Popular Mechanics mag "debunks" 911 "myths"

[theresistance]

See report here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2005/100205popularmechanics.htm

The link contains a link to a rebuttal of the piece by Jim Hoffman.

Snip from PM article: "PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11...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..."

Snip from rebuttal: "Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack."

[Sterling]

1. This was already posted in the 9-11 forum.

Considering how prominent it was featured in PA I do think it could be GD discussion.

Short opinion is that PA Cherry picked some of the most flawed speculation and passed it off as "the theory". They also did a very week job fact and cross checking the PNAC version of events. They start from the assumption everything the Gov says is true.

[gristy]

2. Well, I have to admit I am not going to read the article,

but do the authors address LIHOP, or even know the difference between LIHOP and MIHOP? LIHIP is a documented fact, IMO (see today's NYT's article re. Clark's memo to Rice). MIHOP is a stretch, to say the least.

[AZCat]

3. Here's a link to the ongoing discussion in the September 11 forum

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man

It's pretty lengthy but you might find something interesting there.