Hej allihopa, tänkte posta litegrann av detta varje dag, så vi kör igång:

Debunking Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Doesn’t Know What a “Fact” Is By Zack Hoyle

Introduction:

This paper addresses the very recent release of the book by Popular Mechanics titled: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up To The Facts. When I was first informed of this book coming out, I was somewhat exited to see how popular mechanics would address my questions about 9/11.

So when the book was released to bookstores, I bought the book. My first impressions of the book was that it was shorter than what I had imagined. My first question was: How can a book of this length even claim to have debunked every aspect of the evidence for a 9/11 inside job?

The cover of the book states that it is a “In Depth Investigation”. Hmm… Interesting… I open the front cover to see “Praise For Debunking 9/11Myths”. I read a quote from Austin Bay:

“This book is a victory for common sense: 9/11 conspiracy theorists beware: Popular Mechanics has popped out your paranoid bubble world, using pointed facts and razor sharp analysis”

I was still exited to see this “pointed facts and razor sharp analysis.” Then the book moves on to a forward by Senator John McCain. Essentially, McCain says that 9/11 happened the way the government said it did because he says so. Some interesting quotes from this Forward are:

“The Conspiracy theories are a distraction from the proper lessons of 9/11, from what is truly important to this country. And so it is imperative to confront them with the facts. The authors of this book, through their extensive reporting, disprove these tales of conspiracy. They show that, without exception, the stories are based on misconceptions, distortions, and outright lies. The CIA was not involved in 9/11.”

I will fast forward through the multiple introductions. I take a quick glance at the Table Of Contents. These are the topics that the Popular Mechanics book covers:
Here is the table of contents-this is all that they cover:

1. The Planes
Hijackers flying skills
The "Pod"
Flight 175 windows
Stand down
Military Intercepts

2. WTC
Empire state building accident
Widespread damage
Melted steel
Puffs of dust
Seismic spikes
WTC 7: Fire/damage
"Pull it"

3. The Pentagon
Flight 77 debris
Big plane, small holes
Intact pentagon windows

4.Flight 93
F-16 pilot
The White Jet
Cell phone calls
The wreckage
Indian lake

Being a “conspiracy theorist” and 9/11 researcher for a while now, my mouth literally dropped open. I expected to see much more topics from an “in depth investigation”. I will go into that subject later in the report.

Popular Mechanics first published their article “Debunking 9/11Myths” in 2005. The article was systematically refuted and shown to be a fraud by multiple websites:

http://killtown.911review.org/flight7 ... ing/popularmechanics.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mec ... _to_popular_mechanics.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

The Popular Mechanics hit piece was exposed as a farce with multiple factual errors. The Popular Mechanics article, like the book, claims that it uses “hard facts” and “Irrefutable evidence” to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

The replies issued by “conspiracy theorists” were not refuted, just mentioned, in the new Popular Mechanics book. As I examine the new book, I notice that they address essentially the same issues covered by the previous article.

When I decided to refute Debunking 9/11Myths, I got a mixed reaction from my peers. Some said that it wasn’t even worth debunking if they only cover about 1/3 of the evidence suggesting a 9/11 inside job. I am refuting this book because I feel that it is essential to expose those who are against the good people involved in researching 9/11.

The Popular Mechanics book is filled with personal attacks on 9/11 researchers and scholars who have courageously come forward with their suspicions.

Debunking 9/11 Myths “debunks” the questions raised by the events happening on the date of 9/11. Popular Mechanics refuses to cover who had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack, and after “debunking” “conspiracy theorists”, they proclaim that after reading the book, people should have NO reason for believing 9/11 was an inside job.

Popular Mechanics also misrepresents the 9/11 truth movement by claiming that ALL 9/11 researchers believe every one of the 20 “poisonous claims” and that these 20 claims are “the most prominent conspiracy claims”.

The errors in the Popular Mechanics book are so glaring that I cannot allow people to read the book and automatically assume that their crack team of “experts” are telling the absolute truth.

Popular Mechanics lists at the end of the book “tactics” by “conspiracy theorists” that they say we have used to convince the American people of US government complicity. Popular Mechanics uses a variety of tactics to try to discredit 9/11 official story skeptics.

Tactics Used by Popular Mechanics to Discredit 9/11 Skeptics

Samma tid, samma kanal imorgon boys and girls!

Då fortsätter vi!

Tactics Used by Popular Mechanics to Discredit 9/11 Skeptics

I cannot emphasize enough the sneaky ways Popular Mechanics discredits those who question the official story.

“Conspiracy Theorist” Talk

Popular Mechanics uses the phrases “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” to describe 9/11 skeptics. It is imperative to remember that the official story to 9/11 is at heart, a conspiracy theory.

The official conspiracy theory is that 19 hijackers led by Osama bin laden hijack 4 jets and crash 3 of them into buildings. Therefore, the notion of 9/11 skeptics of being “conspiracy theorists” is misrepresenting.

Calling 9/11 skeptics “conspiracy theorists” is quite demeaning and deceiving given that this leaves the opportunity for the common reader to associate 9/11 skeptics with Holocaust Deniers and UFO hoaxers.

People trying to debunk “conspiracy theories” have been demeaning honest people by calling them “conspiracy theorists” for years now for their own agenda.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
- based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric - technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

2. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

3. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Many of the “20 prominent conspiracy claims” “debunked” by Popular Mechanics are straw man arguments, in this case, they are arguments made by a small minority of 9/11 skeptics which have long been abandoned by the 9/11 truth movement.

Popular Mechanics also uses this method of persuasion in their section about the “tactics of 9/11 conspiracy theorists”. Those specific examples will be addressed later in this report.

Diagnosis of “Conspiracy Theorists” and “Conspiracy Theories”

As I continued reading into Debunking 9/11 Myths, I noticed another tactic where Popular Mechanics talks about the psychology behind “conspiracy theories”. Senator John McCain diagnoses “conspiracy theories” as a result of a grieving country.

Popular mechanics also says that some people want events to be more conspiratorial, and more fanciful. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. We know the problems with the official story, and we won’t stop until there is a new investigation.

This diagnosis of 9/11 skeptics is demeaning and is a deliberate tactic by popular mechanics to demonize those who point out the blaring errors and fallacies in their arguments and “debunking”.

Popular Mechanics also goes to great lengths to emphasize that they are doing this for the victims of the 9/11, and that they deserve the truth to stand. As you are about to read, the “truths” put forward by Popular Mechanics are filled with errors, omissions, and distortions.

Here is my question. If Popular Mechanics is so concerned for the victims and their families, why was this book ever published? Why didn’t popular mechanics donate their money to charity? I will address this question later.

Reliance on “Experts” for “Irrefutable Evidence”

The #1 way that Popular Mechanics “debunks” their 20 “conspiracy claims” is by quoting the opinions of their experts which they list at the end of the book.

Each expert has their opinions on the subject, and the problem with the experts is that the book just quotes the experts beliefs, and in many cases doesn’t back them up with any reason to believe that these “experts” are telling the truth with evidence or equations. But why aren’t there more experts coming out about 9/11 inside job, you ask?

Consider the motives for coming forward from either side of the debate. What do the people coming forward about the 9/11 inside job have to gain for saying the government is lying? Just about nothing. You get death threats (Bill o’ Reilly suggested that Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 “conspiracy theorist”, should get killed and thrown into the Boston harbor), you might lose your job, gags (in the case of Sibel Edmonds).

Government supporters get a good thing to add to there resume, and they get to be in a book that claims that it “debunks 9/11 conspiracy theorists”… To quote a fellow researcher:

Experts put forth OPINIONS. We give them more import because they are put forth by "experts", but they are still just opinions. Truth is what we search for - it is elusive, particularly in the 21st century, the age of propaganda. It is what I seek, it is what you seek. "Fact" is a meaningless word. No one knows if something is fact or not, unless they were there and saw it with their own eyes. Just because the New York times says it's so, just because the government says it's so, just because the experts say its so, does not make anything fact - not in the 21st century.

Just because you have experts with opinions doesn’t make it fact. They need to back up their claims with evidence, as many 9/11 skeptics have. I will go into specific examples of their experts and their fallacies later.

Use of Impossible Theories to “Debunk” “Conspiracy Claims”

In their attempts to debunk “conspiracy theories”, Popular Mechanics repeats the official theories that fall under the official 9/11 theory that they believe trumps the “conspiracy theories”. This would be ok IF their explanation for WHY things happened the way they did held any water.

Many 9/11 researchers have exposed their explanations as false. We will get into the specific examples of why their explanations for why things happen are impossible (using common sense and physics) OR leave more incriminating questions about their theories.

Use of Ad Hominem Attacks

In case you don’t know what an ad hominem attack is, here is the wikipedia definition:

An ad hominem argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument -, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

It is a logical fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim X.

2. There is something objectionable about A.

3. Therefore claim X is false.

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

Popular mechanics uses this tactic to try to discredit experts who have come forward telling how the official story is impossible.

Ignoring Rebuttals of the Official Story

One of the main problems with the Popular Mechanics book is that they automatically assume that the official story of events is always true, while ignoring rebuttals of the official story. An example of this is in their “puffs of dust” section:

Popular Mechanics makes it perfectly clear what the official story about the WTC collapses is (NIST report), but fails to recognize that many researchers have proved that the official story (NIST report) is filled with errors and inaccuracies, and ignores key evidence.

Popular Mechanics says that this section covers the theories concerning the planes on 9/11. This section is where the majority of the Straw Man arguments come to pass.

The Hijacker’s Flying Skills

Where’s The Pod?

This is the first Straw Man argument that Popular Mechanics. Pop Mech. quotes the views of the video In Plane Sight, and the website www.letsroll911.org.

Popular Mechanics debunks the view shared by an extremely small minority of the 9/11 truth community. I am not disputing that there wasn’t a missile pod under Flight 175. In fact, I agree with Pop. Mechanics on this issue. The problem is that Popular Mechanics debunks an argument that very few 9/11 skeptics use.

Popular Mechanics claims that all “conspiracy theorists” claim each one of the 20 conspiracy claims they “debunk”, when Popular Mechanics picks and chooses the conspiracy claims that they can make a credible argument that it is false.

Popular Mechanics wont dare debunk the admitted fact that Osama Bin Laden is CIA, or that the hijackers were trained at US military bases but they will cover the freaking POD! NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE POD!

Flight 175’s Windows

Again, Popular Mechanics debunks what they call “one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories”, that a military plane or something else besides Flight 175 hit the WTC.

This is not one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories. I haven’t heard ANYONE credible discuss this outside of the letsroll911.com forums where the theory originated. In fact, a Google search of “Flight 175 no windows” brings up more debunking pieces on the first page rather than people claiming that flight 175 had no windows.

Once again, it seems like Popular Mechanics has dodged another bullet by focusing on a trivial issue rather than focusing on the hardcore smoking guns relating to 9/11.

No Stand-Down Order

In this section, Popular Mechanics misrepresents 9/11 skeptics by claiming that “conspiracy theorists claim that there were no jets scrambled on 9/11”.

That argument, is therefore, a straw man argument. Popular Mechanics also says that hijackers turned off their transponders, so hijacked flights could not be identified.

They also claim that “ATC had to search through all of the 4500 identical radar blips, so therefore that combined with the transponders turned off was why the flights were not intercepted. They use this same argument in the widely debunked first article published by Popular Mechanics.

First of all, the assumption that ATC had to search through all of these 4500 radar blips is a Huge Lie. All commercial and private aircraft are required to have a transponder which transmits a 4-digit code that is assigned by the FAA for each flight. Private pilots flying under visual flight rules (VFR) use code 1200. Transmitting only the 4-digit code is called Mode A.

All commercial flights are required to transmit their altitude, which is calculated automatically by the aircraft’s systems. Many private flights also have this requirement depending on their flight plan. This is called Mode C, which is a combination of Mode A plus altitude information.

FAA air traffic control (ATC) had to search for only three radar blips that did not show the 4-digit codes and altitude information on the radar scopes – flights 175, 77 and 93.

• Until AA 11 crashed into WTC 1 at 8:46 AM there was no indication that an attack was in progress – only that AA 11 apparently had been hijacked at 8:26 AM.

• UA 175 stopped transmitting at 8:47 AM (becoming an unidentified blip) and crashed into WTC 2 at 9:03 AM. However, ATC knew that it was UA 175.

• AA 77 stopped transmitting at 8:56 AM and disappears from radar until 9:32 AM. ATC could only guess that it was AA 77 when it appeared on radar scopes at 9:32 AM. It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 AM.

• UA 93 stopped transmitting at 9:41 AM and reappeared at 10:02 AM It crashed near Shanksville at 10:06 AM.

At no time was there more than one unidentified blip. It is absolutely clear that the following statement is blatant lie: “…ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.”

Did the hijackers really turn off their transponders?

The transponder code is easily set or changed in the cockpit. There is no proof that hijackers turned off the transponders, only that this is assumed.

Three alternative possibilities are presented for information purposes:

1) Transponders turned off by the original crews, as part of the NORAD mass hijacking exercise that was occurring exactly at the same time as the 9/11 attacks.

These existence of these exercises have been documented in the testimony by General Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, during testimony with the 9/11 Commission; plus there is other evidence of the existence of these “war games”.

Six of the eight crewmembers were ex-military pilots with combat experience. The theory is that these crewmembers were voluntarily participating in a national security exercise.

2) Transponders were not turned off, but became out of range from FAA secondary radar, when the planes flew into areas not covered by secondary radar. Secondary radar is used only with transponders and has a greater range than primary radar.*

Three of the four flights flew into, or very close to, some of the few areas not covered by FAA or NORAD radar in the northeast USA. Only Flight 11 did not enter an area not covered by radar. Remember that only Flight 11 did not turn off its transponder. It has been proven that Flights 175, 77 and 93 entered or came very close to areas of no radar coverage.

It is not possible to prove 100% if these flights were out of secondary radar coverage without conducting extensive physical tests.

3) Transponders were turned off by remote control or were pre-set to turn off automatically. Boeing 757s and 767s have identical avionic and electronic systems, many of which can be completely controlled by remote control or pre-set for automatic control.

This is not only a complete fabrication, but the wording “ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors” implies there was a master control room with one big radar scope showing every flight in the country.

There are several hundred radar scopes in operation across the country, each managing one section of airspace and a number of flights.

FAA air traffic control did have a huge problem ensuring that additional flights had not been hijacked, that all aircraft were under proper control and arranging for all flights to land when it was ordered to ground all flights. The immensity of this challenge cannot be understated and FAA performed very well.

The recently released tapes of NORAD tell the story of the drills on 9/11 that prevented NORAD from identifying real hijackings from drill hijackings.

These tapes can be found at:

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

One very interesting part of these released tapes is when Major James Fox says, “I’ve never seen so much real world during an exercise”.

Thought the entire tapes released, you hear ALOT of chatter about "exercises" and there being many possible hijackings on their radar screens. These extra blips were other exercises going on at the exact same time hitting the exact same targets. What were these exercises?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm#ap

Click that link, and scroll down to the AP article. Here are some parts of the article:

WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

That particular drill wasn’t the WTC, but this one was:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

The Tripod II exercise also confused NORAD:

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/j ... 04/062904longdebunked.htm

Of course, the bush admin officials always claimed that "nobody could of imagined hijacking aircraft and crashing them into buildings".

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/s ... er2004/200904wargames.htm

Fast forward to about the middle of the video where Peter Jennings talks about these drills. Were all of these extra blips due to exercise a smokescreen so the actually hijacked aircraft could not be intercepted?

But the question remains: Why were the aircraft not intercepted? If you listen to the tapes in the Vanity Fair article, you find out that they had "negative clearance to shoot" the confirmed hijacked aircraft. Jet fighters were stationed at many air force bases, but for some reason, they couldn’t shoot it down!

All of these distracting drills that obviously confused the lower people at NORAD. How did the hijackers know the exact right day and time that would be the perfect time to carry out the plan to hijack planes and crash them?

The exact same thing happened in the 7/7 bombings in London. Popular Mechanics also fails to cover Norman Mineta’s testimony for the 9/11 commission that goes like this:

“The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta on May 23 about Cheney's actions is revealing. Mineta said he arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operating Center (PEOC) at 9:20 a.m. where he observed the Vice President taking charge:

Mineta: There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?"

And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And.

Hamilton: The flight you're referring to is the.

Mineta: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

After some discussion of whether Cheney's orders meant to shoot down the hijacked aircraft, it was clearly stated on the record that there were no such orders to do so, which raises the obvious question of what "the orders" were:

Hamilton: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.

Mineta: No, sir.

Hamilton: But there were military planes in the air in position to shoot down commercial aircraft.

Mineta: That's right. The planes had been scrambled, I believe, from Otis at that point.”

Popular Mechanics also mentions that the shoot down order was not provided by President Bush until after Flight 93 crashed. So where was President Bush in this time of national crisis? He was reading about a pet goat and lollygagging around as pointed out by David Ray Griffin in The New Pearl Harbor.

Be aware that..

- Det er inte spesielt lett å finne nettstedet 911Myths.com i søkemotorer.
- Enhver som har gjort et minimum av research og ser på 911myths.com forstår umiddelbart at det tøvet som står på siden deres er totalt fjern. Det er rett og slett ett dårlig debunking-forsøk.

På forum i Norge som f.eks propaganda-mediet TV2 sin "veggavisen" er det en håndfull nazister fra det norske terrorist-nettverket PST som deltar i/ødelegger debatter om 9/11. Disse peker stadig til 911myths, og jeg har sett det samme på andre forum i Norge og utlandet.

Min teori:

Terrorister i etterettningstjenester som f.eks Norge's PST, som i mange, mange år har brukt store ressursjer på å overvåke og ødelegge debatt i forum på nettet, får jevnlig en liste fra sine NATO-sjefer over ny propaganda som er laget for å støtte den offisielle myten.

Mennesker i debatter om 9/11 som peker til 911myths.com er inte dumme. De vet det er ren propaganda fylt med løgner, men det spiller inte noen rolle, for jobben deres er å ødelegge enhver debatt med sann informasjon om 9/11.

Beware for the government-employed disinformation terrorist. (Se på "historikk" i Wikipedia på emner som 9/11 for å se hvordan slike terrorister stadig fjerner all relevant informasjon om 9/11, enhver kan selv verifisere at så er tilfelle - de samme terroristene besøker også forum)