Perhaps the most commonly cited source of the supporters of the official 9/11 story is the March 2005 Popular Mechanics article. In this blog I will demonstrate how this source uses deception and lies to hide the truth.  In fact, in the several years that I have been researching 9/11, I have NEVER come across an argument that supported the official story that did NOT omit key facts to make their position seem more plausible.

FIRST, lets take a look at the Popular Mechanics article. 

This cover story article claimed to debunk the "16 most prevalent claims" made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but instead it dealt with some of the most frivolous and least accepted theories within the 9/11 truth movement while ignoring many of the core arguments.  This is done of course to make the few legitimate issues they raise seem more unlikely.  For example, they start the entire article (which is supposedly going to debunk the 16 most prevalent claims) by discussing the theory that there were large pods attached to the bottom of the planes that crashed into the twin towers on 9/11.  In fact, this theory was originally debunked by the 9/11 truth movement itself, including websites like 911research.com. 

Here is a list of some of the most prevalent and popular 9/11 truth videos:

Loose Change: Second Edition

9/11: The Road to Tyranny

9/11: Martial Law

Painful Deceptions

The Truth and Lies of 9/11

Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime

Confronting the Evidence

And there are dozens more.  Not a single one of the above videos claim that there were pods attached to the planes that crashed into the twin towers.  In fact, the only video that I personally have seen that makes that claim is the outdated "In Plane Sight", which was released in 2003 and is fraught with questionable material.

But of course, Popular Mechanics starts off with this point deliberately to misrepresent the ideas behind the 9/11 Truth movement.  They then proceed to debunk this theory in full with photos showing that there was no pod.  And the article progresses on in the same way, largely ignoring the key issues and instead setting up weak arguments which they can easily tear down.  For a full and complete debunking of the Popular Mechanics article (including the original full text) go here: 

http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

But what about the collapse of Building 7?  Surely the article could not ignore that claim as it lies at the heart of the entire Controlled Demolition debate?  Well, the PM article does indeed try to explain away the collapse of building 7.  Here is what they had to say about it:

WTC 7 Collapse
CL.. Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: 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.

Now lets take a look at what the PM article forgot to mention.

First, they start off by claiming that the NIST organization's new investigation uncovered details that the FEMA organization had missed.  They fail to mention that FEMA was the only agency that got a very brief glimpse at the wreckage of WTC Building 7 before it was illegally melted down and shipped overseas.  Here is the link (also on my profile) to the Fire Engineering article in which the editor Bill Manning calls the FEMA investigation into the WTC collapse a "half-baked farce" and decries the illegal destruction of evidence.

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

So here's my question: How exactly did NIST come up with this new theory about the collapse of building 7?  What evidence did they examine from the crime scene?  There is no evidence left, its all been shipped to China as scrap metal in violation of federal law.

But regardless of that, the PM article goes through the whole list of "probable causes" for the collapse, first saying that the building was damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, then it caught fire, and then they throw in the "fact" that the building was poorly designed for good measure.   They omit the fact that, unlike the twin towers (which were built in the early 70's and have also been accused of having flawed architectural design) WTC 7 was built in 1985 and housed the Office of Emergency Management which had been given $15 million in special renovations, including its own air and water supply and bomb resistant windows that could withstand 200 MPH winds.  These renovations were given ONLY to the 23rd floor.  They don't mention that the collapse of WTC building 7 took less than 10 seconds from start to finish.  In fact, unlike the previous claims (about pods) that they so easily debunked with full color photos, they do not print ONE SINGLE photo of building 7 collapsing, nor do they tell their readers where they can go to see the collapse footage.  They ignore the fact that there is not even ONE SINGLE mention of the collapse in the 9/11 commission report.

But more importantly, if you look at the explaination that is being given here, the PM article is selling the idea that fire can cause a "progressive structural collapse" of a steel skyscraper.  They never mention that there has never been a steel building that has collapsed from fire EVER, anywhere in the world before or after 9/11.  They say that there was a fifth floor fire that burned for 7 hours.  They do not produce any photos of this fire, nor do they mention its intensity.  They also do not mention that other skyscrapers, including the Windsor building in madrid which was NOT made out of solid steel, burned in a raging inferno over many floors for 24 hours and did not collapse. 

They say that the building was structually damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, but of course they omit the fact that the collapse was nearly symmetrical while the damage was clearly not, as proven by their own photos (which you can see on my profile).

They also try to sell the idea that the building had been too "top heavy".  This new revelation, which comes 4 years after the collapse, is supported by ZERO evidence in the article and seems specifically designed to explain away the fact that the collapse of Building 7 started at the roof. 

They also ignore the visible presence of squibs running up the walls as the building collapses.  They try to explain away the kink in the roofline (which is consistant with a controlled demolition) by saying that the collapse videos show "cracks" in the facade.  Cracks and kinks are not synonymous.  Earthquakes and structural damage can cause a building to crack, they do not cause rooflines to kink in as central support columns are simulaneously blown like a controlled demolition does.

The article also omits the infamous statement by leaseholder Larry Silverstein that the building was "pulled".  No surprise there.

And of course, this same treatment is given to demolition of the twin towers.  The PM article claims that conspiracy theorists believe that the twin towers were brought down by explosives simply because "small puffs of dust" can be seen as the buildings collapsed.  Of course, the photo that they print that is supposed to show the readers this phenomenon is really lacking.  Here is the one picture that got printed:

Do you see those small puffs of dust?  What are those conspiracy nuts talking about???

Maybe they are more concerned with what can be seen in the photos that DIDN'T make it into the PM article:

Why didn't they print that photo?

And they also omit an absolute MOUNTAIN of evidence regarding the controlled demolition of the twin towers, most of which is available on my profile.  The details that PM left out include:

The numerous eyewitness reports of multiple explosions. The fireman tapes with their many references to secondary explosions.  The fall time of the two towers compared with the rate of gravity.  The video evidence of thermite.  The analysis of experts like Professor Steven E Jones, Judith Miller, Jeff King, etc. that find that the official story is impossible.  And the list just goes ON AND ON AND ON.

And finally, there is one other key fact that the Popular Mechanics article omits.  The senior researcher at PM and the author of the "Debunking 9/11 Lies" article is one Mr. Benjamin Chertoff, who is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the head of George W. Bush's Department of Homeland Security.  I guess it should come as little surprise.

I thought I would post this exchange since the arguments used by Paul are common among those who buy the official government version of 9/11.  Here is the first original email he sent me:

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Paul
Date: Jun 8, 2006 10:13 AM

I've seen many deliberate building demolitions.  And I saw bldg 7 go down LIVE!  There are many similarities!  Except one important one that you may have overlooked.  A deliberate demolition (often called an implosion, although incorrectly) has hundreds of small explosions over the entire exteropr of the building, lasting a few seconds for a building that size.  There were no such external explosions.

Now, the question.  If the Bush administration was behind the whole 911 attack, wouldn't they have had a third plane hit that building?  Or at least maybe a truck bomb or something.  Do you really think they would've left such a hole in their plan available for scrutiny?  That just defies all logic.

You, and all your moonbat buddies, are living in a fantasy world you imagined shortly after reading the novel "1984".  "1984" is a work of fiction.  It's a shame you do not realize it yourselves.  

RETURN TO REALITY!!!!!!!!!!

And here is my response:

Actually, as you can see in the videos and photographs on my profile, there WAS a series of small explosions that occured just immediatly prior to and during the collapse of building 7. These "squibs" can be seen running up the walls of the building and expelling small puffs of smoke along the way. Did you read over the entire thing?

As for your second point, it is quite possible that something went WRONG on 9/11, that the plan did not go exactly as it was supposed to. What about Flight 93? No one knows exactly were it was headed. Isn't it possible that its target was WTC 7? Of course thats just speculation, and I will be the first to admit that, but it is a possibility. And regardless, the questions about motive do not change the fact that building was destroyed in a fashion that CANNOT occur accidentally. Buildings do not collapse completely in on themselves in less than 10 seconds, falling nearly symmetrically into dust ON ACCIDENT. If you were to read the entire profile, you would see that I have the statement made by a controlled demolition expert explaining the level of detailed planning need to make a building collapse in that fashion. It does not just randomly happen that way.

And finally, as for your 1984 allegory, I would like to point out that nowhere on my page do I reference the novel. However, since you brought it up, I have to say that the similarities to the current government and the "Big Brother" government of the novel are overwhelming. If you recall, the motto of Big Brother in 1984 was: "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength". On June 18, 2002, George W. Bush said, "I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." How much more Orwellian could that statement be?

You can tell yourself that it can't be true and insult anyone who believes otherwise, but that will not change the reality of what happened. HOW DID THAT BUILDING COLLAPSE? If you were shown that footage without having any clue about the time or place of the collapse, and no idea of the implications, and someone told you that what you had just seen (building 7 collapsing) had been caused by fire, what would you have thought?

Try to answer that question as honestly as you can.

Here is his second email to me

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Paul
Date: Jun 8, 2006 10:26 AM

I bet you think the guys arrested in Canada were really CIA agents planning to expand fake terrorism to our neighbors to the north, don't you?  Who was behind the WTC bombing in '93?  The embassy bombings in kenya and tanzania?  Was that the Bush administration also?  Who bombed pam am Over lockerby?  Did the Bush Admin bomb the USS Cole, too? 

Maybe its possible there is a large number of Muslim Extremists that want to kill as many westerners as they possibly can.  Did you ever think of that?

This is what really happened to Bldg 7:  A fire burned on the lower floors of the building until it reached failure and the whole bldg collapsed.

And here is my response:

The logic of your response is incredibly flawed. When have I ever claimed that there is no such thing as terrorism? When did I state that every terrorist action in the history of the world was carried out by the Bush administration? Of course terrorism exists, to deny that would be ludicrous. But so what? How does that prove that Al-Qaeda was the sole force behind the 9/11 attacks? In fact, simply because Al-Qaeda has carried out terrorist attacks before does not mean that they have carried out every single terrorist attack, does it? What proof do you have that Al-Qaeda was solely responsible? Why can't you debate the multitude of issues regarding the 9/11 attacks without changing the subject to other attacks? That is a very odd form of guilt by association.


I'm sure you are aware that the Al-Qaeda terrorist network was trained and funded largely by the CIA in the early 80's in an attempt to rebuke Soviet advances in the middle east. Do you honestly believe that afterwards the CIA stopped monitoring Al-Qaeda completely? What about the dozens of warnings given directly to the US government prior to 9/11? Remember the PDB "Bin-Laden determined to attack inside the US" that Bush recieved in August of 2001, which outlined the possible use of airliners as weapons? Why didn't the NORAD (North American Air Defense) agency respond to the hijackings on 9/11 by intercepting the planes with F-14s? Andrews Air Force base is less than 15 miles from the Pentagon. The plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon was hijacked in OHIO (!!!) before being turned completely around and heading back towards the most heavily restriced airspace in the country. Two planes had already crashed into the world trade center before Flight 77 got to the Pentagon. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 commission that he was with Cheney in a command bunker on 9/11 and he personally witnessed a young man informing Cheney that a third hijacked plane was being tracked from as far as 50 MILES away from the pentagon. The young man gave Cheney periodic updates (i.e. "the plane is now 30 miles out." " the plane is now 10 miles out.") and as I previously mentioned, Andrews Air Force base is less than 15 miles from the Pentagon. Why were no f-14s launched to intercept the plane????

Now consider this. Cheney does not normally have any authority over NORAD. In fact, NORAD has always been under the control of one of our military's top generals. But a few months prior to 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld ordered control of Norad to be handed over to Dick Cheney. Shortly after 9/11, Cheney handed control of NORAD back to the appropriate generals. Is it just a coincidence that both of these men (Cheney and Rumsfeld) are members of the Project For A New American Century who wrote in September of 2000 (one full year before the 9/11 attacks) that they needed "a New Pearl Harbor" (their own words) to advance their war agenda in the middle east and asia? How does the Canadian terror plot respond to those points? How does the Madrid bombing answer those questions? What do any of the other terrorist attacks all around the world say about these incredibly obvious clues to what really happened on 9/11?

Also, I really have to point out here that the details of the alleged Canadian terror plot are still incredibly hazy, and there's already been a report in the Toronto Star that stated that one of the main suspects, Steven Chand, had served in the Royal Regiment of Canada where he had recieved weapons training. It is possible that the Canadian terror plot would have been more along the lines of an Oklahoma City Bombing than a 9/11.

You also bring up the 93 WTC bombing, but I think that example makes my point more than anything. Regardless of who carried out those attacks, the idea that another attack of the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks could be carried out on the same target and catch the entire US government and intelligence agencies by surprise is ridiculous. Now when you take into consideration the FACT (though not often reported) that the CIA was running drills in the months prior to 9/11 and ON 9/11 that simulated almost exactly what was to actually occur (planes being hijacked and crashed into the WTC and Pentagon) it becomes painfully obvious that the American people are being lied to about 9/11. I'm sorry to say it, but the truth hurts.

An important note: At the time of these emails, no information about PNAC, NORAD, or the CIA had been posted on my profile.  That information is coming soon in a large update!