Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

Originally posted by Pootie


They have their roles here, I have mine. I may be an engineer, but I have many lawyers in my family... Where do you get off telling me "how to debate"? I am here to be the "anti-you". the anti-debunker. They are here to research and post findings. My mind is made up on one thing: The Official Story is a lie. Other than that, I really don't give a rip anymore and am here simply to do what the "debunkers" do to posters like Griff and BSBray11... Call them out, run them in circles, misquote them, put words in their mouths, aggravate them with rapid fire posting, gang up on them and generally make it impossible for them to make a point and hopefully permanently drive them away... like you are constantly doing.

Fair?

No it's not and it's in violation of the T&C.

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

You have admitted to misquoting, putting words in others mouths.

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

You've admitted to harasment.

Yes, you haven't been warned, maybe we as staff have been remiss in this.

Let's check out the T&C one more time:

5b) Cooperation: You will, if asked by myself or a moderator, cease posting any content, and/or links to content, deemed offensive, objectionable, or in poor taste by the representatives of the message board.

I find it "objectionable" that you are disregarding the T&C. I am officially asking you to discontinue posting with disregard to the T&C.

No further verbal warns will be given.

Originally posted by dbates
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that Popular Mechanics is a better source of information on this than Rosie O'Donald is.

1.

Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Publishing. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst (pictured) wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

Enter the term "yellow journalism" in the Encyclopedia Britannica and one of the first entries you will see is William Randolph Hearst. The listing attributes to Hearst a legacy of "distorted" and "lurid" reporting, and cites him as being hugely influential in fanning the flames of the Spanish-American war as a result of his newspaper's sensationalist yellow journalism.

Popular Mechanics is owned by the very corporation that defined yellow journalism.

During the interview, O'Reilly lauds Popular Mechanics as politically independent and non-partisan, "Popular Mechanics is not a political magazine, it's a technical magazine," when in fact it was darling of the Republican party John McCain who penned the foreword to Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths book.

In the foreword, McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did. "We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks the Arizona Senator.

Does this sound politically neutral to you?

2. Rosie is ASKING for experts to come and explain.

You are twisting the situation.

You're only telling partial truths here:

Popular Mechanics (PM) started off in January 1902 when Henry H. Windsor published the first issue. The original title was Popular Mechanics- Written so that you can understand it. This phrase sums up the intent of the publication. Windsor envisioned a source on technology and science written in a way that everyday people could understand.
source

George Orwell wasn't even born until a year after the magazine started. I suppose that throws out your theory of John McCain controlling it somehow as well. Neither of the individuals you mentioned were around at it's conception. Regardless of who owns it now, Popular Mechanics has a solid reputation as a non-fictional magazine that contains highly useful information.

Originally posted by dbates
Popular Mechanics has a solid reputation as a non-fictional magazine that contains highly useful information.

Tell that to Valhall, or any other engineer familiar with Popular Mechanics.

Originally posted by dbates
George Orwell wasn't even born until a year after the magazine started. I suppose that throws out your theory of John McCain controlling it somehow as well. Neither of the individuals you mentioned were around at it's conception. Regardless of who owns it now, Popular Mechanics has a solid reputation as a non-fictional magazine that contains highly useful information.

Did you READ my post? Orwell wrote about HEARST... not PM.

McCain Wrote the forward to their 9/11 Debunking book... Proving they are NOT politically impartial.



I do not believe that PM has a "solid reputation". I am a ME so I guess that is at least one vote "against".

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Pootie]

I suppose the following Newspapers are unreliable because they are owned by the Hearst Corporation:

*Albany Times Union
*Houston Chronicle
*Laredo Morning Times
*Midland Daily News
*San Francisco Chronicle
*Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*San Antonio Express-News

O, and they own Oprah magazine as well. That must be stuffed full of lies. When you think about it, All U.S. newspapers are inside the United States, which all 9/11 theorist know is controlled by liars, so therefore all U.S. newspapers are full of lies and deception. Guilty by association I guess.

Rosie is nothing more than a ratings grasp by the View. Once the Star Jones riot died down they needed a lighting rod to draw fire and peak thier ratings. No one wants to watch a bunch of older, unattractive women (Except for Elizabeth) sit around and hen-peck each other and their guest. Enter the Rosie freakshow that rants and makes as many controversial statements as possible to get ratings.

Those of you that question PM are at the same time ignoring the fact that you're willing to believe anyone if they tell the story the way you see it. Even if it's from a collection of women that aren't good enough to have their own show.

"Today we discuss PMS and your job along with what shoes are hot this Spring, tomorrow we'll tackle the issue of structural interegrity of New York's tallest skyscrapers."

What a joke.


[edit on 3-4-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates
I suppose the following Newspapers ....

Before asking me a pile of questions and going on a rant about how the women on the View are morons can you at least first admit your error above re: hearst and Orwell?

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Pootie]

I was just saying (sarcastically) that you can't say that PM is corrupt just because of the parent corporation that owns it. PM was created and evolved seperate from Herst. He may have bought the magazine, but he didn't create or shape it.

The women on the View are not morons. They're just not suited or qualified to discuss engineering topics. Unless they want to pull someone on the show who is qualified they shouldn't make judgments on this topic.


[edit on 4-4-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates
I was just saying (sarcastically) that you can't say that PM is corrupt just because of the parent corporation that owns it. PM was created and evolved seperate from Herst. He may have bought the magazine, but he didn't create or shape it.

And how do you feel about the forward to the Popular Mechanics Debunking 9/11 book being written by McCain? Does this show scientific impartiality?

Originally posted by dbates
The women on the View are not morons. They're just not suited or qualified to discuss engineering topics.

So, they cannot ASK QUESTIONS about 9/11 or ASK for a physics expert to come and answer said questions? Because this is mostly what happened.

THey can ask the question, but it has been done already. THere are ACSE engineers who agree with the true story and not the conspiracy theory. It has been done. People are answer shopping and when the yget the 1 out of 99 people to say yes, it had to be demolitions, it means that they are playing a statistics game.

Popular Mechanics is not a government controlled publication. They are responding to someone who is unqualified that is challenging what they published.
THis is a great quote...

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," the great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."

Originally posted by esdad71
THere are ACSE engineers who agree with the true story and not the conspiracy theory.

...and there are ASCE engineers WHO DO NOT agree with your subset of ASCE engineers. What is your point? They are not an investigative team and have no consensus amongst membership. but you know that.

"the" conspiracy "theory"? Since when is there only one?

Originally posted by esdad71
It has been done. People are answer shopping and when the yget the 1 out of 99 people to say yes, it had to be demolitions, it means that they are playing a statistics game.

99:1? Riiiiggggghhht...

Originally posted by esdad71
Popular Mechanics is not a government controlled publication.

Why did McCain write the forward to their "debunking" book if they want to maintain neutrality?

Originally posted by esdad71
They are responding to someone who is unqualified that is challenging what they published.

If they did NOT have an agenda... why would they BOTHER to respond to a SINGLE "unqualified" individual? This would be like Einstein publishing a paper in response to me calling the theory of relativity BS... he wouldn't do it because there is no point unless he has OTHER MOTIVES. They REFUSED to debate a group of QUALIFIED individuals so why respond to "the weakest link"? I call BS.

Originally posted by esdad71
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," the great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."

Popular Mechanics HAS NOT provided FACTS. Read their works... it is all THEORY. ONE MORE TIME... THEORY. "We believe..." "The most likely..."

PM and all of it's hit pieces are a FARCE until they take on a REAL challenge and not just nit pick the questions they want to answer but answer. Either answer them all or answer none. Instead they pick the easiest questions, reword them and "answer" with PURE CONJECTURE.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Pootie]

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Pootie]

and what would a real challenge be? Please explain with your wisdom. I mean, if you are an engineer, are you a member of the ACSE, and if not, why?

[edit on 4-4-2007 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
and what would a real challenge be? Please explain with your wisdom. I mean, if you are an engineer, are you a member of the ACSE, and if not, why?

Prior to their "split" the Scholars for 9/11 Truth asked them to debate... they declined. Funny how willing they are to PUBLISH a response to lowly Rosie but would not debate an educated team. Odd isn't it?

I am a member of the ASME and SAE.

Given that... I will ask you a question I have asked you 100 times and gotten NO RESPONSE: What are YOUR qualifications to speak on ANY of this?

TIA,

Pootie

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Pootie]

Pootie-

I have never stated that I am a structural engineer, so there is nothing to explain. That is not the malor I completed in college. I did take quite a few engineering, physics and architectural courses because of my major, but I did not enter this field.

I have never claimed to be an expert, however much of my information is from experts in the field and I will not post something to get burned on.

YOu state that you are. SO, if you asked 100 other members of your organization, what would they say about WTC 7? How about you email 100 people that are certified and get back to me with the results. That would give you a fact that not everyone sees it the way you do.



Also, I cannot speak for the PM people who did not attend the debate. THere was howver a debate with Loose change and Popul;ar MEchanics, so they are not that scared.

Originally posted by esdad71
YOu state that you are. SO, if you asked 100 other members of your organization, what would they say about WTC 7? How about you email 100 people that are certified and get back to me with the results. That would give you a fact that not everyone sees it the way you do.

The way you post leads me to believe that you are in no way educated in engineering, physics or math. Just my opinion.

Will 100 U of M professors do? Do you want them notarized?

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, I cannot speak for the PM people who did not attend the debate. THere was howver a debate with Loose change and Popul;ar MEchanics, so they are not that scared.

Loose change does not equal the board put together by the old ST911 and you know this.

Originally posted by esdad71
People are answer shopping and when the yget the 1 out of 99 people to say yes, it had to be demolitions, it means that they are playing a statistics game.

Hmmm, I think, Dad, you better start looking at the stats a little closer. Your misleading and completely false statement would mean that only 1% of the people are questioning the BS/false story being presented as the 'official' one.

Oh yeah, and when you really start looking for some stats you may be extremely surprised at how many people believe something 'other' than what the government tells us happened, happened. I say extremely surprised because you obviously believe that only 1% of the population believe something else happened.

You are more and more convincing me of your prejudice with the blatant misleading statements you make my friend. I have yet to place anyone on ignore and don't want to start now but I just don't like it when people are so focused that they feel they must lie (as forbidden by the sites rules). When you present stats please present real ones. Don't lie to make your point 'seem' stronger.

To keep you from retorting, no, I have not presented stats, I simply stated you should do a bit more research. And yes, I used to believe the official story but I have kept an open mind and have used my knowledge and military experience to deduct that something 'off' happened on that day. When people for the 'official' story present valid data backed arguments then I gladly listen and do my due diligence and research what is presented. I don't normally attack unless it is a blatant attempt to mislead. Kind of like what you are bordering on here with this thread and the post you made with the above quote.

So you can tell how educated a person is by postings on the Internet poot? YOu should get a job with NSA or DHS.

As far as my education, let me put it this way. If you asked me to provide you with blueprints(foundation to model), drawn or CAD of a structure, I would have no problem. I have drawn up homes and built(one built with my uncle) , and a few commercial buildings(also built by my uncle). I was undecided in the courses I took in college, and decided to not be an architect. However, the classes that I took educated me enough to have a rational discussion. There are times that if I feel I am over my head, I will back off, because I am not an expert, nor claim to be. You just attack on that premise. I am not telling everyone I am an engineer as state.

This post however is not about that. By opposing my believe in the real story, you are endorsing Rosie as a spokesperson for your beliefs. It is pretty simple. So, What do you think Rosie should do in repsone or has ANYONE from the truth movement contacted her?

Could those be Zogby polls you are looking at darius? I was trying to make a point that sometimes statisics, either way, can be misleading.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by esdad71]

[edit on 4-4-2007 by esdad71]

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by esdad71
YOu state that you are. SO, if you asked 100 other members of your organization, what would they say about WTC 7? How about you email 100 people that are certified and get back to me with the results. That would give you a fact that not everyone sees it the way you do.

The way you post leads me to believe that you are in no way educated in engineering, physics or math. Just my opinion.

Will 100 U of M professors do? Do you want them notarized?

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, I cannot speak for the PM people who did not attend the debate. THere was howver a debate with Loose change and Popul;ar MEchanics, so they are not that scared.

Loose change does not equal the board put together by the old ST911 and you know this.

I think you WILL need to get them notarized to satisfy most. I believe the figures will be closer to the growing average that is out there on many polls. But a notarized signature woudl be awesome.

And I want to truly express your last point. The idea that Popular Mechanics went after some college kids that decided to QUESTION the 'official' story is pretty pathetic. Especially when they won't debate with the growing number of experts that state that buildings simply do not fall the way those buildings did. Especially WTC 7.

I also like to point out the fact that Pootie has made. PM can only back up their data with 'THEORY'. It was very well expressed by the way they always used 'we believe' and 'The most likely' statements to lead into their supposed 'fact' based data that Dad is backing here.

Dear Everybody:

Pootie is dead-on-balls accurate when stating this about Rosie O’Donnell:

Originally posted by Pootie She may be obnoxious, fat, loud, rude or an orangutan for all I care, I just want the EVIDENCE RELEASED and A NEW INVESTIGATION. The only way to get that is if the masses start to ask questions and Rosie can help facilitate this with an audience demographic that no one here can really communicate to.

That statement hits the very heart of the matter — a new investigation is needed of 9-11 (and will never happen). This is why the special interest controlled mass media will fight her ‘tooth and nail’. They will throw everything they got at her trying to discredit and distract whatever she is saying. Rosie puts the ‘establishment’ into panic mode — because she’s on national television and is seen by millions (unlike ATS which is outer ‘fringe’).

Pootie rocks!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

please review this link;


Unfastened Coins