Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

I am happy to announce that my latest article is finally available online! My newest work, titled Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality, is a point-by-point refutation of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. If you thought Popular Mechanics' updated 2011 book refuted the so-called "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, think again.

Download Part 1 now at: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html

Part 2: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/612-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-2.html

Part 3: http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/622-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-3.html

Part 4: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/634-debunking-the-real-911-myths.html  

Part 5: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/653-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-5-nanothermite-in-the-towers.html

Part 6: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/668-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html

Part 7: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683%20%20-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html

Part 8: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683%20%20-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html

Part 9: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/748-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html 

NEW! Part 10: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/766-debunking-the-real-911-myths-part-10.html 

Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9), the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown in red and with page numbers.)

(This post will be updated regularly as more parts are uploaded to ae911truth.org)

Related info:

Debunking 9/11 Myths - Popular Mechanics

The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts...

The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts...

as long as you pretend they don't exist.

I've recently read the updated 2011 version of Popular Mechanic's book Debunking 9/11Myths, and I plan on writing a full response to their controlled demolition sections. However, I wanted to discuss one particular statement in their book that I feel deserves special attention.

Their book is updated with several new sections discussing topics such as the Active Thermitic Material paper, Barry Jennings, and the 2008 NIST report on WTC7. But less than thirty pages into their book, I discovered that PM apparently was not up-to-date on everything that's happened in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Here is what they say on pages 28-29:

"Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Debunking 9/11 Myths, 2011, pg. 28-29 (Emphasis added)

I feel that the emphasised section bears repeating:

not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields.

And please don't take my word for it that their book says this. Read for yourself:


Well, I think it is plainly obvious to anyone who has payed attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement for the last 5 years why this statement deserves special attention. Popular Mechanics evidently chose to omit over 1600 credentialed experts who certainly have experience in "engineering, construction, or related fields," who question the official story of 9/11. Indeed, in all of PM's 216 page book, there is absolutely no mention of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. See if you can spot "AE9/11Truth," Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," or "Gage, Richard."





And if we step back in time for a moment, we will see that this exact same statement appears in PM's 2006 book on the exact same pages.

It is painfully obvious what Popular Mechanics has chosen to do: update their book only where it benefits them, and pretend that any experts in engineering and building construction we have don't exist.

Welcome to 2011 PM. Your journalism never ceases to amaze.


Related Info:

There Are No 9/11 Whistleblowers If You Claim They Are All Confused or Lying

Debunking 9/11 Myths - Popular Mechanics

Thought I'd post these two excellent videos of Popular Mechanics being (once again) debunked and exposed.

Commentary on Mystery Of The Urinal Deuce (Commentary)

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted this video today:



Here are decent responses published at 911truth.org and 911blogger.com at the time.

This episode aired in late 2006, so this commentary is most likely from awhile back as well. I have to wonder if South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have come to realize that haphazardly choosing to feature 911truth.org on a t-shirt in the episode to show people how "goofy and dumb" they think 9/11 truth advocates are was a complete back-fire.

I really don't think they knew they were calling these people retards:

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

But I'm sure plenty of other people found out!

Here is a first hand account of how the show back-fired from Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale, who at first was also suckered in by the pseudo-skepticism of Popular Mechanics, but who unlike Trey and Matt, researched his way past initial perceptions and cognitive dissonance and emerged a true skeptic!

When I was a young teenager going through secondary school, I was very supportive of the scientific establishment. I was strongly anti-religious, I was pro-globalism, and I genuinely believed the only way to make poverty history was to genocide everyone living in poverty and start again! In the summer of 2007, as I was about to start a university course on the wonders of data-mining, I watched an episode of South Park that completely changed my life. It was called "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" and it was a parody of 9/11 truth. Although the episode was basically a hitpiece, the writers inserted enough points in there to spark my interest in the subject.

Unlike most people however, I took a more neutral approach. I read the Popular Mechanics debunking piece quite early on and at first I fell for it as it seemed very authoritative and credible. When I did deeper research however, I realised that the piece was nothing more than propaganda. It was full of strawman arguments, ad-hominem attacks, arguments of ignorance/incredulity and appeals to authority. The biggest shock I got from studying 9/11 was the revelation that scientists lie! I never really trusted the government or the media, so I had no problem coming to terms with the idea that they were lying about 9/11, but I was very naive when it came to the scientific community. I always thought of it as as an open forum, free from political motivation, religious persecution and corporate control, where anyone can voice their dissent and put forward alternative theories. Oh, how wrong I was!

Scootle The Anti-Skeptic

It is important to note regarding the Popular Mechanics debate that is referenced in the commentary that many in the 9/11 truth movement pleaded with the producers of Democracy Now to bring on more formidable opponents who do not support all of the claims made in Loose Change.

Related Info:

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Popular Mechanics and the military should get their stories straight on NORAD! As it is, we have caught Popular Mechanics and the military lying about NORAD's true capabilities on 9/11.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org Washington, DC

The NORAD Papers--NORAD's Mission To Monitor and Control Territorial Airspace on 9/11

Nitpicking the Nitpickers: Curley's Mistranslation

**Note: JM told me about SLC's post in a Youtube message, I didn't realise he had already posted a rebuttal until I submitted my post.**

ScrewLooseChange hasn't really been debunking much lately. It's essentially now little more than a 9/11 truth gossip blog. And when they do debunk it's usually a repost of something about CIT created by people in the 9/11 truth movement. And on the rare occasion when they do some original debunking, it's usually nitpicking.

Pat Curley has once again claimed Sibel Edmonds lied in her letter to the 9/11 Commission by misrepresenting an article from the Chicago Tribune. He's referring to an Iranian case in which, according to Sibel, a translator received information that Osama bin Laden was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes, some of the people were already in the country and the attacks would happen in a few months.

Pat's February 2009 analysis of the article she cited:

1. Attack in the US targeting 4-5 cities. Status: False. In fact the article quite clearly states that the impression of the official was that the attacks would be overseas.

2. Attack will involve airplanes. Status: True.

3. Some of the attackers already in the US. Status: False. No discussion of this in the article, and indeed, given that the belief was that the attack was more likely to take place overseas there is no reason to believe this claim.

4. Attack coming soon. Status: False. "...no mention of when or where the attacks might take place."

Pat makes it seem like Sibel was using that article as proof of her claim. But she was simply stating that the press had reported on the incident and that they confirmed the information was received in April 2001.

The fact is the US was a POTENTIAL target at the very least so his analysis of point 1 is bunk. He admits point 2 is true. There's no discussion about point 3 in the article so it is neither confirmed or disproven. And, with regards to point 4, "...no mention of when or where the attacks might take place" could be referring to a specific date. They could still have known that an attack would happen in the near future without knowing exactly when it was going to happen. So, even if we assume the article wasn't a deliberate damage control whitewash, it still disproves nothing. At worst Sibel may have been slightly exaggerating in her letter, but not lying like Pat claims.

This is textbook debunking - find the strawman, misrepresent, respond, exaggerate the significance and put the reader in a state of mind where they don't know who to believe any more to put them off looking any deeper into it. That's what happened to me when I fell for the Popular Mechanics article back in Winter of 2007. It never convinced me that there was no conspiracy. It just made me unsure of what to think or who to trust any more so for more than eight months I just stopped caring.

In this case, even the Chicago Tribune article admits that the incident was a key piece to the puzzle, regardless of how much you want to downplay its significance.

Here's Sibel in her own words from her August 2009 deposition: