9/11: Debunking The Myths [Popular Mechanics examines evidence and consults experts]

PopularMechanics ^ | March 2005 Cover Story | Editors of PM

[fight_truth_decay]

PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

For background on this investigative feature, please click here.

FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

[Swordmaker]

Whatever. Have a nice day.
I've had enough of this thread.
If you want to declare victory over the tin-foil hat nutcase, be my guest.

Why thank you... I will.

It is obvious that you DO NOT have any salient arguments to put forward in the light of facts.

For your position is true then George W. Bush has to be monster of uncalcuable extent... willing to kill thousands of innocent Americans to accomplish something he could have done without killing. Everything we know about George W. Bush'sss charachater disagrees with your assessment of the facts of 911 and the completely absurd degree of complexity such a plot entails.

IF a rogue part of our government or military decided to force the American people into thinking it was under attack by Islamist or other extremists, a few strategically placed bombs and false clues and claims would be more than enough... not a bizantine, complicated plot to use airliners.

[SunkenCiv]

Here's an example of Jeff Rense lunacy. I found it accidentally, during a websearch for clues to the origin of a kinda weird handle someone here has. Anyway, without further ado:

http://www.rense.com/general63/brutalpurgeofPMstaff.htm

The Hidden Hand Of The CIA,
911 And Popular Mechanics
By Christopher Bollyn
Exclusive to American Free Press
3-19-5

"A brutal purge of the senior staff at Popular Mechanics preceded the publication of last month's scandalous propaganda piece about 9/11. Pulling the strings is the grand dame of Hearst Magazines and behind the scene is her obscure husband a veteran propaganda expert and former special assistant to the director of the C.I.A."

[petercooper]

bttt

[albee]

bump for later read