Popular Mechanics vs Loose Change

Hold your breath, folks.


Popular Mechanics debates Loose Change!

Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" today hosted a debate lining up James Meigs, editor-in-chief and David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics, both of which are directly responsible for the often-cited "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" against Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas of "Louder than Words", producers of Loose Change. Talking points include the Shanksville crash site, feasibility of airborne cellphone calls, damage to the Pentagon and of course the demolitions of the WTC. Not wanting to sound sensationalist, but it's awesome!

My favorite part is that of PM now being on the record as claiming the famous Pentagon "exit hole" was caused by the landing gear of 77, a contention that is so absurd on its face that it will be very interesting to see how they're going to try to sustain the illusion of credibility and professionalism on their part in the future.









[edit on 11-9-2006 by nQuire]

Why won't PM just go for the throat and debate someone from Scholars? They've already had one opportunity, and when PM backed out we heard all this crap about publicity for the book. If they're going to debate anyone, they should go back to members of Scholars, not the just the makers of a popular documentary.

Haven't finished it yet, but so far wow, its a fierce debate. But yes, its ironic they wont debate the true investigators of the 9/11 scholars, and not just a film documentary maker

Why won't PM just go for the throat and debate someone from Scholars?

I think we all know the obvious answer.

As I see it, this PM-LC debate is the next best thing, and Dylan and Korey did their job very well. This might dissuade a lot of fence-sitters of the negative perception inherently associated with "conspiracy theorists", and that's wonderful.

If anyone has an intrest in seeing the video of this debate, here is a link

Popular Mechanics debates Loose Change!

Video 41:52

Sorry didn't see the video link in the OP

[edit on 11/9/2006 by Sauron]

i heard a lot of uh, um, uhs from the PM folks... i thought it was a good debate, but i think the LC folks won that one... thanks for sharing...

Wouldn't the government just use planes instead of a cruise missile? They are the worst planners in history if this "conspiracy" is true. I could have done better myself....

I dunno about the Pentagon myself. I kind of wish the LC guys would drop it, just to avoid making maybe a bit too many assumptions there.

What I don't like about the PM guys is that they don't offer anything substantial, but just make blanket statements about experts vs. conspiracy theorists. They attack conspiracy theorists more than the information itself, it seems like, and try to make everything black-and-white, experts-vs.-conspiracy theorists, when even on this forum alone we have mechanical engineers and structural engineers taking issue with the official reports. And that's excluding people like Charles Pegelow, and Steven Jones and the other research scientists and engineers from S9/11T.

Originally posted by nQuire
Hold your breath, folks.

My favorite part is that of PM now being on the record as claiming the famous Pentagon "exit hole" was caused by the landing gear of 77, a contention that is so absurd on its face that it will be very interesting to see how they're going to try to sustain the illusion of credibility and professionalism on their part in the future.

I understood the exit hole was caused by firemen hitting it with sledge hammers to access the area behind the wall. Litter shown at the hole was moved outside to water down and cool. Thus, you see carbon smoot at the top of the hole and clean edges in 3/4 of the circle that is the hole.

Least we forget that the writer on the story for PM is the third cousin of of the HDS
director. There is also the second swriting of this story from pm with more added information due to people like us finding and sharing this new information.










[edit: fixed quote]

[edit on 9/12/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

bsbray11, don't worry about the Pentagon issue. Like I said, PM went on the record stating the landing gear of a 757 was what caused the famous exit hole. In other words, they contend the landing gear penetrated 9ft of reinforced concrete before it punched this hole:




And if that's not an admission of scientific bankruptcy, then just what is? Who needs bunkerbusters, we already got landing gear!





PS: Apparently, after the ride the landing gear turned up in pretty good shape

[edit on 12-9-2006 by nQuire]

Wouldn't the government just use planes instead of a cruise missile?

I have researched 9/11 for 3 years now, very heavily.

There is aircraft wreckage (heck anyone should know that) it couldn't of been a cruise missile.

What ever it was, was an aircraft of some sort.

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae


I have researched 9/11 for 3 years now, very heavily.

There is aircraft wreckage (heck anyone should know that) it couldn't of been a cruise missile.

What ever it was, was an aircraft of some sort.

Agreed. Its one of my biggest beefs with Loose Change.

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
There is aircraft wreckage (heck anyone should know that) it couldn't of been a cruise missile.

What ever it was, was an aircraft of some sort.

This is not a blakc and white issue... I take no stance really on what hit the pentagon, however, your logic here is flawed...

Remember the trailer that exploded? How certain are you that nothing was "ejected" from that?

Any military aircraft could have "cargoed" the VERY FEW pieces of commercial jet that were found, so in this instance, even though you see it as 1+1=2... I do not.

it appears PM's online editor, Benjamin Chertoff, is a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the head of the Department of Homeland Security... i'm sure a lot of you already knew that and it's probably been previously discussed here, but i just found this out and thought it was quite interesting to note...

Originally posted by m3rlzit appears PM's online editor, Benjamin Chertoff, is a cousin of Michael Chertoff

This is just not true. Benjamin Chertoff has denied it. It seems to be reported over and over by some sources, but there is not a single shred of evidence that they are in any way even distant relatives, let alone cousins.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by m3rlzit appears PM's online editor, Benjamin Chertoff, is a cousin of Michael Chertoff

This is just not true. Benjamin Chertoff has denied it. It seems to be reported over and over by some sources, but there is not a single shred of evidence that they are in any way even distant relatives, let alone cousins.

According to his own mother he is, and he never denied that he is cousins, he just said that he never really met the guy, he was a distant cousin whom he's never even had a conversation with.

Originally posted by WolfofWarAccording to his own mother he is, and he never denied that he is cousins, he just said that he never really met the guy, he was a distant cousin whom he's never even had a conversation with.

From US News and World Report:

They assert that Benjamin Chertoff, a researcher on the project, is a cousin of homeland security chief Michael Chertoff. He's not, though he may be distantly related. "No one in my family has ever met anyone related to Michael Chertoff," he says.

Also, from here, in his own words:

Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only "Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins." Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by nataylor]

I'm certainly not trying to de-rail this thread but if you are interested in PM magazine and the people involved with that rag this may interest you
Popular Mechanics' & Other CIA Front Organizations

and
Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man
by Jim Hoffman



[edit on 12/9/2006 by Sauron]

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by WolfofWarAccording to his own mother he is, and he never denied that he is cousins, he just said that he never really met the guy, he was a distant cousin whom he's never even had a conversation with.

From US News and World Report:

They assert that Benjamin Chertoff, a researcher on the project, is a cousin of homeland security chief Michael Chertoff. He's not, though he may be distantly related. "No one in my family has ever met anyone related to Michael Chertoff," he says.

Also, from here, in his own words:

Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only "Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins." Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by nataylor]

Thats all fine and dandy, but his own mother has gone on the record in an interview of saying that he WAS infact his cousin. Not that it really means anything, but really, who do you believe; the persons mother who has nothingto loose or gain by a statement, or the person whos credibility and bias can and will be attacked by that fact?

So the guy with something to loose says no.

But his mother, whom has nothingto loose, says yes.

A conundrum, no doubt.

Yes the Ben and Micheal relationship is another example of how CT sites knowingly changed the quote of someone. Not jst midley, but outright changed the quote to completely changer the meaning to the opposite of what the person they quoted said. That's outright dishonest.

It's obvious form the ogirinal quote that the mother was joking that they might be some distant cousins, basically verifying that they are not directly related in any way. but to take that and quote it as "Yes, they are dinfinitely cousins" is dishonest and unacceptable.