http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=696954944242794813

From PUMPITOUT.COM:
" This is a rough cut of an up comming series on "Debunking Popular Mechanics". The 911 book they released was researched by "suspicious chatacters" and just added to the controversy and questions that already sourround 911. This is an attemp to try and set the record straight with facts. It will prove that NORAD was not the "bubbling idiots" that Popular Mechanics would like to portray them as........ www.pumpitout.com -- recorded for historical accuracy 013007 - 013107"

I wrote this review for Amazon on December 19, and it did not get posted for a whole month!

*********************************************************************************

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.

Popular Mechanics magazine has been debunking 9/11 myths for some time. chuckle, chuckle. For those of you that have read the articles and/or the book, what parts did they get right and why do you believe they are true?
If you've read any of my diaries then you probably have figured out that I don't rule out anything. I don't believe we've been given enough information to rule out anything and we've been given plenty of disinfo by means of phony witnesses and doctored photos/video.
I believe the only way that we get to the truth is to get people on the stand and cross examine them with the all the evidence declassified which will never happen.
I also believe it's okay if we don't get all the information because as Frank Loyd Wright famously said "the truth is more important than the facts."
Please share your thoughts and be specific.

PM "Researchers" Benjamin Chertoff & Davin Coburn can't agree on what the term "Pull it" means

Audio from PUMPITOUT.COM:
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/debunking_popular_mechanics.mp3

From the link above:

Benjamin Chertoff, Researcher for Popular Mechanics, on Coast to Coast AM - March 5, 2005:

I'm glad somebody brought up the Larry Silverstein comment, because we certainly looked at that... What he says is "they decided to pull" which is referring to the fire department. And of course in some circles of the controlled demolition industry "Pull" is used to mean that you actually demolish a building.

Just over a year later, Popular Mechanics changes their story...

Davin Coburn, Researcher for Popular Mechanics, on The Charles Goyette Show - August 23, 2006:

Having spoken to any number of large controlled demolition firms... the term "Pull it" is not a demolition term... We have never heard it used that way and neither actually have the people who do this professionally that we spoke to.(More after jump...)

Another feeble attempt to cover up the truth of 911.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/251006Mechanics.htm

The Conspiracy Industry - popularmechanics.com

On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for global domination. It was on that day the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, with its cover story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, hit newsstands. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs—which calls itself the “9/11 Truth Movement”—was aflame with wild fantasies about me and my staff, the magazine I edit, and the article we had published. The Web site www.911research.wtc7.net, an organization that claims that questioning the “official” story of 9/11 is “an act of responsible citizenship,” fired one of the first salvos: “Popular Mechanics Attacks Its 9/11 LIES Straw Man,” read the headline of a piece by a leading conspiracy theorist named Jim Hoffman. We had begun our plunge down the rabbit hole. Within hours, a post on www.portland.indymedia.org, which claims to be dedicated to “radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth,” called me “James Meigs the Coward and Traitor.” Not long afterward, another prominent conspiracy theorist produced an analysis that concluded that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization. Invective and threats soon clogged the comments section of our Web site and poured in by e-mail: I was amused at your attempts to prove the conspirator theorists wrong by your interviewing people who work for the government. Face it: The U.S. government planned this attack to further its own agenda in the Middle East.

Rest assured, puppet boys . . . when the hammer comes down about the biggest crime ever perpetrated in the history of man—AND IT WILL—it will be VERY easy to identify the co-conspirators by their flimsy, awkwardly ignorant of reality magazine articles. Keep that in mind the next time you align yourself with evil scum. YOU HAVE DECLARD YOURSELF ENEMY OF AMERICANS AND FRIEND OF THE MOSSAD!

I shouldn’t have been surprised. In researching the article we’d spent enough time studying the conspiracy movement to get a feel for its style: the tone of outraged patriotism, the apocalyptic rhetoric, the casual use of invective. 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. .. The American public has every right to demand answers and all too many reasons to lack confidence in the government. Sadly, in such a climate, the fantasies of 9/11 conspiracists provide a seductive alternative to facing the hard facts and difficult choices of our time.

(visit the link for the full text) thanks Anders (and others) for the heads up!

I want to exclaim victory for myself against Paul the Architect. Paul was bragging he was an Architect and could prove the pancake theory held up under scrunity. After 2 exchanges. Paul has cut and run. Another one bites the dust.

I have to hand it to Paul. It is the most serious debate that I have ever, ever, been able to get an official story supporter to go in their argument. Most of the time they stoop to name calling and saying you are a "nut job" and that's their defense.

Paul attempted to use logic to win his point. Obviously, the argument is to weak to stand up to even a mild debate.

If anyone is interested. Here is the debate.
http://911blogger.com/node/3655

Hello again, Gary, and thank you for your lengthly response. I appreciate the time you spent writing it, and I appreciate your replys to specific points I made. To save time, I copied and pasted your posting below. My responses are in ALL CAPS so you can differentiate at a glance between your words and mine. (I'm not using the capital letters in order to appear to be shouting.)

Hi Paul,

You seem sincere. So you ready to have a real debate? YES, THANK YOU.
No name calling. AMEN, GARY. Let's stick to arguing our points. LET'S.

OK, let's look more closely at your 3 so-called facts in your 1st paragraph above. "SO-CALLED?" FACTS ARE FACTS.

1. Many steel columns were severed by the planes collisions, leaving a heavier load on those left in place.

YES, THIS IS A FACT. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THE INCREASED LOADS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDING, BUT THE LOADS WERE IN FACT INCREASED. IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.

(I DIDN'T TYPE "IT'S." I TYPED "ITS." THE FORMER IS A CONTRACTION FOR "IT IS," THE LATTER IS POSESSIVE FOR "IT." I'M NOT TRYING TO RIDICULE, BUT INFORM. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON PUNCTUATION ERROR IN ENGLISH. I MAKE LINGUISTIC ERRORS, TOO, SO PLEASE ADVISE ME - LIKE JON DID - SHOULD YOU FIND ANY.) YES, THAT IS WHAT HEAT DOES TO STEEL. AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE THAT THE HEAT INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE STEEL ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. BUT YOU CAN NOT FACTUALLY STATE THAT THE STEEL DID LOT LOSE STRENGTH.

Here's the Methaddicts' lie about the molten steel.  This pretty much amounts to their claim: the steel melted because the rubble piles were insulated from the atmosphere and so the temperatures kept rising up to the point at which the steel melted.  Yep.  They claim they heard this from three experts, yet the paragraph is cleverly embedded so that one may not notice that the three allegedly making this claim are not in fact the three experts mentioned in the subsequent paragraphs, who are named and make much more reasonable and less relevant claims themselves.  I would eat Davin Coburn's hat if the three named experts were to claim they were responsible for the absurd "pressure cooker" theory of the molten steel in the rubble piles, or if PM actually would deign to name the sources who really did make these absurd claims which are patently false.  I may not have the time, so I encourage others to run with this straight at PM and their cult-like following, including John McCain.

Ignoring the evidence, conspiracy theorists invent elaborate 9/11 fantasies. America has much to learn from the events of 9/11, but conspiracy mongering poisons the discourse and dishonors the victims of a national tragedy.

Source: popularmechanics.com

Please be sure to read "Popular Mechanics Debunked", and "You're Dishonoring The Family Members".

By Senator John McCain
Published in the September, 2006 issue.

No American living today will forget what happened on September 11, 2001. Each of us will remember how the serenity of that bright morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity, an act so hostile we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it. The realization sank into the heart of every one of us: America was vulnerable and under attack. On September 11, evil literally took flight.

I'm not even 6 pages into the beginning of the book, and twice they've discussed Alex Jones and twice they've only talked about his Charlie Sheen interview, never mind all the experts that have come on The Alex Jones show, or Stanley Hilton, the man suing the Administration on behalf on 9/11 families. No, let's attack Charlie Sheen, an actor. Thank you, Charlie Sheen for the sacrifice of your career because you have now become the official scapegoat that all the 9/11 Truth skeptics get to point and laugh at to make the rest of us look ridiculous.

Also, the book has already twice referred to Iran President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, letter to George W. Bush in May 2006, claiming that the American government was involved in organizing the attack. Are we truthers now being compared to him? I'm sure that comparison has absolutely NOTHING to do with the impending strike on Iran. Oops, there I go being paranoid again.

Also, it discusses the hijacker's training, especially focusing on our friend, Hani Hanjour, the man who pulled off the incredible 330 degree loop-de-loop, descending 7,000 feet in 2 1/2 minutes to crash American 77 into the Pentagon after tearing 5 light posts completely out of the ground. Not once does it mention the 9/14/01 MSNBC or CNN news reports of the hijackers training at secure military bases. Guess they missed those two. If you don’t believe me, go to my website at www.myspace.com/911thebiglie and go to my videos, bring up ALL my videos, there are 20 or so, and click on the CNN report about hijackers training at U.S. military bases. You can also search the web for the MSNBC report that talked about them training at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. Thank Alex Jones for bringing that one to light.

By Jon Gold
9/26/2006

A few weeks ago, I went into a Barnes & Noble looking for Barrie Zwicker's latest book, "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11."

Before I got to the counter to ask if they had it in stock, I saw several copies of Popular Mechanics' new John McCain endorsed book called, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." They had them prominently displayed so everyone could see them.

Holding back an "upchuck", I walked up to the counter, and asked the girl if they had any of Barrie's book in stock. As it turned out, they didn't. They were nice enough to order me a copy.

While I was there, I do what I always do in a book store. I looked for books by authors within the 9/11 Truth Movement. I was able to find one copy of Michael Ruppert's book, but nothing else.

Admittedly, I have never read Popular Mechanics' book. Wait a second. What's Jon pulling? How can he debunk a book without even reading it?

Exert from Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 by Peter Meyer

The question of whether the fires provided sufficient explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers was addressed by several people soon after the event, and it was shown that this was not a sufficient explanation, but Popular Mechanics ignored these analyses (if it was ever aware of them). For example, over three years ago, on 2001-11-25 Carol Valentine published J. McMichael's Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics (also available on this website: Part I and Part II). Popular Mechanics' "experts" were apparently unaware of the points to which J. McMichael drew attention (or perhaps they were aware but Popular Mechanics chose to ignore things like this):

• The fires in the Twin Towers were not raging infernos. They gave off lots of black, sooty smoke, indicating an oxygen-poor fire. Oxygen-poor fires do not produce high temperatures.
  
• The Boeings which allegedly hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

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

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 Instapundit.com, takes time away from equating the people of Lebanon with Nazis (see Instapundit.com, 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!

At recent community events that our group has passing out information. We have had a number of people using the Popular Mechanics article has support for their view. Being the outstanding backer of real science you know. I found this old article. Some of you might not have seen. I had not.

THE HIDDEN HAND OF THE CIA - 9/11 and Popular Mechanics

Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>

Date: Thursday, 17 March 2005, 8:29
p.m.

THE HIDDEN HAND OF THE C.I.A.

AND THE 9/11 PROPAGANDA

OF POPULAR MECHANICS

A brutal purge of the senior staff at Popular Mechanics preceded the publication of last month's scandalous propaganda piece about 9/11. Pulling the strings is the grand dame of Hearst Magazines and behind the scene is her obscure husband a veteran propaganda expert and former special assistant to the director of the C.I.A.