Online Journal Contributing Writer Responds to Popular Mechanics' Book 'Debunking 9/11 Myths'

Refuting the lie, a response to Popular Mechanics: debunking 9/11 myths -

It’s been an exciting year to be a 9/11 Truth Seeker. With each passing month there’s been a trend of continuing revelations and historic events that will break the dam of government deception once and for all. There have been actors, musicians, scientists, engineers, former presidential cabinet members, rescue workers, survivors, historians, and even foreign officials weighing in with their doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.

Recent polls by both Zogby and Scripts Howard show the number of Americans questioning the government about 9/11 to be growing exponentially. When they know you have the truth on your side, those who stand to lose will employ the most underhanded tactics to keep their own conspiracy theory alive.

As if right on cue, Popular Mechanics returns to the arena of 9/11 Truth to present an extension of their March 2005 hit piece, “Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand up to the Hard Facts.” Now they’ve taken the original piece and extended it into a book-length format. In view of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth movement gaining more mainstream coverage than ever, it’s only to be expected that an attack on the movement’s credibility would emerge.

On the inside cover of the book there is a list of endorsements from some well-known talking heads. For example, Glen Reynolds, proprietor of the neocon blog, takes time away from equating the people of Lebanon with Nazis (see, 8/13/06) to endorse this collection of “hard facts.”

However, for the ultimate grand slam, Popular Mechanics (and by association Hearst Publishing) chose to enlist the literary talent of America’s “maverick” Senator John McCain for the book’s forward. Senator McCain tows an extremely Orwellian line, reminding readers that Americans were attacked for their freedoms on 9/11 and that the evidence of al Qaeda’s central role in the attacks is “overwhelming.” (p. xii) The senator explains that over the years many Americans have had trouble accepting such historical occurrences as the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor or the murder of a president by a lone gunman in a book depository. Certainly Senator McCain knows better, and I would imagine he has access to the same declassified documents that I do, which prove both claims to be incorrect. But before plucking the reader from the rabbit hole, McCain goes for the grand slam by claiming that anyone who questions the official 9/11 narrative is directly insulting all who tragically perished on that day, as well as “those who have fought in all the wars in our history.” (p. xiv) The suggestion here clearly is that any questioning of the government’s official line is treasonous.
Let me be clear. I do not pretend to know exactly what happened on 9/11: I also have my disagreements with many of the theories that have been put out there over the years. What I do know is that what the people were told happened on 9/11 is not the truth. If Americans are to take any lessons from history, it is that those in power will redefine the truth in a way that bests suits their interests and agenda. Those who stand to profit from an event like 9/11 have no interest in opening themselves up to any line of questioning. They also suffer in that the facts are not on their side. This book tries to serve as the bandage for a gaping wound in the official 9/11 narrative. Unfortunately for those in charge, that wound shows no signs of healing.

Thanks Carol for the heads up!

Did you know that Popular

Did you know that Popular Mechanics consulted
over 300 experts in fields including structural
engineering, siesmology, aerospace engineering
counter-intelligence, law enforcement and many

Can I ask how many experts were consulted in making
this so-called rebuttal?

"MormonJihad"? are you

"MormonJihad"? are you serious? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. you might wanna choose another name before you shill next time.

I chose this name back in

I chose this name back in 1998 for playing
Quake on-line.

It just so happens to be an ideal name to use
while raising hell in the midst of an enemy
propaganda operation such as this one.

Know your enemy

Popular Mechanics continues to insist that the hole in the pentagon was 95 feet wide, which it may well have been after the façade of the building collapsed half an hour after the impact event, but everyone who doesn’t rely on the MSM is well aware that the original hole, immediately after the impact was very much smaller. Funny how none of the hundreds of experts remembered to point out this error. They also claim that their experts insist that cell phone calls could be made reliably from passenger planes at high altitude in 2001. These two lies are sufficient to demonstrate conclusively that this book is disinformation propaganda. But all of you 911Bloggers already knew that.

Do you have anything you want to say about these points MormonJihad? And how can you call 911Blogger enemy propaganda? As far as I can see we are the people working to salvage our republic from the enemy. The enemy that attacked us on 911 and on several other occasions prior to that. The enemy that is trying to scare Americans into giving up their inalienable rights. The enemy that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and the maiming and injury of tens of thousands more. The enemy that tortures innocent people, and imprisons others without charge, for years, to cover up the lies they have been foisting on America through their propaganda organs, such as Fox News and CNN.

If you want to get into protecting the Constitution from the enemy you are welcome here. But you should sit back and listen for a while, and figure out who your real enemy is, instead of attacking the good patriotic Americans that inhabit this space.

Looks like a pretty big hole

Looks like a pretty big hole to me, dumbass.

Here's a fraud who knows

Here's a fraud who knows he's blowin' smoke:

"Funny how none of the hundreds of experts remembered to point out this error. " Yup, funny indeed. All of those experts who were sure that the hole was roughly 90-feet wide (according to 'The Pentagon Building Performance Report') were caught using real science to arrive at their numbers. "The report acknowledges that the width of the hole is approximate because the exterior facade collapsed 19 minutes after impact, obviously well before measurements could be made. The team based the estimate on the number and position of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged near the point of impact. Engineers and computer scientists from Purdue University confirmed the findings through a detailed computer simulation of the crash. Using a bank of IBM supercomputers, the study involved nearly 275 hours of computation time for each second of the crash and its aftermath."

Just curious: how did the loons and liars who don't rely on science estimate the size of the hole? Maybe Fetzer figured it out. He seems to be well-informed.

For the record, nobody claims that cell phones "reliably" work on commercial airliners. Certainly, they work sometimes and most of the calls were made on airphones, not cell phones.

The liars, as usual, are the fantasists. Or perhaps we can add Purdue University to the absurdly bloated list of conspiracy members.

you can look at the video

you can look at the video before it collapsed and see that it wasn't 90-feet wide.

Saying that damage of columns was in a 90-feet wide area is completely different from a 90-foot wide impact hole.

You see, simple logic debunks what Popular Mechanics is trying to pull. Simple logic and video evidence.

Is it that hard to understand?

Too SImple Even for Simpletons

No, EVERYONE can look at the same video. You can't debunk anything by trying to guess the width of a hole from the video of a swirl of smoke and dust.

there is video, not just

there is video, not just photos, showing the hole before the collapse, and there are things called windows, which have a specific width, that you can easily determine the hole wasn't 90ft wide. You can see the facade, of the building, and windows and the side right around the hole. You don't just see a swirl of smoke and dust.

It's very simple.

there is video, not just

there is video, not just photos, showing the hole before the collapse, and there are things called windows, which have a specific width, that you can easily determine the hole wasn't 90ft wide. You can see the facade, of the building, and windows and the side right around the hole. You don't just see a swirl of smoke and dust.

It's very simple.

Sure you can..

Um sure you can. You can compare it to the known sizes of the windows around it, which is what the Louder than Words guys did to come up with the estimate of 15-20 feet.

Get it Straight

You're confusing the exit hole with the entrance hole. Anything who thinks the entrance hole was 15-20 feet across is insane.

The hole in this photograph

The hole in this photograph hasn't gotten any smaller since I posted it.

I think you have a problem, Mic.

your link goes to a blank

your link goes to a blank page, but there is video, not just photos, showing the hole before the collapse, and there are things called windows, which have a specific width, that you can easily determine the hole wasn't 90ft wide.


Photo doesn't show anything but smoke dumbass.

The video shows it clearly, and prior to the collapse the hole was less than 20' max.

PM debunks itself by all the easily proven LIES strewn page to page

Why are you having such a problem?

Wht are you obsessing about the whole when you have all the other conclusive evidence, Micahyah? There is absolutely irrefutable evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

We have the wreakage of a 757.
We have a hundred or so eyewtinesses.
We have passenger and crew phone calls
We have the identified remains.
We have the hundreds of rescue workers who recovered the debris and the reamins.
We have evry bit of evidence that conclusively tells us that AA 77 hit the pentagon

There is no question that AA 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon. If you can't understand that fundamen6tal fact then you should start trying to refutre EVERY bit of evidence. No one gives a damn if you whine about the size of a hole and present no evidence that AA 77 did NOT hit the evidence.

Is that so hard for you 9/11 Truthers to comprehend?

jon davies

As you know, I am not impressed with the pentagon arguments. Will you please address the questions that don't have answers.




I have a question that has been bothering me. You agree that the people that paid for 911 should be persued. There are foreign news reports that say that the ISI paid money to Atta. This is disturbing. You agree that the people that funded 911 should be persued. Right?

What's Your Point?

The most amazing achievement of the Powell State Department was the flipping of Pakistan. I see no reason to doubt that Pakistan funded, at least in part, the 9/11 terrorists.


Good, then we agree. Do we also agree that there should be an investigation into these individuals that funded 911 to see where they got the money and determine their culpability? It is pretty obvious that the people that funded 911 should be prosecuted, even if they say they are friends of the USA now, right?

The 911 commission said that the funding of 911 was irrelevant or "Insignificant". Can we agree that this not proper and something that we can work together to get to the bottom of?

As you know, almost all conspiracy convictions are made by the money trail. This would be no different. Don't the people that funded 911, the biggest mass murder in US history deserve to be pursued and prosecuted? I think we both agree that this would be the proper course to take, right?


I think you're a bit confused. Popular support for al Qaeda remains strong in Pakistan. Prior to the attacks of 9/11 there was no reason to regard the ISI as anything but an organization inimical to our interests. You can't "prosecute" in an American court an agency of a sovereign state. It's like trying to prosecute Saddam's secret police. The funding in question amounted to $500,000 or so, a pittance by today's standards.

Bushies = Methodist Mafia

Bushies = Methodist Mafia

Popular Mechanics rebuttal

One always looks for "experts" to explain what common sense should tell them. My common sense says that many "experts" have a conflict of interest when discussing 9/11. Look at the Controlled Demolition Inc. contract to pull the Trojan nuke plant earlier this year, a contract worth many million of dollars. Likewise, many so-called experts work for the goverment directly or indirectly and therefore have their jobs to worry about. Why does this country continue to believe anything this government tells them? Popular Mechanics was a rag I stopped reading in the sixth is hardly 'Nature'.

You're common sense is not very sensical

9/11 Truthers always can come up with an excuse that there must be a conflict of interest. You miss the most fundamental fact, however. You forgot that PM doesn't event data or evidence as much as you might think so. Common sense tell us quite clearly that thousands of invidual witnesses, unconnected with no possible motives, and thousands of pieces of evidence point to one conclusion in each case.

PM put it all together and they have just reported all the data that has refuted 9/11 Truthers for the last 5 years.

Common sense tells us all that you need to come down to earth.


Bwahaha. That's a lot of "experts" to attack strawman arguments. Traitors.

That Name is Hilarious

Thanks for the laugh!

- : )

all these stupid fucks can

all these stupid fucks can do is cite their "experts" and throw out names. shameless retards

As long as all the experts

As long as all the experts are on the side of the truth, why shouldn't we?

Larry Silverstein explained it all...

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

You Use What You Have

When you have all the experts, you cite them. When you have nothing but lies and bullshit, you call your opponents stupid fucks.

"Experts" on the gov't payroll or gov't contractors...

will go along with the govy on anything!

No they won't

This is a sweeping generalization, not an absolute truth. Here is a blog of a group of government workers that doesn't go along with the gov't:

Oh and by the way...

Since we are talking about "distancing" from individuals who are not credible, I would like to officially distance myself from Mormonjihad, even though we share a religion.

Forgive him for not knowing the fulfillment of Moroni's prophecy in Ether chapter 8 when it is so obvious to see.

The above article describes

The above article describes Killtown as an "always resourceful website".
Killtown is a known holocaust denier. If the mans numbers on one of the
worst atrocities in history are off by as much as 6 million, then I'm afraid
that neither he, nor anyone who claims him as a source can be trusted
as a source for information on anything.

Are there any rebuttals to Popular Machanics that don't confuse engineers
with neo-nazis?

a "known holocaust denier"


What's the definition of a "holocaust denier."

Look in the mirror, you

Look in the mirror, you hitler-hieling filth.

Ha ha ha!!!

Go back to the Screwies/JREFers forum!

Definition of a Holocaust Denier

A Holocaust Denier is one who delibererately and intentionally lies about physical evidence for political ends.

No difference than you 9/11 deniers, Killtown.

See for more on you.

you know what if you start

you know what if you start throwing names out like "haulocaust denier" then you really do deserve to be called a "shill" on screwloosechange one of you said Chris Bollyn was a haulocaust denier. stop your bloody defamation.

Bollyn and Killtown are

Bollyn and Killtown are verified holocaust deniers.

Don't get angry at me over YOUR poor choice of

verified by whom? cite

verified by whom?

cite please.

Here's killtown stepping out

Here's killtown stepping out of the closet in a lovely
white dress with a matching hood with eye-slits:
(The video he linked to was removed for violating
google policy on racist material)

For bollyn, just google his name and "holocaust".

If they are, that is an

If they are, that is an interesting point and their work is suspect and will be judged purely on merit.

There are
- wacky conspiracy theories
- some theories which are just "possibilities"
- some which have a strong possibility of being true.
- some which border on fact

To lump them all together, along with holocaust denial, is hitting under the belt and completely unfair.

I've been to your site and debated with you guys and for the most part you are rude motherfuckers (i use this word with pleasure due to the many insults I got from you). You always think you are superior. Well you may have experts on your side. But there are many smart people on our side too, like Jim Hoffman from MIT, and unlike your experts they are willing to take risks.

In many situations, you never can know for sure what happened. Take for example pulverizing of concrete. Well, a falling building will generate some pulverized concrete, and extremely powerful explosives will too. So what we are left to work with is the AMOUNT of pulverized concrete and when it got pulverized (in this case, alot got pulverized before it hit the ground which makes it suspect) Establishing a correct theoretical model is far from trivial. Yet, one's "gut" tells you that there was far more dust available than could be accounted for by a simple collapse.

There are many of these theories, and each one has to be tested for validity. In some or many cases, arriving upon a definitive answer is impossible, in which case a preponderance of the evidence is used to arrive at a conclution. There are many murder cases, where guilt has been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" without solid proof. I not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying it's nothing new.

There are some facts that cannot be explained adequately by your side too. One is building 7. You say it was an "unusual design" and it fell due fire and a hole scooped out by debris. Well, that is a theory. You might find it more plausible, but there is no way you can conclusively prove it (besides having camera's placed on all floors during collapse) . Another interesting thing is the collapse was predicted. I'm not sure you can justify the prediction in any way (as many of you do) as there were many damaged buildings (some more than wtc7) , none of which collapsed, and yet none of their collapses were predicted.

The list goes on and some facts are startling. Time will hopefully tell which side is right.

As long as the conspiracy

As long as the conspiracy nuts refuse to distance themselves from the
nazis in their midst, those of us who believe in the TRUTH will continue to
use that against them.

Deal with it.

A "gut" is not a scientifically accurate tool of measurement. There is no
evidence that the amount of pulverization in the WTC was inconsistent
with a gravity driven collapse.

You claim that there is no way to know the full extent of the damage done
to WTC7 and then claim that there were other buildings more heavily da-
maged than WTC7. Your own argument is self-contradictory and automa-
tically invalid.

first of all we're not nuts,

first of all we're not nuts, if you continue to use profanity, you will be banned from this site.

with your superior attitude, all I can say you're the Nazi - after all they thought they were superior to the Jews.

Secondly, you're sole agenda in using the "haulocaust denier" is to slander. I don't think you care either way. If you were brave enough to post your real name maybe we could dig up some dirt on you.

We're here to discuss facts, not engage in name calling. Seriously for this reason you purported debunkers should be banned. You're nothing but midpie throwing thugs and don't think we don't see through it.

Thirdly, I never claimed my "gut" was scientifically accurate. But it tells me whether an issue should be pursued or not (scientifically)

Fourthly, and you misunderstood re WTC7, I didn't say the extent of the damage was unknown. I said the collapse mechanism was unknown. And for someone to have predicted the collapse required access to information neither I nor you were privy to. If you can prove how the collapse could have been predicted, go ahead and spit it out. I'd love to hear from your infinite wisdom.

Fourthly as far as pulverisation goes, Jim Hoffman has a good article. But oh yeah, "HE FORGOT TO ADD THE HEAT BACK IN!!" Like that explains everything. You guys are pathetic.

I don't think...

I don't think that we refuse to at all. There has been a very strong effort to flesh out and distance from the people who want to label 9/11 as a purely Isreali op, and blame everything on the Jews.

Let's talk about the real issue here, the fact that you have to resort character attacks and guilt by association tactics because you will obviously lose a debate on the facts.

And so what amount of pulverization to fine dust WOULD be expected from gravity alone?

I'm afraid, Elder Morgan...

I'm afraid, Elder Morgan... that you ARE refusing to seperate yourselves
from the swastika swingers.

Just look at Steven Jones, he continues to take the word of a neo-nazi
holocaust denier as to why the WTC collapsed over the word of the Chair
of the BYU engineering faculty (and a fellow melchezidek priesthood holder)
Dr. A. Woodruff Miller.

The scriptures warned us that the very elect would be decieved. Jones is
livng proof.

did the scriptures tell you

did the scriptures tell you to kill children in in Lebanon?

"the scriptures"

Nuff said, soon as I see those words I can stop listening to anything that person spews as clearly they are a delusional psychotic that accepts fairytale over fact.


Who would Jesus bomb?

if he existed

Which he didn't, the God of the "Old Testiment" would Bomb everybody, the other version in the New Testiment would bomb no one except those that disagree with him.

also there are images from

also there are images from NASA indicating the ground heat was ~700C a few days after the attack. This means they must have been hotter earlier closer to the attack but I won't speculate how much (because they would cool as time progresses) . This is too much heat for regular fires which would have burnt at a much lower temperature and have been smothered by the pile of debris. All the fuel probably burnt out within the first few minutes. You have not been able to supply a suitable reason for that heat . Your rust, hydrogen theories are hogwash.

MormonJihad has no answer to

MormonJihad has no answer to my post. Instead he resorts to associating with the truth movement with things they are not associated with. He refuses to address the facts, but jumps the gun to defamation. This soul is the poorest of the poor.

While you're at it

Please digg all my other 9/11 truth related stories:

Off the subject

But Olbermann is on a rant !!! GO Keith!

Fantastic Job, Lacking Only Substance

Wow, that was a thorough debunking of the Popular Mechanics team. Those poor saps relied entirely on science and actual evidence while the fantasists refuted them with...with... Could we go over it once more, please?

How exactly did the fantasists, who have NEVER produced a shred of real evidence for their fabrications, refute Popular Mechanics. I mean, there must be something that I'm not seeing.

Ok... One more time for you pomeroo

Controlled demolition of the twin towers can be conclusively, logically proven using only information presented in the PM book.

First, on p.46, first full paragraph, PM tries to debunk the squibs seen during the implosions. PM's resident CD expert, Mark Loizeaux states that if "explosives had been placed on the upper floors, they would have generated significantly more dust and debris than mere 'puffs'". In other words, if the towers were brought down using CD, large amounts of dust and debris would have been generated because of the use of explosives.

As an aside, even a cursory review of the video evidence of the collapses will show you that yes, indeed, there was, in fact, "significantly more dust and debris" generated during the collapse than "mere puffs". Remember the huge dust cloud that chased everyone away from ground zero. However, we don't even need to look at the video evidence, for the PM book provides the next logical step.

On p.55, the PM book, in talking about the collapse of building 7, also talks about the collapse of the twin towers. Here PM says that the collapse "discharged a massive amount of energy - as much as 10^7 joules in the kinetic energy of dust and debris." And later in the same paragraph "[m]ost of the energy went into the deformation of the buildings and the formation of rubble and dust."

To sum up and point out the logical conclusion: PM's resident CD expert points out that explosives would have generated massive amounts of dust and debris. PM then states that during the collapses of the twin towers a massive amount of energy deformed the building and generated massive amounts of dust and debris. Therefore, explosives caused the collapse of the twin towers.

The logic is unassailable. PM proves CD of the twin towers.

pomeroo, you must be a glutton for punishment.


Why do ignoramuses imagine that they can "prove" things that experts in the field regard as total nonsense?

Obviously, the collapse proceeded from the IMPACT FLOORS. The videos make that clear and indisputable. Yes, more dust and debris was produced by the COLLAPSE than by the streams of ejecta flowing out of lower floors. No other result is possible.

The conspiracy liars who pretend that the streams of compressed air ("squibs") suggest explosions rely on the suckers they are addressing not to be able to distinguish between the two. The compressed air streams start out as a thin plume and gradually broaden. Explosions present exactly the reverse appearance.

Your paragraph demonstrating "unassailable logic" is a self-parody. You know as much about logic as you do about the physics of falling buildings. Apparently, you didn't read Shyam Sunder of NIST explaining that "those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition to untrained eyes, but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Four pages of the Popular Mechanics book are devoted to explanations by experts in the field of why the collapse of the WTC looked nothing like controlled demolition. Seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty laboratories indicate that no explosions occurred. Yet, you manage to conclude the precise opposite of what is being demonstrated.

Hopeless. Thick as a brick.


I'm confused. Are you saying that the collapse of building 7 does not look like controlled demolition? I agree that the two towers don't look like classical demolition, but surely you agree that building 7 looks like classical demolition. Even if it was not demolition, it looked like it, right?

How Would I Know?

Lacking any expertise in the subject, I am unqualified to say what does and does not look controlled demolition. My opinion is worthless here. I rely on authorities who are capable of making informed judgments.

I'll tell you something about experts

Many experts have been working desperately to piece together theories that 1) match the observed phenomena from 9/11, and 2) match the official telling of events. Many have done a bang up job at obfuscating the truth. Engineers are armed with many tools, and, you can almost ALWAYS apply fudge factors to fit empirical, real-world observations. That's what makes engineers different from mathmaticians, who live in a world of absolutes.

Contradictions abound in the world of these experts you so heartily rely on, and in order to believe many of their proposals you must in many cases abandon several thousand years of physical observation, along with a great deal of common sense. You must essentially assume that the natural laws governing all matter and reason on this planet took a vacation on 9/11. You must also believe, as a side thought, that this administration screwed up so badly on 9/11, that they were able to create a situation and climate which allowed them to live out their wildest Mid-East dreams. Just imagine how different our world would be if the FBI had been smart enough to intercept the 19 hapless arabs before they got off the ground.

It is apparently easy for someone such as yourself to be dazzled by the technical spewings of Greening and others, who bandy about equations and assumptions as though they actually proved their flawed hypotheses. In the end though, the whole premise on which these experts are picking away at is severely flawed. That, my friend, is why they still must fend off a growing number who disagree. Smoke and mirrors really don't prove anything though; in your heart, you know there is more to the trick.

I am an engineer, and I unfortunately voted for Bush in 2004. I am not a conspiracist by nature, and I did not begin to doubt the official story of 9/11 because of my dissatisfaction with the government. It's unfortunate that you feel so obliged to challenge people such as myself as "fantacists," because you feel either superior in your intellectual prowess, or because you feel threatened by the challenges impinging on your paradigm of the world and our nation. I hope you find comfort in your categorical denial of all things 9/11 Truth.

Bad Argument

I can't read minds, so it's impossible to determine whether or not you actually voted for Bush. It's not important in any case. Your manner of reasoning persuades me that you can't possibly be an engineer. The canard you offer about natural laws taking a vacation is not something anyone with a background in the sciences could conceivably write. The hundreds of physicists, structural engineers, demolition experts, and avionics techs who regard the conspiracy fantasies as utter rubbish haven't noticed any violations of scientific principles in the rationalist explanation. NIST provided 9/11 truth. The 9/11 Truth-Be-Damned movement denies that truth to promote its political agenda.

You're no structural engineer, that's for sure.

It's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what you are talking since a structural engineer would never speak as you just did and since the proponderance of evidence leads us to a conclusion that no explosives were needed to bring wtc 7 down.

Much less the fact that 9/11 Truthers cannot produce one piece of physical evidenceof explosives.

It really is silly to keep trying to sell snake oil, strom. It doesn't work with real engineers or rational people at all.

Are you a structural engineer?

A "proponderance [sic]" of evidence suggests you are not.

What is a "real' engineer in your mind? Is any engineer who disagrees with your uneducated opinion not a "real" engineer? Is my degree in engineering, and working field experience not real? Do you believe that structural engineers have a monopoly on analytical and logical analysis?

By the way, your snake oil comment is hilarious. You don't seem to fit the profile of an engineer or a rational person.


Dont need to be a structural engineer to tell that explosives HAD to be used in order to bring down all 3 of those buildings.
Just like one doesn't need to be a meteorologist in order to tell which way the wind is blowing.

Some things are just obvious and only require basic common sense.

For instance, common sense dictates that when over 1150 bodies get completely Vaporized, 1700+ others are blown into very tiny fragments (more than 20,000 collected) that fit into Test Tubes, more than 500 tiny Bone Fragments are found on buildings across the street from the WTC.
Only 12 people out of almost 3000 were identifiable without DNA testing and those bodies were outside the buildings.

Now do I need a structural engineer or demolition's expert to tell me that Explosives were used?

Hell No, common sense in this case is clear as a bell.

If the weatherman tells you during his weather report that there is no chance of rain today, yet you look out your window and it is raining, who ya going to believe?

The so called "expert" or your lying eyes?


I agree, I am not an expert either. But I have looked at demolition videos on youtube and google and to my untrained eye, building 7 collapse looks like the other videos. I admit that just looking like controlled demolition doesn't prove that it was controlled demolition.

But at a minimum, a reasonable person would say they look similar. I think that even the experts say that it looks like controlled demolition; You remember all the news casters that said it looked like controlled demolition.

poor dude cannot think for

poor dude cannot think for himself - needs to rely on other people for answers

Thinking for Yourself Requires Knowledge

No, the poor dude is the person who substitutes ignorance for knowledge. It is impossible to be an expert in several fields; it's hard to achieve competence in a single field. I don't claim to have original opinions on quantum physics, Boolean algebra, or molecular chemistry. I can't do any worthwhile "thinking for myself" in those specialties because I don't know enough.
You can't think for yourself in physics or structural engineering because you don't know enough. The trick in learning any subject is to figure out who the genuine authorities are and who are the crackpots.

so you wouldn't do your own

so you wouldn't do your own research in any topic unless you had a degree in it? give me a break ... this whole "experts" spiel is part of the "i am better than you" and "crackpot" mongering on your part.


Yes, doing research means learning something. To read Dr. Greening's papers, I had to dig out my college physics text. To get a sense of what's involved in the fantasists' controlled demolition myth, I had to do a great deal of reading on both rationalist and fantasist sites. I return to my earlier comment that it is necessary to distinguish the real authorities from the quacks.

9/11 Truthers


9/11 Truthers have always made it quite clear that physical evidence that does not fit their conclusions is always suspect. They do not believe in consulting experts in any relevant field. They have said so repeatedly for years.

They do not believe structural enginneers despite the overwhelming and unrefuted evidence. But they will believe a physics professor who has no training in structural engineering as if he were God (Steven Jones.)

They will not believe any relevant data that conclusively and overwhelmingly shows that Arab hijackers, under the orders and leadership of bin Laden, hijacked 4 airliners, crashed 3 of them into buildings, the 4th overtaken by passengers before it could hit any structure. But they are happy to not only believe crackpot conspiracists, but continue to repeat debunked data year after year.

As we know, 9/11 Truthers can never refute the evdience against them. They will continue to push the party line even as bin Laden comes after them with a machete.

Remember, Pomeroo, 9/11 Truthers will never stop denying the truth no matter how much you keep honestly presenting it to them.

Good job trying your best, however.


You refused to even address the point I made. Read the PM book for yourself. I did. I also showed how the PM book proves CD. How, exactly, is my logic less than unassailable?

Just as you did in a previous thread, you offer absolutely no analysis of your own. You parrot official government pronunciations and state them as fact. You should try thinking for yourself for once.

Did you not see my direct quote from Mark Loizeaux stating that explosives would cause large amounts of dust and debris? Would you call him an "untrained eye"? I should hope not because PM presented him as a CD expert. Is Mark Louzeaux mistaken? Do explosives not produce large amounts of dust and debris?

You citation of the seismic data discussion is a red herring. It is unncessary to my logical argument based only on information contained in the PM book. Please do your best to refute the LOGIC, not the substance because I am assuming for purposes of my logical argument that the statements made in the PM book are fact. Your logical deconstruction please.

No Point

You didn't make a point and your "logic" is nonexistent. You can try reading the PM chapter again, or check, the section on WTC(Demolition). In particular, see Dr. Greening's paper on the collapse.

That was funny, Seve B.

You should gon a road show with that act. Why don't you start with a convention of structural engineers and demolition experts and see if you can entertain them too.

They'll surely get a good laugh.

P.S. If you have any qualified expert to back you up, let's see the data.

Why anyone likes John

Why anyone likes John McCain I can't fathom. He's sold his soul a long time ago, Now he is just dispicable.

Too bad the PM frauds weren't in the towers that day...

Then they could lie, I mean try, to debunk this:

Albert Turi, the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department, received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off...he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

— NBC News - September 11, 2001

Consider it Debunked

Consider it debunked. Turi strongly resents his words being twisted by conspiracy liars. But that won't stop you.

Here is an exact quote of NYC firefighter Albert Turi; "And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go."


The Futility of the Physical-Evidence Argument

The debate over the physical evidence, as exemplified by the Popular Mechanics propaganda and the response thereto, is a futile go-nowhere argument in which both sides trot out their experts, impugn each other's statements, and heap doubt on the expertise of the other side's experts. Ultimately it degenerates into acid name-calling, as we can see here.

Quite simply, there is hardly anything in the way of physical evidence to examine because Bush destroyed as much as he could, as fast as he could. That was a very clever move on his part (and a crime in itself, but that is another story), and it leaves us with hardly anything to go on. Proponents of the official story know this, and that is why they constantly bait us with this argument. This saps the energy of the 9/11 truth movement and wastes our time by dragging us into these interminable and fruitless debates about why the towers fell, what really hit the Pentagon, and whatnot.

Fortunately, we have a huge arsenal of smoking guns in the form of highly damning circumstantial evidence which all points to the complicity of US elites. Unfortunately, the 9/11 truth movement, bewitched by the sexiness of photographic analysis and calculations on the speed of physical bodies in free fall, sorely neglect this powerful evidence.

Instead of taking this debunker bait, the 9/11 truth movement should mount its own challenge with the circumstantial evidence. Avoid getting into quicksand-like arguments abou the towers, and confront debunkers with evidence for powerful motives:

1. Money! And there is a helluva lot as regards 9/11. Insider trading, payoff from destruction of WTC buildings, missing gold and negotiables ("lost" in the fires!), and indirect benefit from destruction of incriminating records, to name a few. One of the biggest payoffs for connected elites is the gravy train of defense and "homeland security" contracts that left the station on 9/11. That train just gets longer and longer. It's no exaggeration to say that 9/11 is one of the biggest financial scams of all time.

2. Drugs! The Taliban had almost wiped out poppy production. This was a huge blow to the Western financial system, which is propped up by dirty money from drugs, arms, slavery, the illegal wildlife trade, and what have you. 9/11 provided a good pretext to drive out the Taliban and get opium back into production, thereby giving the banking system a good "shot in the arm," so to speak. Getting US troops into Afghanistan also helps re-assert control over drug-smugging routes.

3. Oil! The 9/11-initiated "war on terror" has served as an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran coming up! Oil and gas fields and pipelines, anyone? Big contracts for energy companies! The "national security state" created by 9/11 serves as the excuse for this belligerence.

4. Fascism! How to make Americans allow their country to turn into a fascist police state? It's easy: fear sells. Create a "terrorist threat" that is so big and evil-looking that it trumps everything else. 9/11 (and other subsequent "terror" hoaxes) have done just that. America has been terrorized into accepting the Patriot Act and other totalitarian curbs on freedom and privacy. It was brilliant. Now more concentration camps and a wall between the US and Mexico are being built (another gravy train freight car loaded with money).

You too can spend fun hours finding more motives!

How about means? Probably our best evidence is the war games that diverted and incapacitated air defenses. Why is it that debunkers relish arguing about the physical evidence but don't want to discuss the war games? This gun smokes like the twin towers!

In sum, follow the money -- and the drugs, oil, and political results to see what 9/11 is all about. We have plenty of ammunition in the form of known and verifiable facts, so why wear ourselves out in speculative arguments about non-existent physical evidence?

False Premise

You pretend that a serious debate is taking place. Completely untrue.The rationalists have ALL the experts and ALL the evidence. The conspiracy liars have nothing. There is ZERO evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to suggest that the American government attacked its own institutions and overwhelming evidence to show that the attacks of 9/11/01 were perpetrated by highly motivated, well-prepared jihadists.


I have a question that has been bothering me. You agree that the people that paid for 911 should be pursued. There are foreign news reports that say that the ISI paid money to Atta. This is disturbing. You agree that the people that funded 911 should be pursued. Right?

9/11 money from Pakistan

Good point from Truth for a Change, and this is still more powerful evidence of US complicity. The US regime has never been able to deny that Pakistan wired Atta $100,000 shortly before 9/11. The transfer was ordered by General Mahmud Ahmad, who was dining with Congressional leaders while 9/11 was taking place. The FBI was forced to admit that they had known about the transfer before 9/11.


As Pakistan propped up the Taliban and was most definitely no friend of ours, what the hell are we talking about? Of course, Pakistanis helped al Qaeda. Where does American complicity fit in?


I'm not sure it does. But if you are agreeing that ISI paid Atta, then I am sure you agree with me that the people that paid Atta should be tracked down and prosecuted. This is cool, we both agree on this. I suggest you use your contacts to push for an investigation of this. Of course all this begs the question, what the hell are we doing in Iraq if the ISI paid for 911.

I do wish that some of the

I do wish that some of the actual 9/11 truth movement members here would actually read up on government disinfo and disruption/propaganda methods. Pom and Mormon what his face are perfect examples of right wing idealogues/probable shills/trolls with the express purpose of disrupting honest discussion of the issues here. (of course some of them also exhibit the behavior of delusional disordered and/or obsessives as I have previously commented) They know how to push your hot buttons and they know how to promote dissention. Try to learn how to control your emotional responses to their incitements. It is impossible to argue with folks who will Never accept the possibility of any view on anything being true other than their own. And their goal is to disrupt.

In other words, let the trolls argue among themselves. Remember that some of those responding to trolls are themselves trolls. That's how they get things going. I know many of you already know this stuff but I do get tired of having to wade through nonsense created by these cretins to find posts of interest. Their insertions certainly are not.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt>

This is an ongoing issue.

The problem is, that there is a certain amount of entertainment value in interacting with trolls, to which almost all of us succumb from time to time. (BTW, they are not "probable trolls," they are TROLLS. Their rhetorical style is so distinctive, predictable, and utterly lacking in creativity that on many occasions I have wondered how hard it would be to create a "trollbot" -- an artificial device that would be simply be cued by language in posts and respond with a very limited vocabulary, both in the literal linguistic sense and in the broader conceptual one.)

Occasionally, someone will become alarmed by the presence of trolls. Usually this alarm is based on the idea that a "newbie" here is going to read a trollpost and become confused or be swayed by their anti-logic. This kind of reaction is a more serious problem than toying with the trolls, because in general more of an investment of time and emotion results than from simply poking them with sharp sticks for laughs. Fellow posters who fall victim to the mistaken belief that we must rescue newbies from trollism just need to be reminded that it took the average truther among us about five minutes or so to see through them.

So, play with trolls if you must, poke them, prod them, tickle their chubby little tummies. Then get back to work.

I do agree, though, medicis, that especially at times like this (the past week, perhaps?) when the trolls are springing up like mushrooms in a cow pasture, scrolling past post after post of theirs gets tiresome.

Do you have any websites

Do you have any websites that go into detail about government disinfo and disruption/propaganda methods? I've been sucked into a couple of debates with these folks. You end up feeling like a dog chasing it's tail.

debunk popular mechanics?!

This book is laughable. There's like 2 total pages on building 7 and in it they say that an invesitgation is still underway and the results will be released in fall of 2006. So you mean to tell me that after 5 years we still don't know why the first modern steel structure to completely collapse that wasn't hit by an airplane in history? Doesn't anyone want to know?
Next they mention the infamous Silverstein quote and say the tired excuse that he was talking about the fire team. There's numerous problems with this:

-Why would he refer to the firefighters as 'IT'. Who talks like that?
-Why would the fire chief be calling a building owner about pulling firefighters out of a building?
-Why would firefighters be fighting a building with minimal fires when surrounding buildings were more damaged with stronger fires on the day of 9/11, the worst attack on American soil.
-Why does the official story state that there was no fire fighting in building 7?
-Why would Silverstein say "Then we sat back and watched the building collapse"? Why would pulling the team out make the building collapse? You mean to tell me that they made the decision to pull the fire team out just before the building collapsed? Why would they finally make this decision at 5 pm?

Coburn of Popular Mechanics, on a radio show, claimed that he has seen photos of building 7 where one quarter of the building is clearly missing but could not use them in his book. He said the pictures were not available to the public but he did not know why. Why would there be a SINGLE reason for these pictures not to be released (if they even exist) to finally show how the building may have collapsed? (assuming you think a building implodes on itself when missing a quarter.) Funny how all angles are clearly photographed except the one with a big chunk supposedly ripped out of it.

Why not release the tons of video evidence that should be available of the Pentagon flight? Everyone can see that the intial impact hole was NOT any where close to 80 or 90 feet. And if the plane evaporated on impact, why is there punture holes in two of the Pentagon's rings? They say the landing gear caused it but wouldn't this be incinerated as well? Surely if two 6 ton titanium engines could evaporate, anything could. What sense would it make AT ALL to fly level with the ground and plunge straight into the wall (the renovated side of course) instead of dive-bombing into the center of the building and not risking a great chance of hitting the ground (if the plane was officially going 500 mph).

Just a few of the many unanswerable questions...
PS: Its hilarous how the Coincidence theorists call the truth seekers "liars" when they are upholding the story of some of the biggest liars in history who seem to have a new lie come out every week. What motivation would all the millions of us have to lie about this event? What motavation would the most powerful nation's rulers have to lie? Ummm...only power, money and land.

I'm not disrupting

I'm not disrupting anything.

I'm here because my my religion teaches me ti value freedom, justice and truth.

And if I don't stand up for these things, who will?

Let's Hear It

This fraud ran away from a different thread when his pretensions were exposed. We can dismiss his vacuous blather and ask him to show what he's got. What does the fantasy movement bring to the table? So far, I've seen nothing but bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies. Let's see the goods.

Must be quite frustrating to be seen through.

fraud pretensions exposed dismiss vacuous blather fantasy bogus distorted lies

Empty Rhetoric

The standard leftist trope. Try to remember which one of us employs logic and evidence (hint: it ain't you). You can't expose anything with nothing, and nothing is what you offer.

Let's hear again what the conspiracy liars bring to the table. What have you got?

Debunking Popular Mechanics

New York Times, 29 Nov 2001 -
"Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC" "Steel members have been partly evaporated"
Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of the nearby 47-story two-million square-foot building (WTC 7). Experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened."

This isn't rocket science, you don't have to be a physicist or a structual engineer to be able to tell something is wrong with the "Official" story. There's only two alternatives - either the collapse's were uncontrolled or they were controlled. There's a subset of behaviors for each of these that have been documented by videos and photos of previous instances of both uncontrolled and controlled collapse's.

The behavior characteristics of uncontrolled collapses are tilting, sagging, bending as not all support-columns fail simultaneously, thus making the collapse asymmetrical. The behavior characteristics of controlled collapses are synchronized, uniform, symmetrical.

You pretty much have to suspend all of the previous evidence of building collapses to buy into the "Official" story. They fit as controlled collapses based upon previous building collapses, they don't fit as uncontrolled collapses, none of what is seen in the videos or photos match up with any previous uncontrolled collapse. No expert needs to tell me that, thats just a simple fact.

"The proof that 9/11 was an 'inside job' is not that the buildings collapsed, it is that all of the major structural components of these buildings collapsed at exactly the same instant. The east, west, north and south sides of all three buildings collapsed at once in perfect synchronization. The perfectly symmetrical descent of the three buildings is a sure sign these collapses were controlled, especially considering the non-symmetrical impact damage and fires."

No Great Mystery

No, engineers are not "baffled." They have a very good idea of the mechanism of WTC 7's collapse. The preliminary NIST report explains it, it is explained in the Popular Mechanics book, and sites such as and have abundant material on WTC 7.
When the comprehensive NIST report is issued, the fantasists will pretend that there's something wrong with it. They won't tell us, however, what that might be.

So it takes 5 years to

So it takes 5 years to finish a report on why a building fell? I can't wait to hear what they say!
I love how coincidence theorists always say that building 7's collapse was normal and that, although their "experts" can't come up with a common answer that makes any sense, they know exactly what happened.
Shouldn't we all know exactly what happened 5 years after especially when the owner hints at it blowing up and tons of experts saying it was controlled demolition?


That qoute came from the New York Times. Of course their baffled. The collapsed symetrically which is what happens in a controlled demolitiion not an uncontrolled demolition. Maybe this is just another one of the many coincidences of that day, huh? Just because you say they aren't doesn't stop the fact that the NY Times printed this story. If your so convinced that they have a very good idea of the mechanism of the collapse of any of the buildings I'd like to see it here instead of you citing PM. Bring the section from PM here so we can see it. What does PM say caused collapse initiation for any of the buildings? Show it to us.