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 got owned. (mp3 radioshow)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
www.911podcasts.com...

What a f*RYr8ei4 dumbo.

He claims after a while (which i think is the biggest stupid comment (they) he made)
that they DNA identified the "hijackers".
To what did they "match" their DNA? Did the "hijackers" give authorities DNA samples
before hurtling into NY WTC?

And from all the other victims they couldnt find ANYTHING? What a f idiot.

Owned.

If anyone has more MP3's of radioshows where 9/11 truth members debate "experts"
please reply here.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by zren]




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zren
He claims after a while (which i think is the biggest stupid comment (they) he made)
that they DNA identified the "hijackers".


Maybe they got DNA from living family.

If not, then that was a pretty asinine blunder.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Yea right. The family of the "terrorists" would happily give their DNA to the US
for investigation.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Losers from highest order:

Negative Mechanics cancelled their radio debate || www.911blogger.com...
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.”


owned



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Ha that great I knew it just great.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by zren
To what did they "match" their DNA? Did the "hijackers" give authorities DNA samples before hurtling into NY WTC?

No, afterwards effectively. The FBI collected samples of skin & hair from their cars, hotel rooms & so on. See news.bbc.co.uk...


And from all the other victims they couldnt find ANYTHING? What a f idiot.

Owned.

They did identify the DNA of other passengers from remains recovered at the WTC, Daniel Lewin for example ( www.littlegreenfootballs.com... ).

Now, remind me: who got "owned" again?

[edit on 26-8-2006 by ashmok]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Ah, ok, it still doesnt make it any more plausible lol. From roughly all the other victims
they did not find a molecule? And from TWO "terrorists" they miraculously find DNA?

And, that guy from PM did get owned, not the radioguy or the caller for that matter. And
now they even cancelled their debate, what a morons lol.

Popular Mechanics is a frigging joke.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by zren]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by zren
Ah, ok, it still doesnt make it any more plausible lol. From roughly all the other victims
they did not find a molecule?


You might like to go back and check this statement. They used DNA evidence to identify the victims as well. There were a huge number of body parts and it took over a year to get a match on everything that was matchable and to try and make sure the body parts were assigned to the right victims.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Hey didn't that PM article get debunked on here before?

I could remember a post about that, so anything PM says is suspect.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
If you guys actually read the book they released instead of saying "owned" and "this was debunked". It made more sense than 99.9% of these conspiracy theories. Deny ignorance.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Hey didn't that PM article get debunked on here before?
I could remember a post about that, so anything PM says is suspect.


might be this you are talking about.



Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.2, February 9, 2005
Snip~~
The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.



'Popular Mechanics' & Other CIA Front Organizations


[edit on 26/8/2006 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
PM second take is a counterIntel publication, bought and paid for through the New America InSight. This has the same ties to the group of Men that planted stories in Iraq Newpapers, Hearst papers or Hearst publishers, it all a story.

If this site is real and members are here to really findout the truth about 911, then your going to have to take chances. There are a few developed investigations out there, but not many. EVeryone wants to blame the government, but who do we blame.
One should start with the Enron silver deal with warren buffett, from there if your brave enough, find out about NetJets, and others.
Lets also talk about the story cathearder posted, he stole that story and changed
some of the content and put in false assumptions. He should have left in the 569
reasons showing how 911 happened but it did not happen.
There are numerous sites and forums and not one has the guts to go after the real people and name them. Should the sites let people name people that might have
done 911, well some have allowed names but it just political.
These sites were only intended as money makers and letting people talk and enjoy themselfs, I doubt that any real information will ever come from a public site or this one. Not that this sites is bad or any better than the others, it just that as we know that if you don't have a need to know you don't get to know!



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinstopshere
If you guys actually read the book they released instead of saying "owned" and "this was debunked". It made more sense than 99.9% of these conspiracy theories. Deny ignorance.


You said what about me saying that the PM article was debunked?

As you see 2 posts above this one I don't state crap that don't get backed up.

So next time you spout off on who is saying owned and debunked you better research pal. Cause 100% of the time I type on this site, I make sure everything I state is backed up.

Oh and on a side note, you might wanna watch this official story goto hell in the next few yrs. Some new people are coming out on this 9/11 conspiracy nut idea.

Jim Fetzer interviews licensed professional Structural Engineer

Interesting how life takes a strange turn of events eh?

Next on the list follow your own words.

Deny Ignorance

Thanks Sauron for the links man.

[edit on 8/27/2006 by ThichHeaded]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join