New 911 debunk by Popular Mechanics dated 8-16-06

[mondegreen]

I am not sure anyone has seen this new article by PM and its retooling against new information
and questions raised by NWC for the truth. I read it and I in my opinion seems strange in its twist
and yet again where are the documents for it to base it opinion. this short will be back if anyone jumps in after reading it over ten pages long a little heady.

 

[Laura]

Could you provide a link, title, etc?

Also, I editied your thread title to make it more clear and to correct the spelling.

 

[Mark]

I can't find the article online yet, I think he might be talking about their March 2005 article, it's linked to some info about a new book written by two Popular Mechanics editors (currently on their home page), "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." Senator John McCain wrote the Forward.

Description over at Amazon:

The first conspiracy theories about September 11 began to emerge while the wreckage was still smoldering. Today, nearly five years later, hundreds of books and thousands of Web pages are devoted to the idea that the U.S. government encouraged, permitted, or actually carried out the attacks. These theories claim to be based on hard evidence. But an in-depth investigation by POPULAR MECHANICS-first published in the magazine's March 2005 issue, and now greatly expanded into book form-definitively proves that the evidence most often cited by conspiracy theorists is inaccurate, misinterpreted, or false.

The original article in POPULAR MECHANICS caused a huge groundswell of interest, setting off online debates that continue to this day. Debunking 9/11 Myths expands that investigation to include the 20 most prominent and persistent claims underlying the conspiracy theories, focusing on concrete, physical facts rather than political hypothesizing. Among the issues examined: claims that air traffic control violated standard operating procedures by not immediately intercepting the stricken jets; that the fire caused by the crashes wasn't actually hot enough to melt steel and cause structural damage in the World Trade Center; that the holes in the Pentagon were too small to have been made by a Boeing 757; and that Flight 93 was actually shot down by an Air Force plane.

The fascinating and in-depth findings come from leading experts in all the relevant fields, including aviation, air defense, air traffic control, civil engineering, firefighting, metallurgy, and geology.

Here are some links:

A "Dr. Helen", who claims to be "a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tennessee who enjoys commenting on popular culture, politics and psychological issues" along Glenn Reynolds (aka InstaPundit) did a podcast with the editors:

http:// drhelen [dot] blogspot [dot] com/2006/08/podcast-on-911-conspiracy-theories.html

http:// instapundit [dot] com/archives/031961.php

PM has it posted in their science blog:

http:// www [dot] popularmechanics [dot] com/blog/science/3581331.html

They also have a "911 myths blog" centered around the book, with an excerpt.

http:// www [dot] popularmechanics [dot] com/blog/911mythsblog

http:// www [dot] popularmechanics [dot] com/science/defense/3491861.html

 

[mondegreen]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Here is link to the first page, PM has reentered the 911 field again. they
state they have more and better people then the actual on hand people of 911 investigation. Just why would PM jump into the fire again is it for money or glory or by orders. I wonder if they have catherder as a consultant in there quest for proving the story.
Since 911 many people have shut the door on 911, but the war in the middleeast and the coming war in Iran may need the memory of that day again to spark their approval for further bloodshed.

Welcome to Popular Mechanic's coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories. This page features PM's original article on the topic, published in the magazine's March, 2005 issue. The response to that article was so overwhelming, the magazine decided to greatly expand its investigation and publish a book on the topic, complete with in-depth reporting on new myths, and far more detailed analysis of the original 16. That book, Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts, is now in stores. Read the introduction to the book, as well as the foreword by Senator John McCain.

This is the led into the story and a plane and a tower loom into our eyes.
Why would PM just back into a frying pan if it had not attempted to change the outcome of its first story. I talk to people today and they still believe saddam and osama were behind the 911 attack. I feel that their by line is intended to use the myth of PM as a science magazine to control the American people thoughts about the truth of 911.
The new printing in PM may be from the 2005 time line but is it not strange for a magazine to reprint the same information a year later, thus we must assume there may be different information presented and just why this has occurred is reason to question why.

 

[Windmill knight]

I noticed that the Pop Mech article now mentions Pentagon Strike Flash directly. I don't think it did so before, since Joe mentioned in the Flying Fish article that SOTT nor PSF were openly mentioned by the debunking articles.

In page 6, the article says:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

CLAIM: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

LOL. Apparently blast-resistant has come to mean "500MPH plane-crash-resistant." Those are some windows! In fact, they make a perfect and aesthetic addition to the Pentagon's finely-manicured lawn.

Jeebus this is bad debunkery.

 

[Cyre2067]

methinks PM has been infected and the prognosis doesn't look good.

I mean, "blast resistant" windows is the best they can come up with to debunk the pentagon.strike video?

Grasping for straws anyone?

Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," (i was paid/threatened/both to say so)says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box."(Of course they never released this data) Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"(Body Part's? I thought the explosion vaporized the plane, ergo vaporized the body parts?)