Skip to comments.Popular Mechanics Takes On 9/11 Conspiracy Nutjobs! (VIDEO)
Posted on 09/13/2006 8:29:02 AM PDT by areafiftyone
JIM MEIGS AND DAVID DUNBAR OF POPULAR MECHANICS appeared on PBS to debate the Loose Change folks regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can see the Video HERE
Exactly! Many of the support structures were destroyed by the impacts themselves.Then,add huge hour long,white hot fires weakening (but not melting) the support structures that weren't destroyed,add the 500 tons of the airplanes themselves and you get...
Cheney did it!
I always thought that 7 World Trade Center was the crux of their argument.They claimed that it fell for no reason at all.But IMO,this petroleum stored underneath is a good explanation.The thing I saw the other day said that no effort was made to put out the fire there because it was obvious that the effort would have been futile.
bump for later
"JIM MEIGS AND DAVID DUNBAR OF POPULAR MECHANICS appeared on PBS"
No, it wasn't PBS. It was the other taxpayer supported hate America outlet, Democracy Now (Except for the Middle East)!
And this was how they "celebrated" the fifth anniversary of 9/11.
That's what Instapundit says. They must have it wrong. I copied what they had on their website about it.
I don't watch Democracy Now and won't ever but I do read Intsapundit every day.
bump for later read
I could only watch about 10 mins of this myself. When one of the kids called Popular Mechanics a "yellow journalism publication" run by Hurst.... well 'click'.
I really don't know but they should be called the "Screw Loose" guys.
SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ASSAILED
Members and movement attacked from several directions
Madison, WI (PRWEB) September 9, 2006 --- Three professors who are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been threatened with the loss of their positions for their research and teaching about the events of 9/11. Other attacks are coming from national magazines, such as TIME and U.S. NEWS, which have cover-stories this week suggesting that those who believe 9/11 involved a conspiracy may need psychological counseling. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have published pieces intended to bolster the official account of 9/11.
This flurry of activity suggests that the government is becoming desperate in its efforts to keep the truth about 9/11 from the American people, said James H. Fetzer, the founder and co-chair of the society. But I dont think its working. Fetzer finds attacks on faculty members, including Kevin Barrett, a humanities instructor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Bill Woodward, a professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire, and Steven Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University and the societys co-chair, especially disturbing.
According to the government, 9/11 is the pivotal event of the 21st century, which changed everything, he observed. So it obviously deserves to be studied. College and universities are the institutions that undertake the study of significant historical events. The very idea that faculty should not be studying the events of 9/11 verges on the absurd, he remarked. And since the official account-that the events of 9/11 involved 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airliners and perpetrating terrorist acts under control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan-involves a conspiracy, it is impossible to study 9/11 without dealing with conspiracy theories.
Fetzer thinks the administration wants to suppress serious research on 9/11 because the official account cannot withstand scrutiny. What the government has told us is just fine if you are willing to believe impossible things, he observed. Its truth requires violating laws of physics and engineering that cannot be violated and cannot be changed. He offered a recent piece from NIST that attempts to resolve frequently asked questions as an illustration. We have posted it on our web site at st911.org along with several critiques. I invite anyone to review that exchange to determine if the official account has any basis in science. It does not.
An article from Popular Mechanics that has been turned into a book doesnt fare any better, he observed. Since there is no objective foundation for the official account, there is no ground to suggest that skeptics of the official account need psychological counseling. Rationality is the tendency to accept, reject, and hold-in-suspense beliefs on the basis of logic and evidence, Fetzer stated. Given what we know now, those who continue to defend the governments account are the ones whose beliefs cannot be justified by logic and evidence, not the critics. The situation abounds with ironies.
Sometimes I wonder if the general public realizes the government has been lying to us about 9/11 from the beginning. He cites the recent acknowledgment from the FBI that it has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 and the Presidents response during a press conference that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Only this week a Senate Intelligence Committee report explained that Saddam not only was not collaborating with bin Laden but opposed him. These were reasons we were given for going to war, he said. If the government has been lying about them, we already know the government has been lying about 9/11.
Scholars, a non-partisan society of students, faculty and experts dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, includes physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, pilots, and aeronautical engineers among its members. We have no funds and no budget but are doing this because we believe the American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. Even I find it difficult to believe that the American government could have attacked the American people and killed 3,000 civilians to promote its political agenda, but that is where the evidence leads.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(608) 835-2707 (home)
Exactly... it seems like common-sense details like this are lost on the fever swamp crowd. Those two adolescents were not very impressive, we they? "Smart" (in a high school sophomore sense) and that's about it.
i'm ENRAGED that these two rubes have probably deceived millions. (if 10 million people have seen the film)
you're exactly right, they acted like high school sophomores arguing with their parents. i'm really shocked. i watched their film about 6 months ago and found it odd that the narrator had the voice of a teenage boy, now i know the "researcher" is the same kind of twerp.
Plus, WTC7 was being pummelled with tons of steel beams and other debris that was falling from the towers. It would be like its getting smashed repeatedly with a wrecking ball.
Is that the origin of the term "La la land"?
"I always thought that 7 World Trade Center was the crux of their argument.They claimed that it fell for no reason at all.But IMO,this petroleum stored underneath is a good explanation.The thing I saw the other day said that no effort was made to put out the fire there because it was obvious that the effort would have been futile."
I believe that if there was fuel storage below the building it might have been diesel fuel for emergency generator(s).
I had the same thoughts (not that the U.S. has any monopoly on deficient public education systems).
As another FReeper pointed out recently on another thread -- half the population has a below average intelligence. Combine that with low levels of education in sciences and it seems that a large number of people today are simply incapable of functioning in today's complex technological society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.