Letter to James Meigs
As a preface, I must say I am absolutely itching to receive my copy of David Ray Griffin's new book in the mail. Popular Mechanics' role as an arm of propaganda is rearing its ugly head again. Now that Rosie has come forward, along comes Popular Mechanics to "rebut" her. Most of the media is buying in to the PM rebuttal. For example, in response to Rosie's "Bring on a structural engineer!", one news article says: "But what Rosie and the conspiracy theorists overlook is that Popular Mechanics Magazine contacted many experts and have done a thorough investigation that answers the theorists' questions."
On the Randi Rhodes (Air America) 9/11 forum, a poster by the name of "Ohio Girl" made the following comment:
"Oh gosh. This again!!! I think in the end, people will believe what they CHOOSE to believe. I read a very interesting article in popular mechanics that debunked several of the theories. I would expect Popular Mechanics to be pretty unbiased."
This represented a kind of "last straw" exasperation for me. I e-mailed PM the following letter, then I posted it on Randi Rhodes in order to clue "Ohio Girl." Since it is a well-written letter (if I say so myself) I thought I'd post it here too.
Naturally, I have yet to hear from Popular Mechanics.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Meigs and all other Popular Mechanics editors:
Your "Debunking 9/11 Myths" book is sheer propaganda for those grasping at straws. Just in case you guys think "we, the people" are too stupid to see through you, let me show you why most of us realize your book is a fraud. First, let me refer you to Mr. Meigs' afterword:
"A common refrain in conspiracy circles is the claim that 'We’re just asking questions.' One would think that at least some quarters of the conspiracy movement might welcome a mainstream publication’s serious, nonideological attempt to answer those questions. One would be wrong."
Thing is, even though you guys are a "mainstream" (i.e. corporate controlled) publication, your own invective is anything but neutral and non-ideological. Your own introduction to the 2005 article proves this:
"We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists... Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media."
Healthy 9/11 skeptics such as myself do take personal offense to being labelled "paranoid." The fact that James Meigs uses such language in his introduction shows that his mind is already made up: To suggest government involvement in 9/11 smacks of paranoia. Any cherry-picked "facts" in the book serve to support this pre-determined conclusion that only 19 Muslim hijackers were responsible. The book often references the 9/11 Commission Report, which itself has been debunked a million times over by the TRUE 9/11 skeptics community.
In addition, healthy 9/11 skeptics, including the Jersey Girls (9/11 widows) take offense to your use of John McCain. This itself debunks your absurd claim that the book is "non-political" and "non-ideological." When McCain tells myself, countless other citizens, and especially the Jersey Girls that "Blaming some conspiracy within our government mars the memories of the victims," it makes our blood boil. He then parrots about our military's "achievements" since 9/11, achievements which require, at least in the case of Afghanistan, the events of 9/11 to have happened the way we were told.
It's also telling that your original magazine article was March 2005, before Steven Jones entered the scene. If I were heading a non-ideological investigation, I would be genuinely intruiged by Dr. Jones' findings of thermate traces on WTC steel samples he was able to acquire. Instead, as soon as Steven Jones has given the 9/11 Truth Movement much more respectability, credibility and visibility in mid 2006, along comes Popular Mechanics again, bigger and better than before, with their magazine now expanded into a BOOK! And from reading the book and listening to radio interviews, it's all too clear that you're eager to discredit Jones no matter what he says.
To conclude: We the People are not as stupid as you guys think. The reason your "investigation" has been met with anger by "conspiracy theorists" is because you guys exhibit all the very characteristics of which you accuse "conspiracy theorists:" A pre-determined conclusion, limited cherrypicking of data to support your conclusion, and a personal smearing of all who disagree with you.
You guys already know you're propagandists. I'm sure many, many others have called you on the points I've made in this letter. I'm just adding on my two cents for the strength in numbers factor. Shame on you folks.
_____________________________________________________________________________
- Adam Syed's blog
- Login to post comments
Excellent letter
Thanks for sharing it here. What needs to exposed about Popular Mechanics is the fact that they're a Hearst publication with a dubious record of firings from the staff (I don't have links available, but I've heard this over and over) -- anyway, the staff was apparently replaced by yes-men and yes-women who now carry the torch (i.e. lie) for the government. I doubt they're sincere in what they say -- I expect they know they're lying and either covering their asses or scared to death. If not, they're in some seriously deep denial.
The other thing about Popular Mechanics is that they supposedly are dealing with things like lawn mowers and such. Not exactly physics and thermodynamics, if you know what I mean. I believe it was Webster Tarpley who pointed this out, although don't quote me on that -- someone noteworthy did point this out recently and I found it fascinating. Anyway, thanks again for sharing your fine letter. Make 'em squirm, that's what I'm talking about!
I think the second point is
I think the second point is one that needs to be made more often, CK. Somehow PM has become a mythical "Mechanical Engineering Journal of Science" regarding all things 9/11, and a reflexive reference for the debunking community
PM is basically an advertising vehicle aimed at Harry Homeowner. There is nothing inherently logical about choosing such a publication as PM to carry the debunking torch, beyond the right wing and administration ties and its reach to middle America; truth be told, "Car and Driver" carries as much mechanical authority (and better writing) for the barber shop set.
We need to point this out every time PM comes up as an authoritative source of info on 9/11. It amounts to a political editorial and a hit piece. It has the same circular premise as the Commission Report it was hired to defend, its tone is snide and sarcastic, and "Einstein" Meigs, as its spokespup, is not graced with expertise or authority in relevant disciplines. No one should swoon just because the word "mechanics" appears in the title; like I said, a car mag contains as much -- or more -- intellectual heft.
I know that Alex Jones frequently uses the Hearst angle, but I don't think it's as immediate an argument.
Nice Letter
Isn't it odd that Popular Mechanics thinks it necessary to publish an article in response to Rosie's claims? Have they become the official defenders of the official story now? Shouldn't that be NIST's job? PM is also stating that the twin towers hit WTC 7 with the force of a volcano! LOL!! Anybody know what the force of a volcano might be, and how to measure it? They're clutching at straws.
Your wasting your time.
Jim Meigs and PM, Already know what you said.
They are evil people. They are lying, They know there lying.
Jim Meigs and The rest of them Are truthers, They know its an inside job. They are not stupid. They are just lying.
They support Govt Spondered Terror, and are working to decieve america.
You cant reason with these types of bad.
They are very bad evil people.