Popular Mechanics March 2005

Cover story: Debunking 9/11 myths. Answers questions about the lack of air defense and the tensile strength of steel at 1800 degrees. I don’t remember any dancing Israelis, but I do remember large crowds of Muslims. Doesn’t particularly implicate either one.

I also remember that al-Qaeda members attempted to blow up the towers in 1993, and that one of the terrorists went to school right up the road from me.

Advertisements
Posted in 9/11. 10 Comments »

10 Responses to “Popular Mechanics March 2005”

  1. scottie Says:

    The 1993 event and the 2001 events are different issues.

    What data in the first post do you challenge?

  2. scottie Says:

    The Popular Mechanics article has been attacked by the 9-11 truth movement.

    I read that article a while back.

    Just do me a favor, Johnny B, when you have 90 minutes to spare.

    Just watch Loose Change. There is nothing contained in there that is not factual or verifiable.

    No conclusions are made until then end.

    For a better account , David Ray Griffin’s “A New Pearl Harbor” is very good. There is much info from Loose Change that David Ray Griffin does not discuss.

    90 minutes, and if after you watch it, you think I am way off, I will shut and post no more.

    But I am confident that you will see something very wrong with the official explanation.

  3. scottie Says:

    typo ” until the end”
    can’t type

  4. Logipundit Says:

    Heard about this film a year ago, but never watched it. Just did, and cannot imagine how this passes as evidence of anything. 90 percent of the film is comprised of one of three things:

    1) accounts of events that have absolutely no relationship to 9/11.

    2) live news coverage.

    3) scientific mumbo jumbo which has been thoroughly vetted by the above Popular Mechanics article.

    The other 10 percent are quotes that one little Google search will show as either taken out of context, exaggerated, or debunked.

    This “documentary” is so full of holes it’s not even funny. It’s SO full of holes that they keep on updating it to correct the mistakes from the previous version. Supposedly their theories change from version to version to accomodate everyone on the planet shooting holes in their research.

    The truth is, though, the second (and second cut of the second) spends more time trying to cover its legal behind than actually correcting any mistakes (as most of it is ripped off a French documentary on 9/11.)

    For an absolute myriad of debunking sites:

    Wikipedia article

    Scottie take a glance at some of these and tell us what you think.

  5. scottie Says:

    Butch,

    not to be contrary, but if you are talking about Loose Change, you must have watched a different video than I did.

    Like I said, standard protocol for intercepting aircraft was not followed on September 11. I guess you have a response to that. When Payne Stewart’s leer jet got offline, fighter jets were scrambled to observe. This happened within minutes of loss of radio contact and deviation from filed flight plan. This is a national security protocol. A leer jet !

    These were commercial airliners that were known to be hijacked and continued un-escorted, not for minutes, but for dozens of minutes.
    Why wasn’t national security protocol followed on September 11th? I know you will not hope that military incompetence is an appropriate response.

    Scientific mumbo jumbo …

    You should read The Oral Histories by David Ray Griffin. Are you going to refute that the firement inside the towers on Sept 11 all heard multiple periodic explosions? Are you saying that they are lying? Why did they have a gag order imposed?

    Either Willie Brown did not get on the plane that day or he did. If he did not, then speculations occur. But he wasn’t on the plane he was scheduled to be on. Ariel Sharon was supposed to deliver a speech on Sept 11 in NYC or Jersey, I forget. He cancelled his plans on Sept. 10. These are facts dude. If you dispute them, then counter with evidence.

    In July 2001, bin Laden did receive treatment from the American Hospital in Dubai for an ailing kidney. He was visited by the CIA station chief. This was all attested to by members of the hospital. I guess you claim these doctors and nurses are in on a conspiracy to spread rumors about this visit. This was reported in multiple international papers, the original being le Figaro. The US was supposedly looking for bin Laden at the time for the USS Cole and the embassy bombings in tanzania and kenya.

    In the days after 9-11, members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the US when Americans were grounded. Yet another fact that can be verified.

    Either Silverstein admitted that WTC #7 was imploded or he did not. This is recorded in a PBS documentary and Silverstein admits the bulding was pulled. Research the term ; it means imploded ! How did the explosives get there?????????

    melted steel in the sub-floor level 7 cannot be explained by the pancaking theory? if the floors collapsed as said, how could steel 7 floors below the ground melt?

    pancaking cannot reduce concrete to powder. there should have been large chunks of concrete if the buildings fell the way of the official explanation. but the videos show concrete pulverized into dust and blown horizontally … pancaking or explosions. these queries you bring up have definite answers. these answers are not obtuse at all.

    either hydrocarbon fires can melt steel or not. the hottest hydrocarbon fire burning in air is about 1800 degrees. In fact, when fires are orange and sooty, as the videos show they were, it means the temps are much lower than max temperatures. In pure oxygen, much hotter temps can be attained. The melting point of steel is 2800 degrees (circa). The steel in the building was certified to be able to withstand hours and hours of fires, and still bear its load.

    who do i believe? the eyewitnesses that day had no reason to lie. the official story does not jazz with their testimony.

    the guy who worked in the basement who heard all those explosions…

    the firemen and policemen who heard boom boom boom boom boom with flashes of light … the tripod with the camera that shook 12 seconds before the collapse ….
    the seismic data that proved explosions were set off

    and what are you doing, deferring to one of the most attacked articles out there, the popular mechanics piece.

    why did the new mexico engineer change his mind? how did the FBI get on the scene so fast to get the tapes from the DOD gas station, the neighboring hotel, and why wont they release the tapes ?

    i’d rather be a “conspiracy nut” than blindly accept official bullshit explanations.

    start with an agreed-upon set of data. ask yourself can the official story’s conclusions follow from this body of data. As with the warren commission, the answer is no.

    i am offering no conclusions.

    the point of my post and the resulting dialogue was designed to promote discussion on an issue that 50% of Americans doubt that the government is telling them.

    50% …..

    That’s a whole lot of “conspiracy nuts”

  6. scottie Says:

    3rd to last line from previous post :

    “doubt that the government is telling them the truth”

  7. JohnnyB Says:

    Steel doesn’t need to melt for the structural integrity of the building to be compromised. One issue brought up in the article. The eyewitnesses may have heard several explosions, doesn’t mean they weren’t triggered by the jets. Does the movie present any eyewitnesses who claim they saw the explosives that are supposedly necessary to pancake the building? Wouldn’t these explosives have been all over the place beforehand. Someone would have seen them, right? Anyway, I’ve presented some evidence contradicting many of the statements made in loose change, explaining the lack of air security, how the buildings fell, and why WTC 7 fell. I’m done for now unless some serious scholarship can refute this evidence or produce new evidence.

  8. Logipundit Says:

    so your answer is:

    repeat the same stuff that has been debunked, and then refuse to offer any conclusions writing it off as me just being gullible.

    Cool. I’m done.

  9. Logipundit Says:

    That last was in respose to Scottie.

  10. scottie Says:

    how do you debunk eyewitness testimony?

    it is clear that you cannot deal with the physical data that has NOT been debunked.

    you repeating that it has been debunked by experts is itself erroneous ; for every expert which provides supporting data and arguments for the official version another expert can be found which says conflicting things.

    So in this situation, why would an observer not delve into the data themselves ???

    Johnny B, steel can lose its strutcural integrity yes. But that steel was certified to withstand hours of fire, and still retain its load. The fires lasted around an hour for each building.

    Assume for one moment that the fires weakened the steel to the point of collapse : then explain for me how the buildings fell at free fall speed. pancaking would mean that when the upper floors hit the lower floors, resistance would be encountered at every lower level ; free-fall speed is NOT possible , nor does it explain the lack of huge chunks of concrete, nor does it explain molten steel in the 7 floors below the towers.

    If you admit this data as factual, you must reject the official explanation.

    I don’t understand how you can cling to the official version when it simply untenable with the current set of data …

    Go watch the PBS video of Silverstein admitting WTC #7 was demolished …

    I guess you will deny this admission as well !

    Refute the facts, or pipe down.

    Again, we should first build a consensus of facts and data, THEN and only THEN discuss possible conclusions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: