Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

9/11: Debunking The Myths

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 11:48 AM
Original message
9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM (Popular Mechanics) examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories.



http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. The only conspiracy I can buy into is LIHOP
Whether it was through indifference, incompetence, or a craven desire for a reason to invade Iraq, who knows? We know they were warned. We know the FAA memos warned of it on 52 of 105 occasions. We know they sat back and did nothing but dream of glorious conquest in Iraq.

Any other theories out there assume the junta are a whole lot smarter than we know they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Just because busholini is a proven moran
doesn't mean his overlords are.

Who stood down NORAD?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. PM whitewashes 9/11.
What a load of crap.

Drop it like it's hot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. There are already two threads about this in the September 11 forum
Edited on Mon Feb-14-05 11:58 AM by AZCat
If you'd care to join us, here are the links to two threads:

9/11:Debunking the Myths

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



On Edit: Eliminated surprise "smiley" in link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. How does Bush spell relief?
- P R O P A G A N D A -

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Killing the messengers...
Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man

by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, February 7, 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

excerpt:
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into themes which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each theme, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

This article has a page of Editor's Notes, "The Lies Are Out There," by James Meigs, whose previous columns have praised military technology (such as the UAVs used in Falluja). Meigs places outside of society anyone who questions the official version of events of 9/11/01:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. The 9/11 WTC Fires: Where's The Inferno?
The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001. Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.
Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

more...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Kevin Ryan clearly does not understand the relationship...
between temperature and ultimate tensile (or compressive) strength of steels.

Perhaps that is because it is not his area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. How does that have anything to do with steel properties?
I believe we are discussing the properties of steel, not the "controlled demolition" theory.

Would you care to comment on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. Don't buy this bullshit, it is bad propaganda
I couldn't get any further than page three where they stated that NORAD had a difficult time tracking the planes at 8:27. Somehow I doubt that, since NBC was providing live tracking of the planes when they opened their show that morning. Gee, you would think that if NBC was getting these kinds of feeds, then NORAD would be also.

Also, they state that Payne Stewart's jet was tracked by only on F-16, and that it took an hour and a half for the jet to intercept. What they forget to mention is that two F-15s were up in the air, intercepting Stewarts jet within minutes, and that the F-16 they're talking about was accompanied by another F-16.

The rest of that article is just spin, BS, and the official line, all of which have been discounted many times over. If you wish to continue to believe the big lie, fine with me. But at least try to come up with something that hasn't be discredited long before you post it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
9. PM probably consulted people with FAKE DEGREES
May 11, 2004
WASHINGTON - At least 28 senior-level federal employees in eight agencies have bogus college degrees, including three managers at the office that oversees nuclear weapons safety, congressional investigators have found.
<snip>
Three unaccredited schools — Pacific Western University, California Coast University and Kennedy-Western University — provided data showing that 463 of their students were federal employees. Most of those listed were in the Department of Defense. The report did not name employees.
The investigation took place from July 2003 through February.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee planned hearings Tuesday and Wednesday on diploma mills and the taxpayer's role in subsidizing them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4951979/

Some fake degrees are available with the names of actual universities. The Daily Aztec received one such degree for San Diego State University. That diploma came with transcripts that listed classes not offered at SDSU and the phone number for a "transcript office" based in Washington, D.C., to verify that the holder of the degree went to the school.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topnews021203002.html

Looking at the personnel of eight federal agencies chosen at random, the GAO found that 463 employees showed up on the enrollment records of just three unaccredited schools. (It actually looked at four colleges, but only three responded to its request for information and only two fully cooperated.) This was merely a sampling of the dozens of mills operating nationwide, not an exhaustive audit; given the limited nature of the GAO's investigation, the true number of federal employees who are academically unqualified to fill the positions they hold could be in the thousands.

Agencies tasked with defending America from terrorism were among the top employers of workers with phony diplomas identified by the GAO. The Department of Defense employs 257 of them. Transportation has 17. Justice has 13; Homeland Security, 12; Treasury, eight.

The GAO also found that two diploma mills alone have received a total of nearly $170,000 in payments from a dozen federal agencies for tuition for 64 employees. Hamilton University refused to cooperate with the GAO in its audit of federal payments for student fees, so it remains unclear whether Callahan's tuition was subsidized.

But as a serial fake-diploma shopper, Callahan is one of the worst offenders among the senior officials identified from the eight federal agencies the GAO surveyed. At least 28 senior-level employees had degrees from diploma mills, the GAO found, while cautioning that "this number is believed to be an understatement." Among them: Daniel P. Matthews, chief information officer for the Department of Transportation (which oversees the Transportation Security Administration), who got his $3,500 bachelor of science degree within eight months from diploma mill Kent College in Mandeville, Louisiana, and three unnamed managers with super-secret Q-level security clearance at the National Nuclear Security Administration—including an Air Force lieutenant colonel who attended no classes and took no tests to get a promotion-enabling master's degree from LaSalle University, a diploma mill affiliated with Kent College and also based in Mandeville. No word yet if they, too, will be forced to resign, or if it will again take the news media to drum them out of office.
http://www.reason.com/0501/fe.ps.cut.shtml

EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THAT LIST SHOULD PONY UP THEIR QUALIFICATIONS.
After we double check them ALL,
then we will get back to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. How about a little reciprocation?
I have yet to see the c.v. of any CT that has posted here. Why is this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Folks don't get caught in the details --
If we show how they build perceptions with language we have a tool to wrap them over the head with when they publish this crap.

Ask yourself what is the point of painting the picture of who is right and who is wrong.

If one is wrong why not simply point it out, instead of first describing them as wack. Wouldn't it be better after you prove them wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
14. This pisses me off...
Edited on Mon Feb-14-05 12:39 PM by libertypirate
Why such pointed descriptions of the sides of the argument? Look at the people and not the argument?

The bad people
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.

The good people
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.


The result of the good people
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense.

We proved the skeptics wrong with hard evidence and common sense. Funny why not prove it before telling me that is what you are doing.


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.

There is a reason they are nuts, but don't forget your first impression

I could go through the rest but common sense is it's mostly bull.

The coincidence theorist in our government want us to believe.

bad people + coincidence = 911
Not enough

Is Sept. 11 the standard day each year that we hold cross agency high jacking air drills?

Then isn't it odd that the lead of the FAA high jacking groups first day was 911.

Without fail the process executed 70+ times that year, fighters were scrambled to intercept flights in question, why did that fail on 911?

There are way more questions then answers. See how they turned the 911 commission into "the" investigation, when they only looked at systematic failure and not individual failure, remember that was after the election... bullshit!

Keep asking questions they lead to answers; don't just accept a popular myth because it is popular.


Don't get caught in these details know they are fucking with you and start pointing it out, it's the only way to make them stop

lp


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. Locking
This is a topic for the September 11 Forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC