Debunking Popular Mechanics

[HyJinX]

That's the most nonsensical thing I've ever read.

Awwwwe Man! I had high hopes that you'd be different than all the other ill-informed CTists.

You make claims...get whacked by logic and intellegence...and then just start throwing insults around.

Typical.

You're WAAAAYYYYY out of your league here, my friend. Get out before you dig yourself into a deeper hole.

Good day.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

This isn't flaming. It's asking you to prove your claims.

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

You are required to provide evidence for your claims. If I claimed that Darth Vader shot down the WTC with the Death Star, I would be required to prove that A. Darth Vader exists B. The Death Star exists C. Darth Vader was at the WTC with the Death Star.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!

Cheers!

Actually, it just means we love to debate.

 

[Arus808]

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

wow, that's not even close to flaming. They are asking you legitimate questions and requiring you to back up your claims. So far , in your OP you've made a lot of assumptions and provide nothing to back up your claims.

What exactly are "conspiracy theory" websites?

Anything done by Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, the Scholars many websites, Steven Jones, Loose Change, any site with "truth" in its title. so on a so forth.

Its easier to just find credible ones like
The ASCE
NIST
FEMA
Implosionworld.com

The NIST and FEMA sites giving everyone's beloved "debris and fire" hypothesis - those themselves are CT sites! They back up the "official" conspiracy theory.

NIST and FEMA are not CT sites. Yes they propose a THEORY about what happened, but unlike CONSPIRACY Theories, they are backed by the evidence, and testimony. Everything is a theory because unless they were directly involved, nothing is absolute. As in any trial done in america; the prosecutor presents a THEORY about how a crime was comitted and if the defendant was the one that did it; the defense provides a DIFFERENT theory as to how that crime happened, to cast "reasonable doubt". It all depends on which theory is supported by EVIDENCE.

Popular Mechanics uses the 911-commission.gov as a source to back up its claims. That right there completely discredits it as "nonpolitical!"

911 commission is very credible and they are backed by the many scientists and engineers that helped investigate on their behalf, and of course checked by those that didn't work on the comission's behalf.

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

...anyone catch that mockingbird...or parrot....haven't we heard this before????

Anyone want to call "socks"?

 

[WildCat]

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

I see. And just who should conduct this investigation, since you seem to feel that the entire world's structural engineering and architect communities are excluded, since they overwhelmingly (99.999%) support the accepted theory of what brought the towers down?

 

[mailman]

We are ALL on the direct payroll of the NWO

We are?

Where is my money then!



Regards

Mailman

 

[Arus808]

That's the most nonsensical thing I've ever read.

that isn't a review.

Please look up the term book report.. it seems that you missed the third grade. (a review is a little more than a overplayed book report).

 

[Loss Leader]

Yes, well I can see why your review hasn't received a very warm reception. It's not very good. Here's why:

Anyone who has done serious research into 9/11 will come to the inescapable conclusion that rogue elements of the government orchestrated the attacks as a false flag operation to arouse patriotism so the nation would support a war of global domination.

That's almost the whole ballgame right threr, isn't it? You've made a statement of fact, claimed that such fact is inescapable and implied that anyone who disagrees has not been serious in her research. That's a very strong editorial bias on your part. Instead of reviewing whether the book had interesting information well-presented, you've just declared it wrong. Book reviews (and you should read a few dozen real ones in the New York Times) don't work like that.

These are the ones, who for decades, have believed America is the best thing for humanity since sliced bread.

You exaggerate for editorial effect but, of course, you just show your own bias in doing so. Anyone whom you are trying to win over would be put off by the implied accusation and by such accusation's one-dimensional simplicity.

However, the book's foreword was written by none other than GOP darling John McCain ...

The next two hundred words of your review have to do with the book's foreward. The foreward. It's not even actually part of the book. The amount of space you dedicate to debunking what amounts to the opinions of one reader (albeit an influential one) just show that you were unable to concentrate on the issues of fact in the book and were instead occupied with your own political prejudices.

In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence.

One important thing to do in a review is to be right about facts. You do not correctly explain the strawman fallacy.

Even so, in speaking about the strawman arguments, you concede that some conspiracy claims are false. You don't tell the readers which ones, though, so you've set them up to wonder which you think are false and which you don't. It's like saying that half of my M&M's are poisoned but then not explaining how one could tell which is which.

However, PM is much less convincing, and much more transparent as a private-sector front for a government propaganda report

You have no evidence that Popular Mechanics is a front for the government and, of course, you presented none. Speaking authoritatively without evidence is known to some people as "lying."

However, to watch a video of the collapse of WTC7 and not realize it's controlled demolition, well, you are wearing blinders of denial.

No doubt, the readers of your review will wonder why they should disregard the work of engineers, researchers and scientists and believe a lay-person's interpretation of a video. Since you have not established your credentials, this "fact" which you so boldly state can be viewed as nothing more than a politically-motivated opinion.

(if they weren't EXACTLY free-fall speed, they were close enough)

Close enough for what? How far from free-fall would no longer be close enough? And how did you time the colapse of a building that starts 3/4 of the way up and disappears into a cloud of smoke and debris with 40 or so floors still to fall?

the fact that most all the concrete was pulverized into a very fine dust

You state this as a fact. Please provide your source.

coating all of Lower Manhattan in a nuclear winter

As though your review weren't poorly written enough, you have now confused the matter by throwing in the gratuitous word "nuclear." Of course we know that there was no nuclear component to the tragedy of that day. So why invoke the image? It only shows you to be less dedicated to facts and more to your political point of view than ever.

If the collapse was a progressive, gravity-induced collapse, and if the top of a tower broke off and fell sideways, where is the massive weight to supposedly pulverize the rest of the building, evenly and symmetrically, from the top down, into nothingness?

What source do you have that the building collapsed evenly and symmetrically? What source do you have that the building collapsed into nothingness? What source do you have that any of the top floors broke off and did not stay with the building for the collapse? You say this is a problem for debunkers but, as no section of upper floors were seen to break off and fall on their own, isn't it a problem for you instead?

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system.

What is your source for this contention?

This book is for those grasping at straws, desparate to cling to anything that defends the official, commonly accepted account of 9/11.

End by insulting your audience? It's not the way I would have gone.

True researchers see it as such.

Since you never cited your credentials, what is it that distinguished the "true" researcher? I hope it's not the fact that he doesn't wear anything under his kilt.

All in all, a very poorly written review that deserves the derision that it has gotten.

 

[Thunder]

Dear Kameelyun, while I respect your opinion and your right to have one, I take great offense to your introduction.

Many of us have done a great amount of research into 9-11. We have seen Loose Change, 9-11 Mysteries, and In Plane Site. We have looked at the NIST report, the 9-11 Commission, the evidence from the Moussaui trial, and so on. And most of us, after looking at ALL the evidence, have come to the conclusion that 9-11 was indeed NOT an inside job.

This does not mean, that we are just "sheeple" accepting whatever the governmant throws us. This does not mean that we think America is God's gift to humanity. This does not mean that we think America has done no wrong and that everything we do is just and benevolent. And most importantly, this does not mean that we think George Bush is a swell president.

I can only speak for myself, but I believe Bush is maybe the worst president we have ever had. He has used the tragedy and memory of 9-11 to push an ultra-right wing agenda that most Americans disagree with. He has enacted laws and rules that before 9-11...would have been impossible. But that DOES NOT mean he orchestrated 9-11.

Leaders make use of crisis all the time. Be it a flood, an earthquake, a war, or terrorist attack, power hungry governmants will use a sudden loss of tranquility to further their agenda. But dishonestly making use of a crisis is NOT evidence of involvemant in the crisis.

The fact is that most of us who have looked at the evidence believe that it points to 19 wayward souls...and not a monumental governmant conspiracy. We are no less intelligent, open minded, or thoughtful then you. I think the only true difference is, is that we are NOT guided by ideology...or dreams of grandeur...and thats where the worlds of rational critical thinking...and conspiracy thinking...part company.

 

[Arus808]

I called socks!

btw: i have a feeling that he didn't even read the book.

 

[babazaroni]

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

As a truth seeker, you are required to prove the answers wrong or there is no need for a 'fresh' investigation.

 

[ConspiRaider]

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!

You are not expected to have all the answers, as a truth seeker.

But if you are really a truth seeker - a true skeptic - then one of the basic tenets to which you must subscribe is deductive reasoning. You must eliminate that which CANNOT be true. In the 9/11 events, there is variance and complexity as to the elimination process.

A question: Why are you calling for a "fresh investigation"? Here's your quote:

In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence.

"Conclusion" is the end of something. You stated that "9/11 was an inside job" is a true conclusion. According to your logic: No further investigation of any kind is necessary.

 

[Firestone]

Timezones are so cruel!

Have fun here, this thread will be pages and pages long when I read it tomorrow morning!

 

[Minadin]

The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.

This is patently incorrect. There was massive damage to all of those buildings. They all eventually had to be torn down. The main difference between building 7 and the others was two-fold. 1) How the damage looked, especially since it's the tallest buildings and most of the damage was lower down. 2) How it was built, the structural forces at work, and the type of damage sustained made the collapse inevitable. I'll try to address these two points mostly seperately.

Because the damage was lower down on WTC7, you don't see any clear pictures of it in a lot of the photos and videos that are paraded around online, especially on a lot of the conspiracy sites. Mostly, you see images on the top portion, on the sides that aren't billowing smoke (because there's not as much visible there). Those areas look relatively intact. Because of the tallness of WTC7, and its distance from WTC1 and WTC2, most of the major damage occurred on the lower floors. Due to the many medium-height buildings around the area, the images you see do not normally include the area where the most damge occurred - it's obscured by those buildings.

Unlike buildings 3, 4, and 5, WTC7 was a taller building, but it was also build on top of a Con-Ed substation, which remained until the building's collapse, and therefore had some weight transfer trusses between the two individual structures:

When you have 1 or 2 critical elements like that in a building, when they go, the whole system fails:

In the cases of buildings 3,4, and 5, it should be noted that most of the debris damage was taken at the top, (easier to view) but also that there was nothing peculiar about their structures at all, like there was in building 7. Most importantly, they still all sustained enough damage to need to be demolished.

 

[WildCat]

Timezones are so cruel!

Have fun here, this thread will be pages and pages long when I read it tomorrow morning!

That's ok, you've seen it all before.

 

[ConspiRaider]

We are?

Where is my money then!



Regards

Mailman

Check's in the mail, mailman!

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation

Don't you think you are being a bit disingenuous when you say that you are asking questions? If you truly were only asking question, you would have to stop at that point, you couldn't then go on to conclusions. When you say that the gov't had a hand in 9/11 you aren't asking questions, you are giving answers.

How is the conspiracy so powerful that nobody has come foreward, yet so sloppy that basic physics and engineering(which from truthers is usually wrong) can unravel the whole thing?

Also, could you please explain why you think not a single reputable engineering organization or journal has come down on the side of the truthers. Are they all part of the conspiracy too?

 

[DarkMagician]

Danggit, everything moves so quickly.

Nevermind

 

[CptColumbo]

If you want to point out any specific errors in the PM book, I have my copy in front of me, just mention a page number and paragraph. I also am in occasional contact with one of the journalists on the original article, so he can clarify any questions not immediately obvious. We can work through this slowly and carefully, and maybe both learn something.

 

[Horatius]

Anyone who has done serious research into 9/11 will come to the inescapable conclusion that rogue elements of the government orchestrated the attacks as a false flag operation to arouse patriotism so the nation would support a war of global domination.

Your first post, and right out the gate you're debunking yourself. Absolutely no one supports a US "war of global domination", and even if they did, the total mess in Iraq pretty much puts the lie to the ability of the US to even fight such a war, let alone have a realistic chance of winning it. So right away, your whole thesis of why they might have staged 9/11 falls apart.

Another hole in McCain's rhetoric: "To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11..." Well, first of all, REGARDLESS of WHO pulled off 9/11, they are TERRORISTS! What the victims of 9/11 experienced was terror. The terrorists might wear suits and ties, and their skin might be white, but if they are responsible for 9/11, they are terrorists. Second of all, a "conspiracy" is when two or more people agree in secret to do something illegal and/or immoral. So UNLESS ONE AND ONLY ONE PERSON pulled off 9/11... it was a "conspiracy." What's deeply sad here is the subtle racism: When McCain says "terrorists" he means "those brown guys that wear those funny turbans and bandanas." Little wonder then, that in the Iraq run-up, most of America couldn't see the difference between "Osama" and "Saddam."

And the only real argument you supply against the book is a piddly little critique of the language used? How is word choice any sort of proof that 9/11 was an inside job?

Pretty much everything else you've mentioned has been debunked many times before, and is currently being debunked by others here, so I'll just leave that part to them.....

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Anyone who has done serious research into 9/11 will come to the inescapable conclusion that rogue elements of the government orchestrated the attacks as a false flag operation to arouse patriotism so the nation would support a war of global domination.

However, there is a very strong contingent of Americans who react emotionally, rather than rationally, to any argument suggesting government complicity on any level, let alone outright orchestration. These are the ones, who for decades, have believed America is the best thing for humanity since sliced bread. They believe our government would never murder its own people (even though they have NO trouble believing OTHER govts would kill THEIR own people), and anyone who thinks as such must be paranoid and even anti-American. Indeed, most of the positive Amazon reviews seem to be of this mentality. Such Americans, comfortable in their established paradigm of reality, will find comfort with this book.

poisoning the well and appealing to emotions. Not relevant to a discussion of the facts.

When James Meigs, editor of PM, appears on media outlets such as the O'Reilly Factor, he reassures FOX's mainstream audience that PM is not a political organization, or an organization seeking a specific conclusion, et cetera. However, the book's foreword was written by none other than GOP darling John McCain, in which he states unequivocally: "Blaming some conspiracy within our government mars the memories of the victims... To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11 insults the police officers and firefighters who raced into the burning towers; the men and women who left for dangerous, distant lands to fight our enemies; and those who have fought in all the wars of our history." In other words, there is a political bias to this book:

That the forward of the book is written by a politician does not substantiate your claim that it is a bias book. To claim that it is politically biased, and that the contents of the book are wrong because of this is an abusive, and circumstantial personal attack and is a logical fallacy.

Questioning the true identity of the 9/11 perpetrators is tantamount to treason.

This is a straw man argument as neither the forward, nor the book itself, makes any such claim.

All of Popular Mechanics' "evidence" defends this forgone conclusion.

"scare" "quotes" do not a refutation make.

Another hole in McCain's rhetoric: "To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11..." Well, first of all, REGARDLESS of WHO pulled off 9/11, they are TERRORISTS! What the victims of 9/11 experienced was terror. The terrorists might wear suits and ties, and their skin might be white, but if they are responsible for 9/11, they are terrorists.

This is nothing but political diatribe on your part. It does nothing to support your claims.

Second of all, a "conspiracy" is when two or more people agree in secret to do something illegal and/or immoral. So UNLESS ONE AND ONLY ONE PERSON pulled off 9/11... it was a "conspiracy."

No. A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".

A "conspiracy theory" is a very specific thing. Definitions include, but are not limited to

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political), social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social), or historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical) events) as a secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy), and often deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception), plot by a covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert) alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) as late as 1997. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-0)
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture) to identify a type of folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) similar to an urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend), especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological) flaws.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-1) The term is also used pejoratively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(political)) claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre) that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Controversies). Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academics), politicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicians), psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologists), and the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) cuts across traditional left-right political lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory


Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
- conspiracy theorist noun
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy theory


conspiracy theory (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)
- belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance
(http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy+theory

This is different from a theory (in the scientific sense) that contains a conspiracy

Conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)*
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is... (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy


Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>opWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conspi04.wav=conspiracy'))
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiring) together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators) b : a group of conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators)
synonym see PLOT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plot)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy


In the criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person) to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt) which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence), the actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(law)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

To equate the two terms is equivocation.

What's deeply sad here is the subtle racism: When McCain says "terrorists" he means "those brown guys that wear those funny turbans and bandanas." Little wonder then, that in the Iraq run-up, most of America couldn't see the difference between "Osama" and "Saddam."

No. When McCain said, "terrorists", he meant terrorists. You know, the militant Islamic extremists that carried out the attack. Attempting to suggest that he is making a racist remark is just more personal attacks on your part and does nothing to substantiate your claims.

As far as the book itself is concerned, the only instances in which it does correctly expose erroneous 9/11 Truth arguments are when the original arguments were "straw men." In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence.

You appear to be confused as to what a straw man fallacy is; please read the following links:
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#strawman
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Once the particular erroneous argument is debunked, some will conclude that ALL arguments in the Truth Movement have been debunked, or can be debunked just as easily. In other words, the "straw man" ends up smearing the whole movement in the minds of many Truth Seekers. The most classic example is the "pod theory," which asserts that a missile pod was attached to the underbelly of the plane the hit the second tower, and that based on frame-by-frame analysis of the impact, a "flash" can be seen a millisecond before contact. This argument was popularized in the first major 9/11 conspiracy video "In Plane Site," a film which was a breakthrough in 2004 but is now considered old hat, especially as portions of it have been discredited.

The claims they address are claims made by people in the 9/11 CFist movement. That not all the people in the movement believe them is moot. PM is not making the claims up out of thin air. Neither do they make any such claim as "all claims in movie X are wrong because they got item Y wrong". If you feel they do, then please provide the exact quote and page #

However, PM is much less convincing, and much more transparent as a private-sector front for a government propaganda report, when it tries to explain how fire brought down the WTC buildings. The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal,

Evidence?

especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Please show how all the buildings are equally comparable, when WTC 7 was of different structural design.

What's funny is that even the govt's own report, the NIST report, admits that the "fire theory" was especially unlikely for WTC7.

Citation?

However, PM attempts to convince the reader that debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire in WTC7, which ignited several fuel tanks in the basement, causing the steel structure to collapse. If the reader chooses to believe this (because s/he doesn't want to believe that the govt caused 9/11), well, that proves that ultimately it's all about what a person is willing to believe. However, to watch a video of the collapse of WTC7 and not realize it's controlled demolition, well, you are wearing blinders of denial.

Your opinion, based upon watching a video, is not objective, verifiable evidence. Please provide such evidence, or admit that the above is nothing more than uneducated opinion on your part.

Popular Mechanics, in attempting to cover up the WTC towers' collapse, purports that gravity caused the buildings to weaken and fall. However, they do not account for not only the very rapid collapses (if they weren't EXACTLY free-fall speed, they were close enough),

Define "close enough". Explain how this supports your claim of CD

but more importantly, the fact that most all the concrete was pulverized into a very fine dust, coating all of Lower Manhattan in a nuclear winter.

Evidence? Because I think you're wrong.

Here's another good example of a straw man, in which PM distorts what truth seekers say: PM says (I'm paraphrasing here), "The conspiracy theorists claim that the towers fell into their own footprint like a demolition. This is not true. Look at the South Tower. The top clearly falls over sideways." This distortion is a classic example of PM's "debunking." First: yes, the top of the South Tower did break off and fall sideways. This, however, raises a major problem for defenders of the official collapse theory: If the collapse was a progressive, gravity-induced collapse, and if the top of a tower broke off and fell sideways, where is the massive weight to supposedly pulverize the rest of the building, evenly and symmetrically, from the top down, into nothingness?

I'll defer to our resident engineers and architects, such as R. Mackey and The Architect, to explain this to you, though I would highly suggest you make use of the Search feature and read what they have already written on this topic.

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system. PM claims that only one airplane (Payne Stewart's ill-fated private jet) was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11. Not true. Sixty-seven of them occurred in just the one year before 9/11 alone. The 'one intercept' lie serves to back another one of PM's lies: that the Airforce was previously only trained to handle foreign attacks, coming from beyond our borders, and that the U.S. continental mainland was a defenseless donut-hole. Blatant falsehood.

I'll defer to Gumboot to explain this to you, though I would highly suggest you make use of the Search feature and read what he has already written on this topic.