who is to say that it's the Truth? Just because it's by a magazine editor that works for a resepectable magazine like, Popular Mechanics. That makes it true?

Your Truth may look like Lies to us, whereas Our Truth may look like Lies to you.... people push upon other people what they think is truth, when in turn their eyes could be blinded by the truth because they believe in what someone says, even though that someone may or may not be telling the truth.

Originally posted by Double_DKool
I haven't yet read the book, but it probably includes the points in the article.

Pure Speculation, turning a "probably" into the truth to spread lies? spread the truth? on speculation?

Originally posted by firebat

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]

Here.

www.911myths.com...

Sorry for not including that, I've been busy and have been just pokeing in now and then. I had to dig up the link.

Originally posted by wyldwylly

If something is published, who is to say that it's the Truth? Just because it's by a magazine editor that works for a resepectable magazine like, Popular Mechanics. That makes it true?

Your Truth may look like Lies to us, whereas Our Truth may look like Lies to you.... people push upon other people what they think is truth, when in turn their eyes could be blinded by the truth because they believe in what someone says, even though that someone may or may not be telling the truth.

Thats a general concept that puts both sides in a position to argue....but as Howard R asked, Is the some specific point in the PM article that you can refute by pointing out a flaw and correcting it by clarifying why its wrong?

PM is a magazine created to make money and snare customers.. Did the 911 commission used their scientific findings and where did PM get the certification to make such a report. I repeat there was not certification to many objects protrayed by the PM picture or story it was just that a story by chertoffs cousin. Pm does little of its on investigation but does post stories given and paid for and 911 was a story. The Bush adm has spent 1 to 2 billion dollars on advertisements for 911 and wars on terrorism did Bush pay for this story to be published in PM or did chertoff?

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by zoldmyzoul
That wasnt the part I liked, please have another look at my post.

It's in your own words...check your own post. It was the crux of the entire passage that you quoted.

That whole passage basically says that PM didn't take sides in the debates, the squabbles between the different types of 9/11 theorists... they just looked at the facts. THEY ALL SAY THEY LOOKED AT THE FACTS. It's a meaningless statement to include in the first place.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by firebat]

You are misreading my quoted section, and why I like the section I quoted. There havebeen people posting misleading theories on the Internet on purpose. Please don't attribute misstatements or false claims to me.

Ok here is some facts Witnesses said they heard and saw explosives, government gives us no awnsers for that. Fireman chief said there was a bomb in WTC. Larry silvertien WTC owner said they made a decision to pull WTC7(PULL IS SLANG GIVE THE ORDER TO DEMOLITION BUILDING). Fireman repedidly said on radio that there were explosions going off. Un explained walls being blown out of building as building callapsed. A huge explosion went off on the bottem floor and the government tells us a fireball traveled down the elevater and blew up windows and damaged walls THATS IMPOSSIBLE! NOT ENOUGH OXYGEN!!!Check this out if about 2/3's of america thought 9/11 was an inside job and I was president I would do everything in my power to prove them wrong BUT YOU HAVENT HEARD A DAMN THING! ALLS YOU HERE IS THAT WERE CRAZY! So what do you think? that peaple who live in caves with box cutter took control of a plane and flew it in WTC and pentagon THE BIGGEST MILITARY COMPLEX AND THEY HAD NO SECURITY TO STOP IT! again i could go on and on just have a brain and you should put the 2 together.