Debunking Popular Mechanics

[WilliamSeger]

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.

Just a general comment on your preface: I always find it amusing when "truthers" claim "inescapable conclusions" or "overwhelming evidence" but somehow can't even come to agreement about what those "conclusions" are. Did real planes fly into the buildings, or did they not? If they were real planes, were they the commercial flights claimed by the FAA or were they substitutes? If there is "overwhelming evidence" that the towers were intentionally demolished, was it by conventional explosives, thermite, or Death Star beam weapons? If the conclusions are so inescapable, why is it "you guys" can't seem to agree on even the basic details?

 

[Merko]

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.

This is where I stop reading. Lots of people, having done serious research about the matter, obviously do not come to this conclusion. Even if they are downright hostile to the Bush administration and would have every political reason to believe in such a conspiracy.

Since you're starting off with such an obviously false statement, I kind of lose interest in reading any further.

 

[babazaroni]

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.

Please allow us to examine the evidence you have for the 67 intercept claim.

 

[Arus808]

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.

well, can you address pages 40-41? That is the ongoing "discussion" at the Amazon.com review for this book.

seems that the pseudo-engineers who read this book, think that pages 40-41 makes the entire book false.

Low Sales Rank is Telling--This Book is a Fraud, January 20, 2007
Reviewer:G. Espada (Somerville, MA USA) - See all my reviews
A young fellow handed me this book while I was in public explaining to people the problems with the official story. It was light reading, and it didn't take me long to get to pages 40-41, where the authors claim that three "experts" who support the official account, told them that "they believed" that the molten steel discovered by workers on the rubble pile of the twin towers could have resulted from the fires underneath the rubble growing hotter and hotter to the point of melting the steel. Why? Because they were covered, and not exposed to the air which would have cooled them. Well, except that fire needs air to burn, and no fire can burn any hotter than whatever is fueling it can burn. What exactly in those rubble piles was burning at a temperature of 2800 degrees, required to melt steel? Jet fuel itself can only burn at 1800, and that when mixed in ideal proportion with... air. To quote David Ray Griffin, whose incredibly detailed and painstakingly researched books all far outsell this one, "such a desperate lie is a sure sign of a cover-up." If you enjoy being taken for a fool, buy this book. If you want to know what happened on 9/11, assume that everything in it, like the example I've cited is pure dishonest cover-up of a shocking truth.

 

[Minadin]

And the only real argument you supply against the book is a piddly little critique of the language used?

It's not really even a part of the book, it's the forward . . . to the hardcover edition.

 

[Gravy]

Hi, kameelyun.

No, I don't think you've ruffled any feathers here. We see opinion pieces like yours all the time here and are not impressed. Your factual knowledge of the subject matter is poor.

It's important to remember that in order for your call for a new investigation to be taken seriously, you must present evidence that matches or exceeds the quality of evidence for the claim you're trying to refute. I suggest picking one "official version" claim that you think is especially vulnerable and bringing all your guns to bear on that.

You may want to use the search function here before starting a new discussion thread: we've discussed most of the major 9/11 topics ad nauseum.

As for building 7, before continuing with that argument you may want to read the first responder accounts of the damage and fires in my paper here (link will download PDF).

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

*brings out big bag of popcorn*

 

[CptColumbo]

well, can you address pages 40-41? That is the ongoing "discussion" at the Amazon.com review for this book.

seems that the pseudo-engineers who read this book, think that pages 40-41 makes the entire book false.

They are saying that

..the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere.

They are not saying that the area was air tight.

 

[Pardalis]

*brings out big bag of popcorn*

More a puke bag.

(it's going to be a wild ride)

 

[Horatius]

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

Flames? What flames? Flames would be if we said something like:

"You [rule8]ing [rule8]s are nothing more than a bunch of [rule8]s who'd [rule8] a penguin with a flaming [rule8]. Go [rule8] you father in the [rule8], you [rule8] sniffing [rule8]bite. Why don't you pay your [rule8] to [rule8] you in the [rule8]hole while they [rule8] your eyeless skull?"

See, that's a flame. What we've been doing is debunking you with reason, facts and logic.

So go [rule8] a penguin, [rule8]bite.

 

[JimBenArm]

*YAWN*
Boring! Same old stuff, different poster.
Got it. We're shills, sheeple, deluded, can't see the truth, yada, yada.

Try posting something that actually backs up this drivel.

Thank you.

 

[Arus808]

They are not saying that the area was air tight.

And that's how you address whatever questions you have Kameelyun.

Give a specific point, anything you have question about. Do not add your own "interpretation" or guesswork...just give a point that you have trouble understanding or have question on.

 

[Pardalis]

BTW, happy bday Jim!



(boy, there's alot of skeptics born in January!)

 

[ConspiRaider]

*YAWN*
Boring! Same old stuff, different poster.
Got it. We're shills, sheeple, deluded, can't see the truth, yada, yada.

Try posting something that actually backs up this drivel.

Thank you.

Did you mention gatekeepers?

And HAPPY BIRTHDAY, sub driver Jim! Hope it's great, and hope you have another 50 or so twice as good!

 

[DiskoVilante]

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

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.

Ahhahhahahaha...I'm using this from now on when I debate people.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ahhahhahahaha...I'm using this from now on when I debate people.

Oh pu-lease, everyone knows Vadar isn't bright enough to pull something like that off. It would have had to have been Admiral Thrawn.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Oh pu-lease, everyone knows Vadar isn't bright enough to pull something like that off. It would have had to have been Admiral Thrawn.

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

 

[Azure]

Remember guys and gals....we have all been duped by the government if we believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

Hilarious.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh pu-lease, everyone knows Vadar isn't bright enough to pull something like that off. It would have had to have been Admiral Thrawn.

yeah right, like some blue cave-alien could do 9/11

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Oh pu-lease, everyone knows Vadar isn't bright enough to pull something like that off. It would have had to have been Admiral Thrawn.

Not smart enough?!?! Hello? Alderaan?


I thought people would be happy I didn't use a Star Trek reference this time.