The fact of the matter is that Popular Mechanics is a magazine, not the 9/11 commission. They addressed some of the main points, but obviously didn't address all of them because one magazine is much to small to debunk every crackpot theory that the tin-foil hat network can come up with.

2/25/2005 3:15:33 PM

^Actually, its too small to debunk Salisburyboy.

2/25/2005 5:04:52 PM

god forbid men and women with doctorate degrees in engineering prove what really happened structurally to the buildings. but hey, we should believe a bunch of conspiracy theorists who dont have a FUCKING ounce of structual design or analysis intelligence in them. isnt that right salisburybitch?

2/25/2005 5:30:23 PM

yes salisburyboy, it does not say much for you calling us narrow minded and not examining the facts when you refuse to trust a reputable publication...

2/25/2005 7:56:42 PM

Quote :

"isnt that right salisburybitch?"

Buhwahahahahahahah! Buhwahahahahahahah! You expect me to feel slighted when a person like you insults me?

Quote :

"yes salisburyboy, it does not say much for you calling us narrow minded and not examining the facts when you refuse to trust a reputable publication..."

First of all, when have I called anybody "narrow-minded" on here? I don't EVER remember saying that.

I don't care if YOU or anybody else thinks that PM is a "reputable" publication. They are dead wrong if they are saying that the official government and media story on 9/11 is true. I have seen the evidence, and no amount of spinning of the facts and misrepresentations can change the reality of what happened that day. I can give you a mountain of evidence showing that the official story on 9/11 is a lie. The question is whether you will take an honest look at the evidence.

Here we go...

SO-CALLED 'HIJACKERS' ARE STILL ALIVE

Hijack 'suspect' alive in Morocco
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1558669.stm

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Father insists alleged leader is still alive
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,784541,00.html

Revealed: the men with stolen identities
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

FLIGHT 93 WAS SHOT DOWN OVER PENNSYLVANIA

Eyewitness hears explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp

Debri found miles away from main crash site:
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Eyewitnesses see military plane flying near Flight 93 when it crashed:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30682

Rumsfeld says 9/11 plane 'shot down' over Pennsylvania:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

US WAS PLANNING TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN PRIOR TO 9/11

US 'planned attack on Taleban'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

US planned to hit bin Laden ahead of September 11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/walq05.xml

WTC BUILDING 7 WAS BROUGHT DOWN IN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

WTC Complex Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admits in PBS documentary that WTC 7 was brought down in controlled demolition:

1 minute video clip: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Watch demolition charges going off at the top right of WTC 7 in the following video clip[/b]:

http://infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV

Just getting started...got a whole lot more


[Edited on February 25, 2005 at 9:27 PM. Reason : 1]

2/25/2005 9:14:46 PM

yeah, because

NOTHING

you read and show to us is spun

even your bold headlines are decieving

and no, this isnt a request for more links

but I know you will post more anyway

2/25/2005 9:33:07 PM

Quote :

"I have seen the evidence, and no amount of spinning of the facts and misrepresentations can change the reality of what happened that day. I can give you a mountain of evidence showing that the official story on 9/11 is a lie. The question is whether you will take an honest look at the evidence."

You don't think that the conspiracy theorists are spinning the facts do you?

You follow a bunch of internet crack pots who twist and distort evidence to prove some ridiculous theory. TWW and the rest of the sane world have shown a mountain of evidence proving the official 9/11 story. Conveniently, you refuse to believe these news sources, claiming that they're not legitimate. The problem is that you won't take an honest look at the evidence.

I initially looked at all of your "evidence" with an open mind and found that none of it makes sense. Sometimes I'm not even sure what your point is. You post links to everything relating to a 9/11 cover-up, no matter how much it conflicts with itself.

2/25/2005 9:39:59 PM

^pwnt

2/26/2005 12:03:10 AM

^

2/26/2005 12:18:12 PM

Quote :

"TWW and the rest of the sane world have shown a mountain of evidence proving the official 9/11 story."

Really? I know about the the Popular Mechanics propaganda piece, but could you alert me to some of this "evidence"?

I want to see the 'evidence' that proves that WTC Building 7 was NOT brought down in a controlled demolition....and the 'evidence' that proves the US was NOT planning to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11....and the 'evidence' that proves that the men named as the 'hijackers' are the real hijackers....and the 'evidence' that proves that Flight 93 was NOT shot down over Pennsylvania. Good luck locating this "evidence."

Quote :

"The problem is that you won't take an honest look at the evidence."

That's laughable.


[Edited on February 26, 2005 at 5:33 PM. Reason : `]

2/26/2005 5:27:04 PM

Quote :

"I want to see the 'evidence' that proves that WTC Building 7 was NOT brought down in a controlled demolition....and the 'evidence' that proves the US was NOT planning to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11....and the 'evidence' that proves that the men named as the 'hijackers' are the real hijackers....and the 'evidence' that proves that Flight 93 was NOT shot down over Pennsylvania. Good luck locating this "evidence.""

I thought that your contention was that 9/11 was engineered by the government to give them an excuse to turn America into a police state and to help spread the New World Order across the globe. Your points listed all seem pretty minor in comparison to the huge government conspiracy. Have you given up on your quest to spread the gospel of Alex Jones?

Quote :

"Really? I know about the the Popular Mechanics propaganda piece, but could you alert me to some of this "evidence"?"

http://www.cnn.com/
Use the search bar.

2/26/2005 5:46:23 PM

I think I get it.

Anything that confirms the official 9/11 story is propogranda.

Anything that goes against Alex Jones, Propoganda Matrix, or LetsRoll911 is propoganda.

Anything that helps confirm Salisburyboy or any of the above sources is part of this "mountain of evidence" against the Bush Administration.

2/26/2005 6:17:37 PM

Wait guys! Anderson Cooper of CNN recently talked with an editor of Popular Mechanics. They "debunked the 9/11 consp1racy theor13s"!

A viewer gave this report:

Quote :

"Just watched 'Anderson Cooper's 360' on CNN. He's been hyping his show all day, promising to "debunk" all 911 conspiracy theories, and bring us the "Truth". He began by showing just two short clips from TV ads paid for by millionaire activist James Walter. The ads question how WTC 7 could have fallen, with no fire present. It was not hit by a plane. Video shows it "pancaking" a la some Vegas hotel demolition. The other ad asked why no 911 crash debris is visible on the Pentagon lawn . It showed the huge size of a 757 compared to the building, and is very incriminating. The only live guest was the nerdy, defense industry flak editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, James Meiggs. PM is currently featuring a cover story on debunking any 911 alternative scenarios. Meiggs said "The public has a childlike view of how buildings topple" when questioned about video suggesting "cutting charges" brought down the TT's, not fire. He said whole floors blew through windows because of "air pressure". If that's not lame and illogical enough, he explained the absence of Pentagon 757 wreckage as due to "shredding" of the entire plane into tiny pieces. He added "Tail sections and fuselages" are never left as debris in this type of crash. A simple Google search will disprove that assertion and a lot more. He said there were many witnesses who saw a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon, but neglects to mention that most of them are Pentagon employees. Plenty of rush hour drivers nearby, all civilians, reported "a small jet or missle" hit the Pentagon. But you won't hear that on CNN any time soon. How about the 6 mile-wide swath of Flight 93's wreckage all over the Pennsylvania countryside? "Sketchy news reports" says Meiggs with a straight face. "A lot of debris just floated up and away". Talk about "junk" science! Sketchy news indeed, Mr Cooper! Recently former CNN mogul Ted Turner came out of his coma long enough to remark that Fox News was just a propaganda arm of the Bush administration. After watching Cooper roll over for Meiggs like Lassie on acid, I realized CNN may be the arm of something much more sinister. There is NO network newscast that can be trusted anymore. ZERO. TV is DOA in that department forever. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/312074.shtml"

2/26/2005 6:33:15 PM

Quote :

"http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/312074.shtml""

Never heard of Indy Media, yet I am supposed to trust it as the truth? What makes their news better or more accurate? Oh, I know, they agree with you, which is something that real news sources fail to do.

2/26/2005 11:47:47 PM

Washington Envoy to Canada, Paul Cellucci, Says Bush Ordered Aircraft Shot Down on 9/11
http://www.canada.com/fortstjohn/story.html?id=99eb9c91-ec60-44fd-bed8-283960c04c08

Quote :

"Colin Perkel And Beth Gorham Canadian Press February 23, 2005 ... Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington. Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to shoot it down, Cellucci said. "

[Edited on February 28, 2005 at 8:35 AM. Reason : `]

2/28/2005 8:33:20 AM

I'm just curious: If the US government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, why did they have to shoot down a plane?

2/28/2005 9:55:59 AM

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=119239

Quote :

"The truth is out there Sachin Rao Mumbai, February 26: EVERYBODY loves a good conspiracy theory—just ask Dan Brown. For the most part, it’s for a quick you-gotta-hear-this laugh, before heading off to gawp at some easy masala like Independence Day (where America saves the world) or Armageddon (where America saves the world) or Black Hawk Down (where America saves, uh, nothing). The rest of us, though, know that conspiracy theories are, more often than not, the real thing; that life as we see it is simply the mask cloaking the agenda. The Matrix, anyone? Consider the 21st century’s Number One conspiracy: Who ‘did’ 9/11? Cold evidence—the twin towers’ demolition-like collapse, the absence of Jews from their WTC offices that day, the strangely intact Saudi passport in the rubble, the delay in scrambling fighter jets from an emergency-response airbase a minute away, the immediate occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as a response, the current noises against Iran and Syria—seems to point to, not a bunch of jihadis with boxcutters, but US neocons and their Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It’s not empty conjuncture—consider the historical precedent of the CIA’s 1962 Operation Northwoods. Declassification of this top-secret Cold War document reveals an American military plan to sink a US warship, engineer terror attacks in Florida, or blow up a planeful of collegians—to falsely implicate Fidel Castro and invade Cuba. See, now ‘weapons of mass destruction’ sounds almost pretty, doesn’t it?"

2/28/2005 1:52:36 PM

Quote :

"the absence of Jews from their WTC offices that day"

THE JEWS DID IT!!!

2/28/2005 1:54:52 PM

oh, you want more evidence?

2/28/2005 1:55:34 PM

no i want u to STFU with this shit already!! go write a fuckin book about all this that will just gather dust on a bookshelf somewhere. stop wasting space and bandwidth on the site.

[Edited on February 28, 2005 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2005 1:57:19 PM

chit chat is a waste of bandwith, not this thread

2/28/2005 2:00:43 PM

chit chat provides entertainment, this provides a headache cause u dont listen to an ounce of what other people have to say in here with the evidence they provide. u just reply by posting some inane bullshit source that has no backing or credibility by professionals in the real world.

2/28/2005 2:02:45 PM

When you posted that article why did you leave out the second half of it?

You know, the part where Mr. Rao talks about how the gods of primitive people were in fact space aliens? Seems weird that you would stop quoting him as soon as it turns out that he's a looney.

And check this out:
http://www.therazor.org/oldroot/Fall02/AlqaedaCalling.htm
Apparently Jews did die on 9/11, including 3 Israelis.

[Edited on February 28, 2005 at 2:14 PM. Reason : Zionist censorship]

2/28/2005 2:07:43 PM

Well I'm sure you will discredit this by claiming my uncle is part of the conspiracy but...

He was a firefighter in DC at the time. On 9/11 he was driving a fire engine back from a minor emergency call when he and his ff crew SAW the 757 flying low and fast overhead. This was followed shortly after by a loud crashing sound. They obviously knew something had happened and proceeded toward the direction of suspension, arriving to see the aftermath of the damaged pentagon and a shredded plane.

got class, peace

2/28/2005 2:23:33 PM

^ OMG HE IS A L33T MEMBER OF TEH C0|\|5P1R4CY!!!111!!1

2/28/2005 2:28:49 PM

Quote :

"WTC Complex Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admits in PBS documentary that WTC 7 was brought down in controlled demolition"

2/28/2005 3:21:35 PM

I havent really read through all of this, but about the 'evidence' via lack of visible wing impact points...

1) Who said it hit straight and level, coulda been angled
2) Even if it did hit level, the wings could have snapped forward upon impact of the fuselage nose. Meaning they would impact the wall in a tighter radius than the normal windspan

just thoughts

2/28/2005 3:51:22 PM

i saw a documentary on this and the plan did enter at an angle and one wing hit the ground b-4 hitting the building slowing the plane. also there are surveillance cameras that have footage of the plain when it hit. as for the part of the building it hit, it was being renovated so there were very few people there and it had just had a state of the art fire system installed. that reduced damage in combination with the slowing due to one wing hitting the ground which could have happened.

2/28/2005 4:19:51 PM

^ the documentary is part of the globalist elite american conspiracy behind the events of 9/11. they are putting this documentary out as a way to control our minds and make us not think of what really happened. although, i and my co-conspirators have the real truth to what really happened since we take fiction for fact and disregard fact cause it doesnt fit with the real story.

[/salisburybot]

2/28/2005 4:25:57 PM

The "senior researcher" on the Popular Mechanics piece on 9/11 was Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Michael Chertoff
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/chertoff_cousin_penned_pop_mech_hit_piece.htm

3/7/2005 1:15:20 PM

I looked up Benjamin Chertoff and the tin-foil hat network refers to him as "a cousin" of Michael Chertoff. However, I have yet to read how they are related. Are they first cousins or distant relatives? Or do they just have the same last name?

3/7/2005 1:34:30 PM

ah, it's back again

3/7/2005 1:42:45 PM

Quote :

"WTC BUILDING 7 WAS BROUGHT DOWN IN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WTC Complex Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admits in PBS documentary that WTC 7 was brought down in controlled demolition: 1 minute video clip: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV Watch demolition charges going off at the top right of WTC 7 in the following video clip: http://infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV "

i didnt see any demolition charges, i see what fire was there getting blown out the window due to floors collapsing and compressing the space. only one place to go, and that is out. demolition charges would have been going around the perimeter of the building.

also i dont get how he confessed to blowing the building. he said the fire department couldnt contain it so they made the descision to pull. as in pull out and not risk losing the life of fire fighters.

I swear some people can be really FUCKING STUPID. OMFG a conspiracy, lets spin fucking everything

3/7/2005 1:54:43 PM

Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

3/7/2005 1:57:39 PM

"Pull" and "pull it" are industry terms for triggering a controlled demolition.

The video of Silverstein talking about "pulling" building 7 is from a PBS documentary. Here is audio from the same program in which "pull" is used to describe beginning the controlled demolition of building 6 at the WTC complex:
http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt2.mp3

Quote :

"There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html "

[Edited on March 7, 2005 at 2:09 PM. Reason : 1]

3/7/2005 2:00:54 PM

when pull and "weve already lost enough life" are in the same sentence, i see that as pull out. the firedepartment isnt exaclty demolition experts either.

3/7/2005 2:05:45 PM

Quote :

""Pull" and "pull it" are industry terms for triggering a controlled demolition."

Quote :

"Main Entry: 1pull Pronunciation: 'pul also 'p&l Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Old English pullian; akin to Middle Low German pulen to shell, cull transitive senses 1 a : to exert force upon so as to cause or tend to cause motion toward the force b : to stretch (cooling candy) repeatedly <pull taffy> c : to strain abnormally <pull a tendon> d : to hold back (a racehorse) from winning e : to work (an oar) by drawing back strongly 2 a : to draw out from the skin <pull feathers from a rooster's tail> b : to pluck from a plant or by the roots <pull flowers> <pull turnips> c : EXTRACT <pull a tooth> 3 : to hit (a ball) toward the left from a right-handed swing or toward the right from a left-handed swing -- compare PUSH 4 : to draw apart : REND, TEAR 5 : to print (as a proof) by impression 6 : to remove from a place or situation <pull the engine> <pulled the pitcher in the third inning> <pulled the show> 7 : to bring (a weapon) into the open <pulled a knife> 8 a : COMMIT, PERPETRATE <pull a robbery> <pull a prank> b : to carry out as an assignment or duty 9 : PUT ON, ASSUME <pull a grin> 10 a : to draw the support or attention of : ATTRACT <pull votes> -- often used with in b : OBTAIN, SECURE <pulled a B in the course> 11 : to demand or obtain an advantage over someone by the assertion of <pull rank> intransitive senses"

Evidently, "pull" means many things.

3/7/2005 2:06:47 PM

I did your mom.


THAT'S WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11th.

3/7/2005 2:12:10 PM

^ winnar!!11!1

[/thread]

3/7/2005 2:15:38 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: "Evidently, "pull" means many things." "

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3/7/2005 2:37:48 PM

^Excellent way of addressing the issues. Instead of explaining (or possibly even proving ) your statement, you attack my sarcastic comment.

I salute you!

3/7/2005 2:43:22 PM

Big shocker...

Mr. "I believe that he who posts lasts wins" Joshua evidently felt like he needed to get the last word again....

Quote :

"Excellent way of addressing the issues. Instead of explaining (or possibly even proving ) your statement, you attack my sarcastic comment"

I've ALREADY addressed the issue, and the "enlightening" drivel you posted regarding the various definitions of "pull" did NOTHING to refute the argument I have laid out. I didn't need to respond to your post. "Pull" and "Pull it" are clearly industry terms for triggering a controlled demolition, and any sane person can see that this is how the term was used when Silverstein spoke of "pulling" WTC Building 7 (that is, if they ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE).

Then, combining that admission by Silverstein with the clear video evidence of explosive charges going off in Building 7 as it collapses and the way in which Building 7 collapsed (straight down in a symmetrical fashion), any sane person will conclude that WTC Building 7 was demolished in a controlled demolition (and not by a few small fires as the government would have you believe).


[Edited on March 7, 2005 at 3:18 PM. Reason : 1]

3/7/2005 3:01:20 PM

Quote :

"more name calling and 3rd grade "arguments"? wake me up when you can engage in rational discussion"

Quote :

"Mr. "I believe that he who posts lasts wins" Joshua "

Funny stuff.

You've stated your personal opinion. However, you haven't given any proof at all. I agree that "Pull" and "Pull it" are industry terms for triggering a controlled demolition. What you have failed to do is to prove that it was used in this context. My "drivel" was illustrating that there are actually many definitions of "pull" besides the one you claim as your smoking gun. You have yet to provide any evidence that "pull" was used in the context that you claim it was. I'm sure that most sane people would agree with puck_it that "when pull and "weve already lost enough life" are in the same sentence" it is probably in the context of "we need to pull out".

Quote :

"any sane person will conclude that WTC Building 7 was demolished in a controlled demolition (and not by a few small fires as the government would have you believe)."

Actually, most sane people concede that WTC Building 7 suffered major structural damage when towers 1 and 2 collapsed a stones throw away from it.

[Edited on March 7, 2005 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2005 3:17:32 PM

Quote :

"You've stated your personal opinion. However, you haven't given any proof at all"

BUWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


[Edited on March 7, 2005 at 3:22 PM. Reason : 2]

3/7/2005 3:19:59 PM

You've created another one of your little Catch 22s. No matter how stupid your reply is, I lose if I correct you.

Thats just like "You've been brainwashed by the NWO if you call me a racist."

The fact if the matter is that I'm at work and I have little to do besides shoot your theories to shit.

[Edited on March 7, 2005 at 3:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2005 3:21:48 PM

Quote :

"Where is this "proof"?"

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on now. Post again. I know you feel like you win if you post last.

3/7/2005 3:22:44 PM

Quote :

"more name calling and 3rd grade "arguments"?"

Quote :

"Come on now. Post again. I know you feel like you win if you post last."

Wasn't this thread about 9/11 at some point? Was that before you realized that you can't win any argument or prove any conspiracy theories?

So now you're trying to shut me up by playing the quiet game?

Very mature.

3/7/2005 3:27:04 PM

Quote :

"So now you're trying to shut me up by playing the quiet game?"

Not by a long shot. I hope you post on every page of this thread.

Now, please post again. You know you want to.

3/7/2005 3:28:34 PM

I want to have an intelligent discussion regarding the 9/11 tragedy. I don't know what you're trying to prove or what you think it will accomplish. My best guess is that your baiting me into posting because you think that puts you on some higher ground.

Talk about 9/11.

3/7/2005 3:31:52 PM

^ intelligent would mean that he would have to listen and somewhat try to comprehend what we have to say. the fact that he hasnt done that for the past 25 pages shows that he is incapable of having an intelligent conversation and incapable of debating the material he posts and we post. it gets to the point where its absolutely absurb to even post directly towards him cause he will either flat out ignore what you have to say or post some inane BS that has nothing to do with what you posted and then have him claim he answered you.

and if you ask what proof i have, try the past 25 pages. i have watched this thread from the beginning and read every post. even though i have not posted all that often doesnt mean i have not read the material posted by everyone, including Boy's.

i have formed my own conclusions from everything i have read, researched (from the engineering standpoint) and seen from all kinds of sources (including my own eyes that day). i am no expert but i am on my way to becoming one and for engineering students, there is nothing better to study than disasters such as this. the mere mention of explosives in the 2 towers is ridiculous and has been refuted by hundreds of structural and material engineers. WTC 7 was indeed brought down in a controlled demolition and has been admitted to being done so. it was done due to sever structural fatigue in all load-bearing members. to protect the workers they had to "pull it."

so with all that said, i am going to believe what my fellow engineering colleagues have to say because this is what they have been educated to do. i am NOT going to listen to some crackpot with no ounce of engineering/structural education. and i am NOT going to listen to some conspiracy theorist because he feels there are higher powers at work here just cause he has nothing better to do with his time.

that is all.

3/7/2005 4:11:50 PM