Debunking Popular Mechanics
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
I talk a lot to people I know about the facts surrounding 9/11. My brother always says "Didn't you read the Popular Mechanics article?" as if it's supposed to squash all the theories.
So, finally I read it, you can read it here. While some good evidence is provided on certain arguements. I found that in most cases that evidence was highly flawed and in other cases no evidence was provided. Most of the article is just picking at the far-out theories of the 9/11 truth movement. E.g. pods under the planes, no planes hit the WTC, Norad Stand-down order, seismographs.
First of all, the "FACTS" PM claims about he Pod is that they had Greenly, a photoanalyst, analyze a photo of a 767-200 next to the photos of the AA jet. Well, the jets that crashed into the WTC towers were not 767-200s, they were a 767-222 and a 767-223ER, different airplanes. So that's a pretty flawed analysis. They aren't even looking at the right planes.
Very few people claim that "No planes hit the towers" that is one of the most far out theories out there. Believing that an experimental holographic camoflage was used. I've found evidence these programs exist on military websites, but I highly doubted it was used. Not many believe this theory.
What NORAD says directly about the events of 9/11 contradict former pilots like Bob Bowman. Regardless of that confusion, claiming as "FACT" that NORAD is a useless organization that can't even do what they are intended to do, and supposedly had prior knowledge of their inefficiency. This doesn't prove that the official theory is true. It barely contradicts the "conspiracy theorists" claims.
PM claims that the seismographs show an increase in activity simultaneous with the progressive collapse of the towers. True enough, it does look like that and if explosions were detonated during the collapse, it probably wouldn't look any different. Especially if Prof Steven Jones peer reviewed claims of Thermate/Thermite are correct. Thermite is an incendiary, which is typically used in demolitions, if compacted to an explosive form, it's not going to detonate like a nuclear bomb. It's going to be a relatively small explosion. You can watch other building demolitions and quite often you won't hear the explosions.
This article doesn't address the more solid claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The more scientific claims, such as that of Prof. Steven Jones. It doesn't address the FACT that molten metal was found at the WTC site. It doesn't address the 1337 degree C molten metal found even weeks later at the WTC site. It doesn't address the FACT that FEMA themselves stated in an appendix to their report that they found unexplained sulfur in the metal. It doesn't address the FACT that these collapses were totally unprecedented. Rather it chooses to support the far out claims of NIST. That the planes struck the building, knocked the fire-proofing off the support beams, a huge fireball entered the elevator shaft and hurled down to the lobby destroying the lobby. I suppose it would have to sever the core columns from the basement level aswell, as that's the only SCIENTIFIC way this collapse could have happened. The pancake theory is rubbish, pancake collapses to not look like that, and SCIENTIFICALLY it's not possible. Of course PM didn't actually use any SCIENCE, they just talked shit.
So, finally I read it, you can read it here. While some good evidence is provided on certain arguements. I found that in most cases that evidence was highly flawed and in other cases no evidence was provided. Most of the article is just picking at the far-out theories of the 9/11 truth movement. E.g. pods under the planes, no planes hit the WTC, Norad Stand-down order, seismographs.
First of all, the "FACTS" PM claims about he Pod is that they had Greenly, a photoanalyst, analyze a photo of a 767-200 next to the photos of the AA jet. Well, the jets that crashed into the WTC towers were not 767-200s, they were a 767-222 and a 767-223ER, different airplanes. So that's a pretty flawed analysis. They aren't even looking at the right planes.
Very few people claim that "No planes hit the towers" that is one of the most far out theories out there. Believing that an experimental holographic camoflage was used. I've found evidence these programs exist on military websites, but I highly doubted it was used. Not many believe this theory.
What NORAD says directly about the events of 9/11 contradict former pilots like Bob Bowman. Regardless of that confusion, claiming as "FACT" that NORAD is a useless organization that can't even do what they are intended to do, and supposedly had prior knowledge of their inefficiency. This doesn't prove that the official theory is true. It barely contradicts the "conspiracy theorists" claims.
PM claims that the seismographs show an increase in activity simultaneous with the progressive collapse of the towers. True enough, it does look like that and if explosions were detonated during the collapse, it probably wouldn't look any different. Especially if Prof Steven Jones peer reviewed claims of Thermate/Thermite are correct. Thermite is an incendiary, which is typically used in demolitions, if compacted to an explosive form, it's not going to detonate like a nuclear bomb. It's going to be a relatively small explosion. You can watch other building demolitions and quite often you won't hear the explosions.
This article doesn't address the more solid claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The more scientific claims, such as that of Prof. Steven Jones. It doesn't address the FACT that molten metal was found at the WTC site. It doesn't address the 1337 degree C molten metal found even weeks later at the WTC site. It doesn't address the FACT that FEMA themselves stated in an appendix to their report that they found unexplained sulfur in the metal. It doesn't address the FACT that these collapses were totally unprecedented. Rather it chooses to support the far out claims of NIST. That the planes struck the building, knocked the fire-proofing off the support beams, a huge fireball entered the elevator shaft and hurled down to the lobby destroying the lobby. I suppose it would have to sever the core columns from the basement level aswell, as that's the only SCIENTIFIC way this collapse could have happened. The pancake theory is rubbish, pancake collapses to not look like that, and SCIENTIFICALLY it's not possible. Of course PM didn't actually use any SCIENCE, they just talked shit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
PM: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."
FACT: UA Flight 175 that struck the south tower was a 767-222, AA Flight 11 that struck the north tower was a 767-223ER. The following pictures are of a 767-222 showing the underbelly, no visible bulges.
http://www.gallerize.com/South%20Tower%20Craft_files/posky_v_767-222_comp_t.jpg
http://www.911hoax.com/Boeing767.jpg
I couldn't find any clear photos of the under belly of a 767-223ER, and I'm not sure which plane supposedly had the pods, like I said, it's not a very widely believed theory. Either way, you can see the deception in analyzing a plane that does have bulges for the landing gears, next to say a 767-222 that does not.
Rowwwrrrrrrr...whoooooosssh.......huh?...wazzat?
haha the $20 OSAMA pic was geat but
asscheeks...how bout posting some pictures of these pods in keeping with the actual topic of the thread?
Dude? That doesn't prove anything. All he says is that since Dylan Avery is alive it must not be true, because the government would have killed him. But if they killed him, it would prove his theories true, so that's just a catch 22, just a mind trick.
Loose change isn't my favourite interpretation of the events. I have my own opinions, but at least it provides some analysis and not just spewing hate.
scroll a bunch on this link:
http://www.oilempire.us/pod.html
It is irrelevant. The whole goal was to "debunk the myths" of all 9/11 theories. So they pick and choose the most rediculous theories and ignore all the hard facts.
Yeah, it's like a conspiracy within the conspiracy. I've heard referece to pods several times but never really put any weight or thought to it. Popular Mechanics doesn't talk about much... It's an unbaked piece of garbage article.
I get that feeling, too. A lot rudeness and crass comments about people who think differently than they do.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
"The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States."
See? people who ask questions are extremists!
Haha, yea exactly. And those are the most outlandish claims of the truth movement. It's like that video of Bowman on Hannity and Colmes, he never claims anything about 9/11, he just says it needs more independant investigation, but they turn around and label him crazy.
THAT was hysterical. i neither support nor deny any of the conspiracy theories....but that was simply very amusing. i loved this:
"So if there's any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet."
haha!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
If Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Bob Bowman, Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe and Shayler all wound up dead all of a sudden. What do you think the conspiracy theorists would say then?
This is for Ahnimus and Ahnimus alone...
Give me one 'fact' upon which your whole argument rests. Let's face it, there are a lot of parts to this conspiracy 'theory', but there are some big ones that stick out. So give me one 'fact' upon which your whole argument rests, and I'll try to disprove it.
I've read that habitual eating of fast food makes kicking a substance much harder. Especially cocaine and McDonalds. They engineer their food to taste soo good that it stimulates the brain in the same regions so to speak and encourages the brain's tendency or pattern of craving. Especially drugs that cause you to binge and throw your blod sugar off with.
You gotta eat clean to kick, booze , drugs...you name it. Buy a good treadmill and use it as often as your body will take it. Stick to it. Exercise and eat clean as often as possible, within reason....train harder or longer.
Your life depends on it!
Molten metal, the supposed aluminum seen squirting out of the building with white oxidized steam rising from it, the 1377 C degree molten mess reported by NASA on September 13. The steel columns that were severed perfectly. That just one observation, but it should get you busy for a while.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr
http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com
This video is awesome too.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en
Most of those links are focusing on Loose Change again. Same shit different web address. http://www.911myths.com talks a bit about the molten metal phenomena but doesn't draw any solid conclusions, just more speculation. The 9/11 truth movement is looking for answers from the government, not Maddox or some other crackpot that can make things up. If these crackpots can answer all those questions then why can't the government?
**stiffles laughter**
I should know better than to even open these threads on 9-11. Truly.
Can I frame this? WOW ...
The only time this stuff gets pulled out is when the people you disagree with, in this case, people who are crazy enough to believe that 9-11 was really a terrorist attack, respond to criticisms. If its the anti-U.S. anti-Israel crowd being rude and crass, you guys do the ostrich.
Doesn't the same apply to Global warming as well?
For the record I don't think being rude or crass is productive. Being witty or a smartass is one thing but there is a difference, imo. I can't recall anyone doing this too often from an anti-Israeli occupation/violence. I could be wrong, so please show me these posts if you don't mind. It completely hinders discourse to resort to rudeness.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde