9/11: Debunking The Myths

[Jara sang]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842...

Interesting note, take a look at the name of the lead reporter on this article. If that name looks familiar, it should. Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff the Secretary of Homeland Security. Conflict of interest? How exactly does adressing issues such as "No Stand-Down Orders" and Fighter Intercept protocols fall under the auspices of a magazine that devotes itself to science and technology?

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

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

REPORTING:Benjamin Chertoff, Davin Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth, Tracy Saelinger, Erik Sofge and the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS.

[Make7]

1. Where ya been?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=34941&mesg_id=34941

[philb]

2. PM is a bogus study that has been debunked

As has the 9/11 Commission Report, which as Dr. Griffin demonstrated in his book: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions, is a "571 page lie"
lots of this before

[philb]

3. There are a lot of web sites by technical people and we've had threads

I've only looked at it marginally because while it has some technical authors it appears its purpose was mainly political and rather than seeking to resolve the real issues at question regarding what happened on 9/11, they were mainly interested in setting up straw dogs to knock down for political purposes. I've looked more at the "official" studies than the PM study. Some of the real unresolved issues that it didn't attempt to resolve are here:
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

which appears to me the PM study is a part of. I don't think it was a serious unbiased study seeking truth whereever that leads.
It seems to have been like the 9/11 Commission Report which was a bogus, biased, non-useful, attempt designed to cover-up rather than enlighten.

[pox americana]

4. "confronting poisonous claims with irrefutable facts"

That whole paragraph is so Orwellian it could have been lifted from National Lampoon.