9/11 conspiracies debunked by PopularMechanics.com

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

My biggest problem is, the article always says "we brought in an expert and said and did so and so".

 

There have been attempts to debunk every major conspiracy by the establishment media. It's like when Walter Cronkite was trotted out from retirement to "debunk" the JFK conspiracy in a televised special several years ago.

Most people who haven't been living under a rock have seen enough evidence to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the culprit of Kennedy's assassination, as we have been lead to believe for so many years.

After more than three years, most Americans still believe the "official" story of 9/11. However, at the same time, many people are waking up. A Zogby poll conducted in late August of '04 concluded that 49% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge of the attacks, and was complacent in allowing these attacks to occur.

A couple weeks later, an online CNN poll conducted showed that 90% of the people who participated in the poll believed the government had foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks.

It comes as no surprise to me that the Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics all of a sudden comes out of the woodwork with their hand-picked "experts," attempting to "debunk" the "blasphemous" 9/11 conspiracies.

If this was nothing more than conspiracy theorist BS, why would PM even take the time and effort to devote this topic as their cover story?

The fact is, more and more people are waking up, and the move is on to demonize anyone who questions the consensus reality of 9/11 as being "extremists," who are "exploiting the lives of those who died in the 9/11 attacks, as well as their families."

Basically, what they are saying is that if you question what the government tells you, despite having reason to question, you are a dangerous person with extremist views. So I guess that means I am just another Timothy McVeigh. Or so they want you to think.

Publications and articles like this have an agenda (just look who funds them) to sway those who are on the fence with the "official" 9/11 story. So what they do is compile a group of "experts" who accept the official story of 9/11, and will go along with what the proverbial gatekeepers want presented in the article. Anyone who doesn't accept the official, government-concocted story of what happend on 9/11 isn't allowed input.

Of course they didn't mention the numerous "experts" who don't except the official story of 9/11.

It's also funny that though the article claims to be based on the conclusions of a panel of experts, few of these experts are mentioned by name.

Of course groupthink dictates to someone that if one is an "expert" on something, they must also be the authority on it. That's why I have to chuckle every time the word "expert" is used. Experts are just assholes with opinions, like we all are.

What the PM article did was build a straw man scenario, where the most easily refutable pieces are presented, only to be easily knocked down by these so-called "experts."

Of course we heard nothing about the insider trading that took place in the days leading up to 9/11, the wargame exercises taking place on the morning of 9/11, the forewarning not to fly on 9/11, that was given to prolific government officials (ie: San Francisco mayor Wille Brown), the admission of WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein that WTC-7 was "pulled," and the stand-down of NORAD and our air defense system...

I could go on if I wanted to.

The PM article conveniently ignores all of this. Instead, it focuses on the puffs of dust released as the towers collapsed, and the Flight 175 "plane pod." All of this can easily be disputed.

In the more relevant areas, like the shoot-down of Flight 93, PM stoops as low as falsifying information, saying that debris was found no more than 1.5 miles from the alleged crash site, when mainstream news articles actually reported debris being scattered along a 7-mile radius.

I won't even mention Rumsfeld's freudian slips, where he has twice accidentally stated in press conferences that Flight 93 was "shot down."

Through a combination of straw man arguments, ignored facts and falsified information, Popular Mechanics presents us with their "answer" to the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Tonight, on NPR news, there was a debate between the writer of this article and Alex Jones. Unfortunately, I missed this debate, though I am hoping Jones will air it on his show tomorrow. He also plans having the guy on his show, so I am interested to hear what will come of all of this.

 

Neither of these suggest Americans thought it was a conspiracy. It just means that they there were clues which a better run anti-terrorist intelligence operation may have pieced together.

You belong to a small fringe group of conspiracy theorists which constantly misquote these statistics in an attempt to present themselves as mainstream.

 

Actually PointBreak, The Poll asked if you think that the government had foreknowladge and CONCIOUSLY failed to act, and 49% of New Yorkers said yes.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

All he's saying is that people are waking up to the fact that our government is not innocent in these attacks. Whether or not they believe so to the degree that Pressed_Rat or I believe is irrelevant. What matters is that they've begun opened their eyes and can, in time, fully open them.

 

pressed_rat, ive never read one of your posts i didnt like (although they do make me somewhat angry)