Funny we see no Howard in here debunking this debunking
I was going to stay out of 9/11 talk for awhile,but after reading HR's post on PM article,then finding this article and being late on posting it,as you posted it first,,,,,why do those who say we are full of it,never like to comment on debunked material they find?

As they tell us,,,,keep digging boys

9/11 had a slew of cover-ups and they are being expossed day after day.
A thief always leaves something behind,just a matter of time before it is found and he gets caught

edit for spelling

[edit on 13-2-2005 by SMR]

Yes,I read that too.Thank you for posting it.
I believe this to be a big can of worms soon if people continue to search the truth and expose the lies.

Be nice to get someone like Peter Sault to take part on ATS.

[edit on 13/2/2005 by Sauron]

After that Roswell crap PM came out it was obvious they were full of it.

Actually as an established magazine they have something that is much better. It is called integrity.

They can't afford to publish b.s.


Rense puts out nothing but b.s.

That is the difference.

Unfortunately Popular Mechanics' blatant entry into the arena of political tools damages its reputation and positioning more than a little for a considerable proportion of its readers.

Watch for the retractions and damage control in months to come.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


So, a technically oriented magazine took a look at a subject with a lot of technical issues is damaging to thier reputation?

Hardly. I might just subsribe to them now.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

So, a technically oriented magazine took a look at a subject with a lot of technical issues is damaging to thier reputation?

Hardly. I might just subsribe to them now.

Yes, very damaging for serious readership.

Maybe I have misread this and it's an element of marketing strategy - give the people what they want - nonsense supporting their existing beliefs - dumb the contents down - reach a mass market of new subscribers.

Thank you for the insight!

Although the truth will become more apparent with future issues.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

How is it damaging for serious readership?

Did you miss the "popular" part of the name of the magazine? They are about technology. The 9/11 myths are a total misunderstanding of basic concepts of technology. They examined that and prove their case.

The average reader of that magazine is smart enough to understand the concepts behind the science and they are laughing their buts off at the conspiracy theorists right now.

You are just sore because a mainstream magazine has just shot you down.

Tell me, Did you really believe that the seismic data proved that there was a bomb under the building?





[edit on 13-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

Not relevant. But Controlled Demolition Inc. is relevant to some of the answers.

I have posted plenty about questions not even addressed by Popular Mechanics in this article. The article focuses simply on a mix of bizarre claims and several features where it has selectively used information in order to present the official line about what happened on 9/11 as what happened. Unfortunately it doesn't touch on real unanswered questions.

ATS is just a revolving door, but inside it there is a body of knowledge that sticks.

I hope readers can make use of that, as it is far more useful than the junk in Popular Mechanics.

Keep smirking and toeing the line like a good parrot.

Tell me, Did you really believe that the seismic data proved that there was a bomb under the building?

I'll speak for myself here on this one,NO.It was the images that seem to get left out on the MIANSTREAM media.

Your basicaly saying that because PM had a stab at this,wrote an article about,we are to believe it?But other sources that analize it and debunk what they say,are not worthy?
It seems to me that if all that is said to say nothing 'odd' happened,it is true and nothing 'odd' happened.If someone analizes it and proves that to be wrong,they are just nuts and dont know what they are talking about.Even though quite a few are well known engineers and physicists.....

Originally posted by SMR
Even though quite a few are well known engineers and physicists.....

Like who?

I left out a word,sorry
I was to say "Even though quite a few are well known to be engineers and physicists....."
On that,what I meant was that it wasnt just conspiracy nuts writing this stuff.Yet that is what is implied.Yet all their analisis and opinions went right out the door.Had then been on the side of those who agree nothing 'odd' happened,they would have been taken seriously and their articles would have appeared in such magazines like PM

You know, not even worth it

[edit on 2-13-2005 by Esoterica]

"Unfortunately Popular Mechanics' blatant entry into the arena of political tools damages its reputation and positioning more than a little for a considerable proportion of its readers. Watch for the retractions and damage control in months to come."

Masked Avatar, I don't think so. Most people believe that PM and all the other magazines like them are on the money, and that people like Jeff Rense is on the same level with the Weekly World News and Bat-boy.

Of course, there are people out there who believe all the checkout-counter newspapers, too, so what're you gonna do?

I do think you're doing the right thing (for your own feelings) by posting your stuff here on this website, because the only ones who will laugh at you are folks who you don't know and don't care about.

I mean -- it's not like the people at work or your family will read your stuff and start to hoo-raw you.

You're safe here.

"Yes, very damaging for serious readership."

Uhh ... Masked Avatar... you wouldn't be talking about anyone I might happen to know on this board, are you? Just curious....

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Off_The_Street]

"Even though quite a few are well known to be engineers and physicists....." On that,what I meant was that it wasnt just conspiracy nuts writing this stuff."

SMR, what engineers and/or physicists do you know of who have subscribed to the conspiracy assertions? I certainly haven't seen any articles by such folks, have you?