Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue
its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims
to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics
who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism,
shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.
It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation.
As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph
Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics
hasn't bucked that tradition.
The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and
new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror'
operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and
defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future
Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct
a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?
Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking
9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents
of the official 9/11 fairytale.
Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream
media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed
that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael
Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would
receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation
of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that
his own cousin now heads.
This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the
article before one has even turned the first page.
The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth
community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are
erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.
One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in
the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the
decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America:
golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."
As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent
rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published
report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin
that is one of PM's cited experts!"
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols
462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000
to June 2001, Martin said."
The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war
games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel
as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the
recent release of the NORAD
A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters
and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell,
squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point,
and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.
The article was released before analysis
conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite
in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.
"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples -
we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic
of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly,
it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.
The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge
the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before
9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts
and not collapse.
to view video
The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were
found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.
The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is
glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing
that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented
in world history aside from three examples in one single day.
Commenting on his own interview for the magazine piece, Alex Jones said that
initially he thought it was a fake interview or a crank call. Jones has given
hundreds of TV and print interviews and thousands of radio interviews but his
experience with Benjamin Chertoff was like no other.
"People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious,"
Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office and verify that Chertoff actually
worked for them. In the course of doing so he was erroneously told by Editor
in Chief James Meigs that the story was not going to be a hit piece and that
it was simply intended to explore the different theories surrounding 9/11.
In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted an article that Jones had posted
on his website about incendiary devices in the World Trade Center.
Jones' websites feature a cross-section of mainstream and alternative media
articles. An article written by Jones himself is clearly labeled as such.
The magazine had contacted the individuals featured in the article who told
them that they had never spoken to Jones. The article was clearly attributed
to its orginal author - Randy Lavello - and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked
Popular Mechanics if they were going to contact the individuals again and ask
if they had spoken with the original author, they dropped the subject.
As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly packaged dross, the book 'Debunking
9/11 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor (watch
to view video
Meigs and O'Reilly need to be reminded that constantly parroting the word "fact,"
without presenting any actual evidence, does not make something a fact.
Meigs contradicts himself completely in claiming that, "No one had ever
seen a one hundred plus story building collapse to the ground before,"
and yet less than two minutes later agrees with O'Reilly's comment that nothing
unexpected about the impact of the planes or the collapses surprised analysts.
Meigs concurs that it's an unprecedented event and yet claims that analysts
knew exactly what was going to happen. How could they have known the ins and
outs of an event that had never happened before?
Meigs calls the WTC implosion, "The most closely studied collapse in world
history," yet fails to address the fact that 50,000 tons of steel from
the WTC, a supposed crime scene, was shipped
to Asia and a further 10,000 tons to India, preventing a detailed analysis.
Meigs, citing opinions of engineers, bizarrely states that, "The real
surprise is that the building stood up as long as it did."
In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over
24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the
building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially
more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned
incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which
were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both
collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should
have collapsed sooner!
Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation is "not political,"
and yet the foreword
to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator John McCain.
In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that
relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did.
"We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our
attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.
Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban
kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul is secure, malnutrition amongst children
is the highest in the world outside Africa, and opium production is at record
levels. Bellicose statements about chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat
contradicted by the fact that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent
and outgoing CIA director AB “Buzzy” Krongard told
the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this with President
Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned about him,"
and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.
McCain also uses the callous tactic of saying that questioning the government's
version of 9/11 insults the victims and this is also parroted in the Popular
Mechanics magazine piece.
Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family
to say on this subject.
"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11
Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.
"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at
all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."
Doyle said that half of the family members - relatives of the 9/11 victims
- he represents thought that the US government was complicit in 9/11.
Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics to whitewash government complicity
in 9/11 via a front page feature story and a new book, recent polls clearly
show an increasing trend towards a rejection of the official version of events.
If we are to set aside the 30%
of Americans that do not even know the year in which September 11 happened,
then we are left with figures of around 36%
who agree that the government was involved in the attack and only 34% of
Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place that still think
it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19
incompetent morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on a
kidney dialysis machine.
Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication,
but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are
willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted
in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a
result of how the attack changed US foreign policy.
Read from Looking Glass News
cousin, McCain team up for 9/11 disinfo blitz
Towers wreckage turning up all over the place
Chertoff: of the Devil?
CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER: PRESIDENT JOHN McCAIN
is out to catch Osama McLaden
Commission Admits: All Politics
Questions Avoided by Corporate Media concerning DoD Lies & 9/11 Commission
"Conspiracy Theorists" Vindicated: Pentagon deliberately misled Public
Tapes Only Intensify Implausibility Of 9/11 Official Story
reasons to question the official story of 9/11
Reasons to Question the Official 9/11 Story
: ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION
Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask
9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales
Commission report is a lie
Commission continues cover-up, circles wagons for stumbling empire
Commission - Forgedda Boudit
Rice/Zelikow Connection: The Kean Commission and its Conflicts of Interest
- Look Inside The 911 Smoke Plume
The Myth and the Reality
Destruction of the World Trade Center
Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
a Plane Into the World Trade Center?
Evidence that Official 9/11 Story is a Lie
1975 World Trade Center Fire
Implosion Looks Like WTC Collapse
gas tanks' demolition foreshadows Twin Towers' demolition
Times at the Pentagon
911 Witness - Interview with April Gallop
Papers Author Daniel Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11
Aicraft Registry Oddities
Pentagon eyewitness IDs Global Hawk
Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?
Animation showing military precision of flight paths
of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits