Debunking Popular Mechanics

Author Topic: Debunking Popular Mechanics  (Read 18923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lord Carpainter

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Debunking Popular Mechanics
« on: August 28, 2007, 06:06:03 PM »
The Planes

Quote
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.

Note the belittling tone of the article. What Cockpit recordings? We were told that the black boxes (Including the CVR) were not found? Now we know, from testimony of a rescue worker who was on the scene that they found 3/4 black boxes, but the FBI confiscated them and it was reported that they were not found. Why the cover-up?

The Pod

Quote
One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images — the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

A Spanish University said that this was not the case when they revealed that the Pod was not a trick of light or a shadow. No one's saying it had to be attatched to a civilian aircraft. A rocket pod could be attatched to a military drone in a plane-switch scheme much like the one detailed in Operation NorthWoods. Also, more experts have said there was a pod. In the documentary, 9-11 Ripple Effect, by William Lewis and Dave Vonkleist, who made 911: In Plane Site, talked to military and ex-military personnel who conclude that there was a pod of some sort.

Stand Down Order

Quote
On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

The Stand Down is a strong point in the argument that 9/11 was an inside job. It explains the systematic failure of air defenses and proves high treason. After the first and second hit, it was clear that there was a suicide hijacking attack, so there would be no reason to issue stand down orders. However, Andrews Air Force Base, 15 miles from the Pentagon, was not able to stop the plane from hitting the Pentagon. Also notable is the fact that three F-16s in the base were sent to North Carolina for a training exercise that was scheduled that day, along with all the other drills, war games, and exercises. One may wonder why the F-16s did not 'get anywhere near the pirated planes'.. that is because the fighters that were scrambled were scrambled well after it was known that there was a hijacking, and they were flying at 1/4 of their top speed.

Notice, that the Popular Mechanics fails to debunk or even mention one of the strongest pieces of evidence indicating that stand down orders were given, which is the testimony of Norman Mineta:

Quote
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

Also note that the article fails to mention another key argument in topic of the Stand Down, and a key argument for many in the truth movement: The 9/11 war games. On 9/11, numerous war games, drills, and exercises were being run by different agencies. The NRO was running an exercise where a plane flew into their building. The Joint Chiefs Of Staff were running live-fly hijacking drills. Fort Myers and Fort Belvoir were running exercises. A company in the WTC was running a drill (Amazingly, this was the same company who's CEO was invited to Warren Buffet's 'last annual' golf event at Offut Air Force Base, where Bush would land later. Her invitation saved her life, because her office was right where the plane hit, and Thomas Kean used to work in, Fiduciary Trust.). Most significant, however, are the drills run on that day which affected the stand down: Plane crash drills, hijacking drills, drills that distracted fighters, chemical attack drills (Relating to the toxic calamity at Ground Zero)..

Though these played a large part in the failure of the air defenses, Popular Mechanics fails to mention them.

'No Windows' Plane

Quote


Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied — including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine — as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.




Flight 175 was a United Airlines Boeing 767. I will provide this picture of such a plane as evidence. Does anyone see the problem here? Popular Mechanics provided a photo as evidence to support their claim that the plane had windows, and was not a drone. This photo shows a piece of fuselage with windows, but no other identifiable plane debris. You'll notice that the photo provided by Popular Mechanics is unpainted, but the area where a United Airline 767's windows are is painted gray. We can therefore conclude that this is not debris from United Airlines Flight 175. It cannot be from Flight 11 either, because the same problem arises. The area where the windows are is blue, but this piece of debris is unpainted. So, in presenting this photograph, Popular Mechanics not only failed to prove that the attack plane had windows, but it proved that this debris could not have been from 175 or 11. However, there were no other planes that crashed in New York City that day, so this brings us to the only remaining explanation: The evidence, which was right by a stairway, was planted to support the official story.

Intercepts

Quote
In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

How blatantly false, in the 10 months before 9/11, NORAD had intercepted 67 wayward planes! ("Jets on High Alert," ABC News, Aug. 13, 2002,)

"Everything was coming our way like a wave. The firefighters that were ahead of us and the civilians that were ahead of us totally disappeared."-Fernando Camacho, firefighter

Were Directed Energy Weapons Used On 9/11?

"I want to make it mak

Offline Lord Carpainter

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2007, 06:06:50 PM »
The World Trade Center

Quote
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers — and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later — initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

As my studies on your article show, your explanations were not satisfactory. Explosives weren't the main cause, but they were most certainly used. Evidence suggests that for at least the twin towers, the primary cause was Directed Energy Weapons. PM fails to even mention evidence of DEWs, like the toasted cars and melted hole in WTC 3, and the dustification of the World Trade Center complex. DEWs also may have been used to cause additional damage to the Pentagon, and possibly make the outer wall collapse, because there was at least one toasted car at the Pentagon.

If WTC7 was taken down by fire, then that would be the first time in history that fire alone destroyed a steel-framed building. Diesel fuel gives off a distinct smell, but NIST reported that witnesses did not smell Diesel fuel.

 The damage inflicted by the planes? WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 paper on the WTC states that it was designed to take the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707 traveling at 600 miles per hour.



Lobby Damage

Quote
Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

What we have here is a 'magic jet fuel' argument. According to William Rodriguez, a man came out of the elevator in flames very shortly after the plane hit. To believe that jet fuel could move down the elevator shaft from the top floor to cause damage to the lobby in seconds is to believe in magic. Firefighters reported that the lobby looked as though 'a bomb had exploded there'. PM argues that the Jet fuel would eventually reach the Lobby by travelling down the elevator shafts and disrupted the elevator system, causing damage to the lobby. This does not account for how fast it happened. Here's how William Rodriguez tells the story:

Quote
And all of a sudden we heard boom!! And I thought it was a generator that blew up in the basement. And I said to myself: Oh my God, I think that's the generator. And I was going to verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind, I hear boom! Right on the top. Pretty far away. So, it was a difference between coming from the basement and coming from the top. And thats ... everybody started screaming. And a person comes running into the office saying: Explosion, explosion, explosion! He had his hands extended. And all the skin was falling from under his arm.

Squibs

Quote
Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Here we have one of the most overused, debunked-a-million-times arguments used by debunkers. Even though common sense clearly refutes the claim that the floors pancaked, debunkers keep on trying to use it to explain the squibs. In pancake collapses, there is a number of floors on top of each other in the remains. There was no such thing at the site of the remains.

Jim Hoffman of 911research.wtc7.net pointed out some serious problems with PM and other debunkers' theory of how the squibs were caused:

Quote
    * The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
    * The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.
    * The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.
    * The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.
    * The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html

Seismographic Evidence

Quote
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

This claim was debunked long before the PM article. It is now generally accepted within the movement to be a misunderstanding of seismographic evidence, so PM should not act as if it is still used by the majority of the truth movement. WhatReallyHappened doesn't even have a page on it anymore.

Building 7

Quote
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

WTC7 was a 47 story, steel-framed skyscraper, it was not hit by an airplane, and had minor fires. It collapsed at nearly free-fall speed at 5:20 PM, and squibs were seen rapidly moving up the side just before it collapsed. The cracks and kinks appear after the building caves in on itself. NIST fails to explain why it came down so fast, and why it came down so symmetrically and cleanly, into it's own footprint. Fire is named as the cause. This would make WTC7 the first steel building in history to collapse because of fire alone.

Their second argument is that Diesel fuel contributed to the collapse. NIST even said “No diesel smells [were] reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas” of WTC 7. Diesel fuel gives off a distinct smell. The idea that no one would smell Diesel fuel if it was burning is ludicrous.

"Everything was coming our way like a wave. The firefighters that were ahead of us and the civilians that were ahead of us totally disappeared."-Fernando Camacho, firefighter

Were Directed Energy Weapons Used On 9/11?

"I want to make it mak

Offline Lord Carpainter

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2007, 06:07:40 PM »
The Pentagon

Quote
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

9:37 AM? This clock, which was frozen at the time of impact, reads 9:31:39:



http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480

This clock, however, was stopped at 9:32:31:



http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19

Whichever it is, it's not any time close to 9:37, which raises a serious question about the official timeline. If it crashed at 9:31 or 9:32, then that leaves a 5-6 minute gap of time after the crash happened. What was going on in that 5-6 minute gap of time, and why is it being covered up?

Dozens of witnesses did see a plane, but the evidence that we have now points to a flyover. The plane pulled up and flew over the building just before impact as strategically placed explosives detonated, and the plane flew behind the smoke, creating the illusion that the plane flew into the Pentagon, when in reality, it flew over it. Robert Turcios and Skarlet both say that the plane pulled up before hitting the Pentagon. This demolishes the official story, which has the plane striking the ground floor. If the plane pulled up, then the damage we see in photographs is physically impossible if the plane hit when it pulled up, so the only explanation is that it pulled up. Witnesses saw a C-130 flying overhead, and a military helicopter. This means that when witnesses see the plane that flew over flying by the other side, they will think it's just another one of the planes flying around the building. There is significant evidence that explosives were used, which would support the conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon. High explosives were smelled by two witnesses, and many witnesses reported that the explosion they felt was like a bomb. There were reports of secondary explosions at the Pentagon, reports of concussion, other buildings shaking, and bomb-like damage. The fire damage was inconsistent with a fuel-laden plane flying into the building. Many objects on the impacted ring were unburnt. There is hardly any debris, and the only piece of identifiable debris looks to have been planted. Witnesses also report the plane being smaller than a 757, and white instead of a 757's normal colors. This means that the flyover plane would have some 757 characteristics, but not a 757.

The Size Of The Hole

Quote
When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

This is wrong. The original hole was not nearly that big. The 75ft hole they speak of was actually 65ft across, and was not the original hole. It was the hole created after the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed. The original hole was much smaller than the one that was created by the outer wall collapsing.  ASCE's findings are not credible, because a computer simulation is not credible evidence. If they are speaking of the computer simulation I believe they are speaking of, it omits the engines of the plane, and it gets the number of support columns completely wrong. In photos, the area under the hole is not one giant hole, but a collection of smaller holes, we can see this because there is building material hanging down, and if that was where the wings came through and destroyed support columns, that material would have been destroyed.

Of course it doesn't leave a cartoon outline of itself in the building, but what it would do is cause impact damage. It is improbable that the plane would crash and the wings would cause no impact damage.

As for the landing gear, I think a quote from Killtown's site gets this one pretty well:

Quote
First the punch out hole was said to been caused by the plane's nose, then the rest of the planed entered in as a "liquid mass," and now we are told that the landing gear caused the punch-out hole?  I wish you guys would get your story straight.

In-Tact Windows

Quote
Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Blast resistant windows are built to withstand a lot of force, but one of these windows that was 'near the impact area' was right where the tail section should have hit. It was right above the impact hole, but just another smoking gun in the case, the area above the impact hole shows no damage from where the tail section should have hit the building. Also, PM fails to acknowledge the amazing coincidence of the place the Pentagon was 'hit'. It had blast resistant windows, had a personal fire station with their fire truck outside, had the least people and the least military personnel inside, and was being renovated.

Debris

Quote


Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

If he was able to pick these parts up by hand, then could they not have been planted by hand hours beforehand? This would obviously be a complex operation, and to fake a plane crash, evidence would need to be planted to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon. Also, did you quote this man right? Did he say that he 'held the tail section of a 757 in his hand?'. A 757's tail section is 44ft tall.

As for the debris, a clear analysis shows this was planted. First of all, it's not burnt, second of all, it's sky blue, while the skin of a 757 is Patriot blue, way deeper than sky blue. Also, it was found very far from the impact point.

"Everything was coming our way like a wave. The firefighters that were ahead of us and the civilians that were ahead of us totally disappeared."-Fernando Camacho, firefighter

Were Directed Energy Weapons Used On 9/11?

"I want to make it mak

Offline Lord Carpainter

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2007, 06:08:08 PM »
Flight 93

Quote
Cockpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane. Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the passengers were drugged. The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the U.S. government could kill them.

Was it shot down, or did it even go down in Shanksville? The fire damage is inconsistent with any kind of plane, and Susan Mcelwain, in an interview with Terrorcell, said that she didn't see any wings on the plane that flew over her. She saw a missile. There is no debris, other than unidentified scraps of metal and photos of plane debris that were released a long time after 9/11..In 2006. In one aerial shot, there is a perfect imprint of the wings in the crater, but only a light impression of the tail. How could Flight 93 make such a cartoon outline of itself in the dirt?

White Jet

Quote
There was such a jet in the vicinity — a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft." — not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

PM's argument rests on the claim that the jet was a Falcon 20. However, listen to what Susan Mcelwain says that a Falcon 20 was not the plane she saw.

Quote
"The FBI's later explanation for the white jet was that a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 jet...Susan Mcelwain says a Falcon 20 was not the plane she saw."

Tom Spinelli said the plane was in the area before the crash:

Quote
"I saw the white plane," he said.
"It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash."

Students from Shanksville High said that the jet was a 'big fighter plane' that flew over the school. ( GNN: "UA 93: The Road To Shanksville (part 2)

The Engine

Quote
Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

This scenario is impossible. Flight 93 went down into soft dirt in a vertical trajectory, so debris would not rocket skyward and tumble far from the crash site.

Indian Lake

Quote
Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater — not 6 miles — easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest — toward Indian Lake.

The idea that paper items would survive such a fiery plane crash is ludicrous. Paper is a highly flammable material, and a fuel blast of a nose-dive plane crash would most certainly obliterate any paper items the plane held. The idea that paper items in the plane would be found in Indian Lake is almost as improbable as the idea of the hijacker pilot of Flight 11, Satam al-Suqami, having his passport recovered, even though the cockpit would be exposed to the worst of the explosion. They expect us to believe that small paper items can survive intense plane crashes. Just like they expected us to believe that all 4 bombers' identifications were recovered in the London Bombings. That is improbable. They were carrying bombs. I'd expect at the identification cards they had to be blown to smitherines. It is clear, the government planted the paper items found to support the theory of a plane crash.

Fighter Pilot

Quote
Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes — it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

If this story is true, it could indicate that Donn de Grand-Pre was lying to fuel the shoot-down theory, and cover up the fact that the flight did not even crash in Shanksville, but it could be that Jacoby is lying to cover up that  Grand-Pre was possibly the one who fired the missiles that caused damage th Shanksville. This story is one you can't prove or disprove. It all depends on who you want to believe.

(And, that's the end of the article, folks. PM omits DEWs, Flyover, No-Plane-At-Shanksville, The War Games, Mineta's Testimony, W199I, and much more)
"Everything was coming our way like a wave. The firefighters that were ahead of us and the civilians that were ahead of us totally disappeared."-Fernando Camacho, firefighter

Were Directed Energy Weapons Used On 9/11?

"I want to make it mak

Offline jbrid1138

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Governments don't care, individuals do. MARK TWAIN
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2007, 07:13:34 PM »
A good book for this is 'Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers" by DAVID RAY GRIFFIN.

One of my concerns is the guy that is responsible for the Popular Mechanics hit piece -- Mr. CHERTOFF // Yes, that name should be familiar // a relative of our Homeland Security Czar.    Nothing like asking a link to our government to debunk things that they themself are accused of.   
We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
 -- James Madison (Fourth President USA 1809-1817)

Offline Lord Carpainter

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2007, 07:31:11 PM »
What amazes me is how PM can make ridiculous claims such as "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America" when NORAD had intercepted 67 planes in the 10 months before 9/11.

While I was reviewing their article, it also came clear to me that the famous photo of a piece of windowed fuselage allegedly from Flight 175 is planted. It is unpainted, but a United Airline's window skin is painted. 
"Everything was coming our way like a wave. The firefighters that were ahead of us and the civilians that were ahead of us totally disappeared."-Fernando Camacho, firefighter

Were Directed Energy Weapons Used On 9/11?

"I want to make it mak

Offline jbrid1138

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Governments don't care, individuals do. MARK TWAIN
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2007, 08:34:10 AM »
(quote)
but a United Airline's window skin is painted
______________
Would be a nice thing to SHOW US // got a suitable reference for this?  Great point otherwise. 
We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
 -- James Madison (Fourth President USA 1809-1817)

Offline Bossgator

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Patriot in Arizona
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2007, 05:01:52 PM »
From the picture in this thread, the claimed "unpainted" section of fuelage with windows, unless I'm colorblind(NOT), that section is grey, just like the photo of the plane provided. Am I missing something here? And from that picture, what evidence is there that the section is not painted? Looks painted grey to me!

I also am missing the point of whether the plane was a commercial airliner, or a non-discript aircraft. It really doesn't matter,now does it? The passengers claimed to be on the aircraft are no longer around, regardless of why that is. Whether on a plane or not, it seems apparent to me they got whacked!

And I'm curious about these claims of one or more terrorists that were suppose to be on those flights were located alive AFTER the crash. That to me is one of the biggest points to the story. has this claim been followed up, confirmed/dismissed proof positive?
In the end, all that's left is the truth! - Bossgator

When in politics and faced with two men who are both evil, do you choose the lesser of those two evils? NO! Execute them both and find someone who is *not* evil.

Offline jbrid1138

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Governments don't care, individuals do. MARK TWAIN
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2007, 05:15:26 PM »
I think this is an interesting article regarding airplane and airplane crashes -- seems this now retired US Air Force Colonel used to be a major player in aircraft identification // He has something interesting to report to all of us:
Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson
We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
 -- James Madison (Fourth President USA 1809-1817)

Offline Lord Carpainter

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2007, 04:57:46 PM »
From the picture in this thread, the claimed "unpainted" section of fuelage with windows, unless I'm colorblind(NOT), that section is grey, just like the photo of the plane provided. Am I missing something here? And from that picture, what evidence is there that the section is not painted? Looks painted grey to me!

I also am missing the point of whether the plane was a commercial airliner, or a non-discript aircraft. It really doesn't matter,now does it? The passengers claimed to be on the aircraft are no longer around, regardless of why that is. Whether on a plane or not, it seems apparent to me they got whacked!

And I'm curious about these claims of one or more terrorists that were suppose to be on those flights were located alive AFTER the crash. That to me is one of the biggest points to the story. has this claim been followed up, confirmed/dismissed proof positive?

Ah, sorry, I have since changed my mind on this. While the piece of fuselage is unpainted, and is therefore not from UA 175, (The reason it appears gray is because it is lying on it's side, and shadows give it a darker color) but I do think Flight 175 hit the building. Flight 175, though, was probably remote-controlled, because instead of hitting lower, which would have caused more destruction, it hit on the higher floors of the building. It hit in a rather off-centered fashion as well, making it miss many of the central support columns. It is also a fact that Flight 11 flew right by Indian Point nuclear power station. If it had hit Indian Point, a lot more lives would have been lost. They were probably the original passenger planes, but flown into the building by remote control.
"Everything was coming our way like a wave. The firefighters that were ahead of us and the civilians that were ahead of us totally disappeared."-Fernando Camacho, firefighter

Were Directed Energy Weapons Used On 9/11?

"I want to make it mak

Offline jbrid1138

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Governments don't care, individuals do. MARK TWAIN
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2007, 04:17:04 PM »
Looks like we might be in agreement with this point you make about remote control.  In the month of July 2001, a completely remote controlled Global Hawk flew from a military base in California and flew across the big pond and landed in Australia -- the entire trip was remote controlled; no passengers, no pilot, and yet it took off and flew, and landed, thousands and thousands of miles and many hours later.  Two months before 9/11.  Remote control airplane successes date even further back and yet our President pretends it's a science that needs further investigation before it will ever become a reality.  Maybe somebody ought to point out to him the story about the little Global Hawk That Could -- make it sound a bit like that 'Pet Goat' story, turn the book upside down, bet he'd then be interested and perhaps come around to recognizing it for what it is.  Most of us have already.

Those airplanes may have been completely taken over by remote control and flown to their destination targets.  Remote control (from WTC7 location, as a good possibility) would make more sense than a foreigner with little to no training in flying a B757/767 yet the only crashing they did was at their intended targets.

That's always been a fantastic, unbelievable story.  I personally have a hard time finding my way around on vacation, and I'm from this country, and I've visited the same site year after year for many years now, and I'm getting my view of the local landscape from the front and side windows of my car where I can see road signs and other items to help me relate.

Now take a foreigner, put him with little to no training at the controls of a tremendously powerful jet airplane, put him thousands of feet into the air, hundreds of miles away from his target -- and the only time he crashes is at the target location.  How can anyone in their right mind expect him or her to find their way around?  Stop and ask for directions, I suppose.  Was that in the 9/11 Commission Report (Lie) like that where our government explains all this to us?  That they made a stop over and asked for directions.  Wouldn't be a bit surprised if it was in that book of lies.  Woud you?   
We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
 -- James Madison (Fourth President USA 1809-1817)

Offline mskite

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2011, 10:10:39 AM »
I do not know if this was in the Popular Mechanics article or not but just a few days after they said flight 93 crashed Ruters had an article on the internet showing a picture of what was claimed to be a piece of the plane's floor This was a piece of rubber flooring found in a pond 5 miles back from the crash site. This was NEVER shown again and I have not found it again. Does anyone remember this aqnd have you seen it again. That photo shows that a plane had to be downed by a missile. After all there was a missile base about half way between Philli and NY. Any help appreciated on finding this article. I found this site yesterday hunting it.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2013, 10:42:29 AM »
Popular Mechanics don use many sources directly.
Their debunking is quite weak

Offline Outer Haven

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,926
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2015, 10:37:24 AM »
What happened to Jason Bermas...?
"I admire your faith [in evolution]. But I don't admire your intelligence."
-- Kent Hovind