It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by zren
He claims after a while (which i think is the biggest stupid comment (they) he made)
that they DNA identified the "hijackers".
Originally posted by zren
To what did they "match" their DNA? Did the "hijackers" give authorities DNA samples before hurtling into NY WTC?
And from all the other victims they couldnt find ANYTHING? What a f idiot.
Owned.
Originally posted by zren
Ah, ok, it still doesnt make it any more plausible lol. From roughly all the other victims
they did not find a molecule?
Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Hey didn't that PM article get debunked on here before?
I could remember a post about that, so anything PM says is suspect.
Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.2, February 9, 2005
Snip~~
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.
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.
'Popular Mechanics' & Other CIA Front Organizations
Originally posted by spinstopshere
If you guys actually read the book they released instead of saying "owned" and "this was debunked". It made more sense than 99.9% of these conspiracy theories. Deny ignorance.