It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Popular Mechanics "9/11 Myths" Debunker Cancels Radio Debate

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Popular Mechanics "9/11 Myths" Debunker Cancels Radio Debate



www.911blogger.com...
9/11 Blogger | August 24 2006

Two hours before he was to debate a member of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" on a Seattle radio talk show, a research editor for "Popular Mechanics" magazine pulls out.

Seattle - The magazine Popular Mechanics, which recently released a book slamming the 9/11 Truth movement, cancelled a radio debate Tuesday between one of the book's contributors and a 9/11 truth activist just two hours before airtime. The debate, planned two weeks in advance, was scheduled to air on the Dori Munson talk radio program on KIRO AM 710, August the 22nd, at 1:00 PM.

Richard Curtis, PhD, an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at several Seattle area colleges and an active member of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," was scheduled to debate Davin Coburn, a research editor at Popular Mechanics and one of the contributors to the book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Facts, on Munson's radio show. Munson, furious about the last minute cancellation, said that the books PR firm was responsible for the decision and that none of the contributors to the new book would be allowed on the air with anyone from "Scholars for 9/11 Truth."


Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Methods of ''Quoting'' – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 24/8/2006 by Umbrax]




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
It is just like every other 9/11 debate I've either read or have been a part of. When they get down to brass tacks, the debunkers have no real position. Except calling us, anti-american, scum, evil, nuts, retarded... you see what I mean.

This does not surprise me one bit.


Good find though, it is news to me.

AAC



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Is there anyway to get a copy of this show?

I would like to see what the guy had to say perosnally.

Well I guess this is a point for us then right? Considering that they canceled for some reason or another.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
They cancelled because if the PM representative had been demolished by the ST rep on public radio (I'm not saying he necessarily would have), it would hurt the sales of the book. There are people making a lot of money out of 9/11 on both sides of the conspiracy theory fence, and Popular Mechanics is no exception.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
or.....

I heard him on another npr show. He rightfully refuses to discuss any aspect that doesn't have to do with the science or facts of the event. When callers called in with obvious political/ideological bias asked him questions about the "the neo con agenda"..or "operation Northwoods"..or "the Bush regime"..etc. he just honestly said that those things are just too far outside the subject to comment on.

Why didn't s911t put up someone more qualified than a philosophy prof. to discuss the points? It would be like having a discussion about the aftermath of hurricane Katerina with someone like Spike Lee. It would take about 2 minutes before the topic would be spun into "They intentionally blew the levees to get rid of the black people"..'people heard the explosions going off'..."The white slavemasters blah, blah, blah"



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta


Why didn't s911t put up someone more qualified than a philosophy prof. to discuss the points?


Agreed. Just like Fetzer - "scholars" for 911 don't necessarily mean "qualified scholars" for 911. I had no desire to read Fetzer's statements here anymore than I would have had any interest in hearing Curtis on this program.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I can't seem to find any information about the qualifications of the PM employee, David Coburn. He is referred to as a "research editor", which simply means he is a journalist. I can't find his name on the list of experts consulted for the original PM 9/11 article either. So if he is simply a journalist then the choice of Richard Curtis to debate him is more than appropriate. Is a journalist going to debate physics with Steven Jones, or Mechanical Engineering with Judy Woods? Vushta, did he mention his qualifications on the radio show you listened to, because I can't find any info on him.

Regardless, the decision was made by the Public Relations firm which is responsible for promoting the image and sales of the book, which shows this is about money, not about relevance of debate or debaters. Furthermore, the radio host also clearly stated that the PR firm said that "that none of the contributors to the new book would be allowed on the air with anyone from Scholars for 9/11 Truth."

What a shame, it could have been interesting, PM vs the Scholars, Clash of the Titans. Unfortunately, the mighty dollar wins over the truth (whatever it is)...again.






[edit on 2006-8-25 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Is the guy who wrote the article on popular mechanic the brother of the head of the Homeland security? Or something like that?

Anyway, debunkers know that their crap don't stand.


I hope time will get the truth out, but we're still waiting for JFK even if we have a good idea of who did it.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
wecomeinpeace,

My aerospace design professor always threatened that if he ever found out any of us were reading PM (or Popular Science) he'd automatically flunk us.

pffffft

[edit on 8-25-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Thanks Val, that is interesting.

It should be noted that the scholars applied to debate with NIST and NIST declined.


www.teamliberty.net...
When faced with the challenge of a National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report turned to the well-respected work of Professor Jones and Professor Fetzer at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The Muckraker Report contacted Professor Fetzer and asked if he could assemble a highly qualified seven-member civilian debate team that would be willing to debate a seven-member government debate team regarding the government’s account of 9/11 events. Professor Fetzer had a team assembled in two weeks. With the civilian debate team in place, the Muckraker Report identified twenty-nine potential government debate team members to include the ten members of the 9/11 Commission and the thirteen NIST scientists responsible for the government’s “pancake theory” of collapse. Each of these potential government debate team members was mailed numerous invitations. Five of the 9/11 Commissioners had staffers contact the Muckraker Report via telephone to decline invitation due to “prior commitments”. However, the thirteen NIST scientists remained silent.

After three separate mailings of hard copy invitations to the NIST scientists, on June 8, 2006 the Muckraker Report received e-mail from NIST that said, “The project leaders of the NIST World Trade Center investigation team respectfully decline your invitations to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on September 16, 2006.” Not to be deterred, on June 20, 2006 the Muckraker Report e-mailed Michael E. Newman, NIST Director of Media Relations, and asked if there was a better date, time, and location for NIST to participate in the National 9/11 Debate.

On June 25, 2006, NIST Director of Media Relations, Michael E. Newman responded:

"The members of the NIST WTC Investigation Team has [sic] respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the National 9/11 Debate. A change in venue or date will not alter that decision."



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
From what I can find so far Davin Coburn is a 27 year old writer/researcher who apparently has no degree whatsoever (even in journalism - unless he's just not too proud of it). His claim to fame is that he got a sports pilot license in one week.

www.sportpilot.org...

He also writes for Sports Illustrated and has done such noteworthy investigative reporting as researching the woes of being a mascot for a pro team

www.sikids.com...

He apparently writes mostly aviation and space-related articles for PM. But it appears he got the title of "PM research editor" or "PM science editor" (whichever one you want to go with), from being an aviation/space junky - not from any immense experience in the field that he packed into his short 27 years.

lol - I'm serious - lol.

And if he DOES have some sort of degree in something - he needs to get it on the web unless he wants to remain fair cannon fodder in this issue.



[edit on 8-25-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I can't seem to find any information about the qualifications of the PM employee, David Coburn. He is referred to as a "research editor", which simply means he is a journalist. I can't find his name on the list of experts consulted for the original PM 9/11 article either. So if he is simply a journalist then the choice of Richard Curtis to debate him is more than appropriate. Is a journalist going to debate physics with Steven Jones, or Mechanical Engineering with Judy Woods? Vushta, did he mention his qualifications on the radio show you listened to, because I can't find any info on him.

Regardless, the decision was made by the Public Relations firm which is responsible for promoting the image and sales of the book, which shows this is about money, not about relevance of debate or debaters. Furthermore, the radio host also clearly stated that the PR firm said that "that none of the contributors to the new book would be allowed on the air with anyone from Scholars for 9/11 Truth."

What a shame, it could have been interesting, PM vs the Scholars, Clash of the Titans. Unfortunately, the mighty dollar wins over the truth (whatever it is)...again.






[edit on 2006-8-25 by wecomeinpeace]


Hes just the research editor presenting the conclusions of the people who debunked the most common CT 'Tubs 'O Crap" i.e 'squibs".. 'pods'..'freefall'..'pull it'..'thermite' 'controlled demo'..etc. and relies on the integrity of the people and institutions who conducted the investigations. It really has no bearing on the validity of the answers he gives.
On the other hand I assume that Curtis would be in the drivers seat to actually present the "counter evidence", which would require some knowledge of the science involved.....but then again there is no science. They claim freefall..they claim 'squibs'..they claim thermite..etc. From watching the CSpan presentation of the full crew of 'truthers' it was obvious the in the 2 hours of them having free reign over the topics presented, that they stuck to political/ideological bias almost exclusively. This was odd to me. Why in the world would the focus be on that instead of presenting all this 'evidence' to support the CT theories when given the chance of world wide coverage?...Oh!..wait..I know. Because there is no actual evidence. Political/ideological bias and speculation is all they have.

Does anyone know why M. Renyolds and J. Woods have been removed from the s911t membership? Just curious.
They don't seem to appear on the members list anymore.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Vushta, HowardRoark, Duhh, et al:

I hope readers don't find this to be "off-topic," but this comes as a reply to Vushta's very biased post.

The trouble is that both the "CTers" and the "OSB" sides are lacking scientific, concrete proof.

I know you guys think that the NIST and FEMA reports are full of perfect answers, but for someone like myself, who would like to believe the Official account - I really would! - I find these documents to be lacking explanations for a lot of the main points CTers present. I know you (names above) have no unanswered questions, because the arguments you all have presented are backed up by reams of government documents. We need to remember that beauracracies don't exist to solve problems, they exist to perpetuate themselves...

I'm really getting tired of reading these threads with hundreds of posted replies, only to not really get any new insight. All that both sides have is political/ideological bias, because of the lack of EVIDENCE on both sides.

How does your side explain the recent reports of the FBI claiming there is no proof of Bin Laden's participation in the attacks and the fact that many of the 9/11 commision members are saying that they were lied to by the government ?!

It's stories like these that add fuel to the CTers' fire...And give me reason to question the government sanctioned reports of what really happened.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryingindian
Vushta, HowardRoark, Duhh, et al:

I hope readers don't find this to be "off-topic," but this comes as a reply to Vushta's very biased post.

The trouble is that both the "CTers" and the "OSB" sides are lacking scientific, concrete proof.

I know you guys think that the NIST and FEMA reports are full of perfect answers, but for someone like myself, who would like to believe the Official account - I really would! - I find these documents to be lacking explanations for a lot of the main points CTers present. I know you (names above) have no unanswered questions, because the arguments you all have presented are backed up by reams of government documents. We need to remember that beauracracies don't exist to solve problems, they exist to perpetuate themselves...

I'm really getting tired of reading these threads with hundreds of posted replies, only to not really get any new insight. All that both sides have is political/ideological bias, because of the lack of EVIDENCE on both sides.

How does your side explain the recent reports of the FBI claiming there is no proof of Bin Laden's participation in the attacks and the fact that many of the 9/11 commision members are saying that they were lied to by the government ?!

It's stories like these that add fuel to the CTers' fire...And give me reason to question the government sanctioned reports of what really happened.


You're just making up all that stuff about "the names above" to create a faslse impression of "blind faith"..this is false.

How would you define "solid evidence" and please give an example of it from the CT side.

You're a bit behind on th OBL not claiming involvement..thats been debunked long ago. He not long ago ststed that he hand picked the 19.

The 911 commision "lies" have nothing to do with what I believe you're trying to connect themn with..i.e. "inside job".



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta




Why didn't s911t put up someone more qualified than a philosophy prof. to discuss the points? It would be like having a discussion about the aftermath of hurricane Katerina with someone like Spike Lee. It would take about 2 minutes before the topic would be spun into "They intentionally blew the levees to get rid of the black people"..'people heard the explosions going off'..."The white slavemasters blah, blah, blah"


Jim Fetzer has a doctorate in philosophy and the history of SCIENCE, which of course includes physics and hes published dozens of books and has taught critical thinking and logical reasoning of science for over 35 yrs. The guy is more than qualified.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by Vendetta of the people]

[edit on 29-8-2006 by Vendetta of the people]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Is the guy who wrote the article on popular mechanic the brother of the head of the Homeland security? Or something like that?

Anyway, debunkers know that their crap don't stand.



[edit on 25-8-2006 by Vitchilo]


No, the two are in no way related. Ben's mother told someone jokingly "I dunno, maybe they are some kind of distant relatives or something", which was then quoted by the CT sites as "Yes, definitely they are related". An outright lie by americanfreepress. yet despite these web sites making such outlandish claims, no one seems to question their ethics. Obviously the ethics of the government are always under question. Yet the same people won't even consider the possibility of these web sites practicing the same thing. No matter how many movies with false claims are put out, no one questions them... Why is that?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
The fact that he waited 2 hours before the debate to pull out is what is really sad. I wonder who owns popular mechanics and what interest they have in the Bush Administration?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryingindian

How does your side explain the recent reports of the FBI claiming there is no proof of Bin Laden's participation in the attacks and the fact that many of the 9/11 commision members are saying that they were lied to by the government ?!


1. Because it is probably technically true. OBL is the head of the organization that committed 9/11. But that alone is not proof that he himself was involved. he admitted on video that he hand picked the hijackers, but that alone does not mean he did it. Just like in a courtroom, you cannot simply plead guilty. you have to prove you are guilty. Who's to say OBL isn't just admitting to it to hide the real culprit?

In the same token, technically there is no link that Rumsfeld knew or had anything to do with the Abu grabass torturing. Just because he runs the army doesn't mean he knew anything. but do you really buy that?

2. The 9/11 commision WAS lied to, hence their claims. But this does not mean that everything that happened that day was a lie. The lie was that the military told them they were tracking flight 93 and had the ability to shoot it down. But the reality was that they didn't until after it crashed. They obviously lied to make themselves not look as bad. But if anything, the new information even furth backs up the story and makes it even more clear that they did not shoot down flight 93.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
The fact that he waited 2 hours before the debate to pull out is what is really sad. I wonder who owns popular mechanics and what interest they have in the Bush Administration?


PM is owned by the Hearst Corporation. Hearst owns too much stuff to paste, so here's the link. Most of their interests are in newspapers and television media.

Victor F. Ganzi is president and CEO of Hearst. Probably his only link to 9/11 is that (and I quote):


He also serves as co-chair of the Partnership for New York City, along with Charles Prince, chairman and CEO of Citigroup. The Partnership is a network of business leaders dedicated to enhancing the economy of the five boroughs of New York City and maintaining the city's position as the global center of commerce, culture and innovation.


Loose connection at best, but worth considering.


[edit on 1-9-2006 by Astygia]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join