Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Popular Mechanics Debunked

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Old man Hearst is not gonna let any publication of his deny the ignorance of 9/11.


Murdoch, Hearst Head List of Newspaper Donors to Election Campaigns



Hearst, who had previously given $1,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, added another $8,500 in donations since late 2003 to various campaigns. Those included another $2,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $2,000 to the Republican National Committee, $1,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, $1,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign


Link

After many years an avid reader,I cancelled my subsciption in early 2002,
the frequent Jay Leno tips/interviews got annoying,as well as a lil too much product placement/selective showcasing,& scratch the surface analysis-it's been going downhill for years now-while certainly no consumer reports,it's no longer distinctive from the average hot rod mag.




posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
A few thousand dollars here and there are a drop in the bucket of campaign issues. More of a token gesture than anything else.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
The circle of people "in" on the "secret" of what "really happened" on 9/11 continues to expand...now the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics are part of the conspiracy and hiding these facts.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The circle of people "in" on the "secret" of what "really happened" on 9/11 continues to expand...now the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics are part of the conspiracy and hiding these facts.



Only a few knew, the rest is called compartmentalization


'Popular Mechanics' & Other CIA Front Organizations



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
So now Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization??? I think some people here really need some psychological help.


SMR

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted 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?


There have been plenty of them.Such articles have been posted in the 757 Pentagon thread.I dont know them on any personal level,I just know of their articles,or should I say,answers to questions they have been asked about the physics surrounding 9/11



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The circle of people "in" on the "secret" of what "really happened" on 9/11 continues to expand...now the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics are part of the conspiracy and hiding these facts.


randolph hearst's grandson owns popular mechanics.....


The term "yellow journalism" came from shoddy reporting from Hearst newspapers, most notoriously Hearst's promotion of the fake claim that Spain had blown up the USS Maine in Havana harbor (the pretext for the Spanish-American war)


bush's grandad helped finance the nazis.
bush's brother was the head of security for the WTC.
all this is coincidence? no. obviously not.
it's a case of 'strong family values'
.

we don't know 'what really happened' inside the offices of popular mechanics. we don't know if anybody was threatened, intimidated or fired, so it's kinda presumptuous to assume it's not another conspiracy to protect the bigger conspiracy. a loaded 'jury' is not an impossible scenario, especially at the level of world war intrigue.
certainly, even the 911 commission's 'investigation' could have been done by watching fox news
.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by billybob]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
SMR says:

"There have been plenty of them."

Please give us an example of just one engineer or scientist who has done so.

I have looked over the threads you cite, including

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I don't see anything at all like a link to any scientist and /or engineer upholding any of the conspiracy assertions.

As a matter of fact, most of the"evidence" I saw on those threads are links to other threads here on ATS which don't have any links, either.

"...I just know of their articles,or should I say,answers to questions they have been asked about the physics surrounding 9/11."

Then I am sure you'd have no problem about sharing their answers which they've been asked with the rest of us, since we're all here to deny ignorance, right?

I look forward to hearing from you.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
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.


Indeed. Mechanical science or engineering has no political agenda, They crossed that line, making themselves obviously biased. It's similar to a scientist trying to find proof of god. If that's what he already believes, he'll find his proof everywhere.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
They also have left out important supporting details, such as the flash before the planes entered the towers. If you're going to debunk something, I think you need to do it thoroughly. That's a cop out. If you read the entire article, you'll find that their method of "debunking" is consistent throughout the article. They skip alot of things, such as not mentioning that video and flight recordings haven't actually been revealed to anyone outside of the secret officials who would be in charge of the coverup in the first place.
It's pretty obvious, just from the editors' note on the first page, that they set out, not to find the truth, but to debunk conspiracy theories.


[edit on 14-2-2005 by Moe Foe]


SMR

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Off_The_Street

From: public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics

There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
(Article originally at www.abqjournal.com... , then was moved to www.abqjournal.com... but now back in the original location, or: public-action.com... ).
But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the Albuquerque Journal web page.

And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed," too: SEEMS PEOPLE ARE BEING TOLD WHAT TO SAY,THEIR WAY ONLY


911 ENDGAME...PROOF, NO CELL PHONE CALLS FROM PLANES
I'll just post the link for this one....... LINK

I have more links,just have to go through them.I need to leave for now,but hope to post the links tonight.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Try not to contradict your self, Moe Foe.
You say:


Mechanical science or engineering has no political agenda, They crossed that line, making themselves obviously biased.

Crossed the line how? By debunking the existing and prevailing conspiracy theories? How is doing that considered being biased?



It's similar to a scientist trying to find proof of god. If that's what he already believes, he'll find his proof everywhere.

Wrong analogy for this topic, Moe Foe.

Then say in your next post:


It's pretty obvious, just from the editors' note on the first page, that they set out, not to find the truth, but to debunk conspiracy theories.

Truth and debunking go hand-in-hand or not? Which was truth: the conspiracy theories about the WTC and the Pentagon or was it the debunking of those prevailing conspiracy theories?


As for the comment made by MaskedAvatar:


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

Neither will take place, now or in the next few months.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
SMR, is that the best you can do?

You talk about all these scientists and physicsts who support your belief, and then, when push comes to shove, you produce -- as your star witness -- someone who admits he was wrong!

It looks to me like what you're saying here is that one engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts, not any tests he did himself or any reports he read.

He saw something on TV and said, "yup, a bomb.".

He didn't see it first hand, of course, since he was in a subway Washington DC when it happened.

"But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly."

Well, SMR, maybe it was because he realized that his first impression (based on watching something on TV) was in error because he'd had a chance to go back and run the numbers.

Or maybe talk with some folks who were there like some of the firefighters.

Or maybe he 'd had a chance to read some preliminary reports from the wreckage.

The fact is, I don't know, and neither do you.

But what astounds me is that you think this guy is a really cool and respected scientist as long as he's saying what you want him to say, but if he says something else, you don't have enough respect for him to think that he just might have been honest enough to say he had initially been in error.

No!

You seem to think that he first was being honest, then he was lying.

I don't agree with that, but if that's what you think about him, how can you even point to him as a "respected scientist"?



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...
41,400 hits since 2/7/5

911review.com...
See how many "experts" are actually cited for any contribution to PM

www.oilempire.us...
Bogus websites disproving phony claims

www.intl-news.com...
www.rense.com...
So, we should all be most grateful to 'Popular Mechanics' and its new editor James Meigs for indirectly telling us who the real perpetrators of 9/11 were by its rather long-winded "blind 'em with science" attempt to suppress the truth of behalf of those perpetrators.

Ouch. Debunk those.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Masked Avatar, are you trying to imply that some of your posts list some scientists and/or engineers who support the WTC conspiracy business?

That's what we've been discussing, you know.

Or are you just trying to change the subject?

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me a single respected scientist and/or engineer who buys into the WTC conspiracy business and provides some good data to back himself up.

SMR's key witness changed his mind.

Do you have anyone in mind, Masked Avatar -- or would you just rather change the subject again?



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR

911 ENDGAME...PROOF, NO CELL PHONE CALLS FROM
]
I'll just post the link for this one....... LINK

I have more links,just have to go through them.I need to leave for now,but hope to post the links tonight.


According to this, Cell phone calls from in flight planes are not impossible. They can run into technical issues at times, but not always. Otherwise, why would they even consider allowing them?????

[edit on 14-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I like this Rense story better

"devil makes singer gouge out his eye"

www.rense.com...


SMR

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
SMR, is that the best you can do?

You talk about all these scientists and physicsts who support your belief, and then, when push comes to shove, you produce -- as your star witness -- someone who admits he was wrong!

It looks to me like what you're saying here is that one engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts, not any tests he did himself or any reports he read.

He saw something on TV and said, "yup, a bomb.".

He didn't see it first hand, of course, since he was in a subway Washington DC when it happened.

"But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly."

Well, SMR, maybe it was because he realized that his first impression (based on watching something on TV) was in error because he'd had a chance to go back and run the numbers.

Or maybe talk with some folks who were there like some of the firefighters.

Or maybe he 'd had a chance to read some preliminary reports from the wreckage.

The fact is, I don't know, and neither do you.

But what astounds me is that you think this guy is a really cool and respected scientist as long as he's saying what you want him to say, but if he says something else, you don't have enough respect for him to think that he just might have been honest enough to say he had initially been in error.

No!

You seem to think that he first was being honest, then he was lying.

I don't agree with that, but if that's what you think about him, how can you even point to him as a "respected scientist"?


First off,did I not say that was only for now and would be back later to post more.I guess with all your excitment in wanting to attatck,you didnt see that

Relax a little and dont be so quick to jump on someone.
And where do you get that I think this guy is really cool?I swear,some of the things some of you people conclude to is funny
But whatever.

All you have done is twist that whole post and frankly,I really dont think you are anyone who I should discuss this with as you will just put words in my mouth as you have already.

I'll just put a link that has names and articles by quite a few.The post could get too large and would just get read here and there,missing points.
HERE



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
SMR, the bottom line is that you can't come up with a single recognized scientist or engineer who buys into the conspiracy theories about the WTC or the Pentagon.

Not one.

You said you could, but you can't.


SMR

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I gave you a link that will,or should anyway,satisfy you.I told you it had articles in there from such people who have writen their thoughts and have even used numbers to tell that alot of what went down could not have happened as it was told.

Do a little research.Thats all we 'conspiracy nuts' have done and members such as yourself do little but keep going on with what CH has put in his little so called 'proof report' that has NO proof.

WE keep getting new information,while ones like yourself use the same old story.We research to back things up,you all use the same thing over and over.Because it is readily avaiable to you and easy to use.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join