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.

 

Debunking Popular Mechanics?: They lied. FAA Concedes No Such data exists.

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


popular mechanics made up several 'fairy tales'.

how can spokesmen define the frequency of something if there are no records of it?

how can DNA be matched to other DNA that doesn't exist?

how can popular mechanics authoritatively state that 'pull it' is not a demolition term?

why do you continue to defend lies?




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


billybob,

I think you should start a thread about that clip.

Plus, where is that from. Daven gets pummeled and can't answer a thing.

Edit: I like his answer of "you're asking the question in the wrong way".

How else are you suppossed to ask: "where they got the DNA to compare to? It's the simplest question, but this spokesman that is supposed to be an expert can't answer it. Then diverts the asker to some phone number with a recording. Priceless.

[edit on 3/20/2008 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
i imagine there's a thread, already. don't know.

anyway, here's info on the source:

charles goyette / davin coburn



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Boone 870
 


not true. popular mechanics is making claims that the information they provide is evidence that the conspiracy theories are wrong.
and then they provide non-evidence disguised as authoritarian evidence. that is deception. 'lying'.

the CIA and chertoff moved into popular mechanics offices, and fired a bunch of people, and THEN they did the hit piece on conspiracy theory.

their 'science' is not science and disproves nothing. it is mere spin. even the NIST report falls far short of any PERTINENT scientific evaluation, and has zero repeatability, making it NOT SCIENCE.

who doesn't 'get' that the chertoffs are from the same bloodline as the original YELLOW JOURNALIST, william randolph hearst? one of them is at popular mechanics, and the other, the head of homeland security.

hello!? is this thing on???

the ties that bind


I used this same article way back to debunk the best debunker's who were holding steadfast to "Popular Mechanics" scam. Naturally I was blown off as the tin foil hat set- then- of course now the great debunker's have mysteriously disappeared because there is no longer a credible source to back up their ridiculous scientific "answers". The entire Chertoff debacle destroyed all official credibility and the fact that he did occupy space in the building- shortly afterwards there was a mass of firings at the magazine- was not a coincidence!



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 



I used this same article way back to debunk the best debunker's who were holding steadfast to "Popular Mechanics" scam. Naturally I was blown off as the tin foil hat set- then- of course now the great debunker's have mysteriously disappeared because there is no longer a credible source to back up their ridiculous scientific "answers". The entire Chertoff debacle destroyed all official credibility and the fact that he did occupy space in the building- shortly afterwards there was a mass of firings at the magazine- was not a coincidence!


I promise not to blow you off as the tinfoil hat set dk3000. The article in the OP claims to prove that Popular Mechanics lied because they used unnamed FAA and NORAD officials by showing that the FAA doesn't keep "records" of the FAA assisting NORAD with intercepts.

How was Popular Mechanics lying?

It's a simple question and you don't need to derail or dodge with the silly Chertoff stuff.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
In 2003-04 an agressive disinformation webpage and tactic came out in full force speading stupid debunkable theories such as Kc767 Fuel tanker, missile pods, flight 93 shoot down, nuclear bombs, lasers, holograms all at once.

When popular science came out with there 911 hit piece "debunking 911 myths" I know for a fact that Davin and PM corroberated with Captain missile pod.

So as you can see that some agency (fema?) hired web pages to obscure and muddy the 911 truth.

Missile pods, Shootdown, holograms etc started by the government by pseudo-skeptics installed to obscure the truth.

You can see them here on ATS aswell.

You will see fake troothers try to sell these ridiculous stories.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I realize that the premise of this post is to point out an in-accuracy, and I applaud that. However, I don't think that any inaccuracy immediately points to a conspiracy.

On the other hand, there are many inconsistencies regarding the incidents of 9/11/01. But does that point directly to a conspiracy? I still say that logically-following a trail of evidence that is made available to us, the public, there isn't any actual evidence of a conspiracy.

There is proof of inaccuracy in many cases. And I believe that there are loads of evidence that were destroyed. But in this case a + b doesn't always = c. I can infer that there might have been a conspiracy but I can't provide evidence-real concrete evidence to prove that my inference is the correct conclusion.

All debunking aside, I would really like to find a few shreds of evidence to back what I believe. As I'm sure the rest of you (collectively) would like to find actual evidence that supports what you believe. At this point it's all circumstantial and suppositional evidence-not enough to build a convincing case for conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kelbtalfenek
I still say that logically-following a trail of evidence that is made available to us, the public, there isn't any actual evidence of a conspiracy.


Bolded by me. Now, if there was a conspiracy, do you think that evidence would be mad available to the public?


And I believe that there are loads of evidence that were destroyed.


Wouldn't this in-itself be considered a conspiracy? Since it would have taken more than one person to commit this crime?


I can infer that there might have been a conspiracy but I can't provide evidence-real concrete evidence to prove that my inference is the correct conclusion.


Hence why, IMO, the evidence was destroyed.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


To prove a conspiracy wouldn't you want to know the why as well as the what, who, when, where, how? In each case one can speculate, but without hard proof, all you're left with is speculation. Lack of evidence isn't proof.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And that's exactly why most conspiracies go unchecked. Because the conspirators are the ones gathering the "evidence".

But, I agree that no evidence does not neccessarily mean evidence but when they knowingly are throwing away evidence, it sure doesn't look good for them.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



But, I agree that no evidence does not neccessarily mean evidence but when they knowingly are throwing away evidence, it sure doesn't look good for them.



I agree with you. It doesn't look good, and I won't claim that any of the "destroyers" of evidence are innocent. But neither can I say they are guilty of anything other than destruction of possible evidentiary materials. Destroying what is considered by some as evidence is not an indicator of guilt or of any underlying conspiracy. As much as I'd like for it to be, it's not.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I think the OP has stretched it a bit here. PM might have spoken informally with personnel. Maybe what they say is true. There are no stats recorded (that's kinda hard to believe as it goes, but anyway...).

In any case, we know PM is lying. As a poster above pointed, the youtube recording of the call to PM is priceless. It's embarrassing. How did they get the original DNA to compare samples to. No answer. And 'Pull it' is not a demolition term. Idiots.

But IMO the real damning point about 9/11 and govt. involvement is that not only did WTC7 fall, but that they did not have time to set charges after WTC1&2 fell. i.e. the charges were set before the planes hit...

The govt. did it. Probably with Mossad involvement



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I wanted to bump and update this thread on the stories Popular Mechanics told about 9/11, and some information that might shed a bit of light on this discussion.

Here is the Popular Mechanics Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Problem is, there are *several* inconsistencies in the PopMech article. These are well outlined here, check the references at the bottom of the report).

My question to those still believing in the Popular Mechanics train of thought: does *any* of this refuting make you challenge what you've been told vis a vis the NIST "official narrative"?
edit on 14-1-2011 by igigi because: .



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


Thank you for posting that link. I needed the laugh.

BTW, the website for my fighter wing states we maintain combat ready aircraft........which means, when called upon, we can deploy on short notice 48-96 hours.....NOT that we keep fully armed aircraft 24/7.
edit on 15-1-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Clearly you don't expect an article writer to know EVERY on-call flight squadron SOP...

Come on now.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


Just one example of the falsehoods on the site you linked to.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


And you draw no issue with the half-truths contained in the PopMech article?

edit on 15-1-2011 by igigi because: .



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


There really ought to be consequences for those who enabled the terrorists. Instead, they'll cling to a fascist maze of assorted techno-wonders, tripping over themselves to be the first in line, hoping to land jobs as 'the real amerikans'. It is all because of the media.
edit on 15-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by starless and bible black
 


Red member name means banned. You can't star him/her.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


Thank you. I learn things every day.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join