Popular Mechanics editor to 9/11 conspiracy theorists: STFU

[Dionysos]

CONSPIRACY CRANKS By JAMES B. MEIGS - New York Post Online Edition: Postopinion

September 12, 2006 -- ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals. For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff. What had we done to provoke such outrage?

Research.

Conspiracy theories alleging that 9/11 was a U.S. government operation are rapidly infiltrating the mainstream. These notions are advanced by hundreds of books, over a million Web pages and even in some college classrooms. The movie "Loose Change," a slick roundup of popular conspiracy claims, has become an Internet sensation.

Worse, these fantasies are gaining influence on the international stage. French author Thierry Meyssan's "The Big Lie," which argues that the U.S. military orchestrated the attacks, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. And recent surveys reveal that, even in moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey and Jordan, majorities of the public believe that no Arab terrorists were involved in the attacks.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." Yet conspiracy theorists want to pick and choose which facts to believe.

Rather than grapple with the huge preponderance of evidence in support of the mainstream view of 9/11, they tend to focus on a handful of small anomalies that they believe cast doubt on the conventional account. These anomalies include the claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a commercial jet (but just right for a cruise missile); that the Twin Towers were too robustly built to have been destroyed by the jet impacts and fires (so they must have been felled by explosives), and more. If true, these and similar assertions would cast serious doubt on the mainstream account of 9/11.

But they're not true. Popular Mechanics has been fact-checking such claims since late 2004, and recently published a book on the topic. We've pored over transcripts, flight logs and blueprints, and interviewed more than 300 sources - including engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of investigative teams.

In every single case, we found that the very facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies are mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.

Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

We talked to Walter and, like so many of the experts and witnesses widely quoted by conspiracy theorists, he told us he is heartsick to see the way his words have been twisted: "I struggle with the fact that my comments will forever be taken out of context."

Here's another: An article in the American Free Press claims that a seismograph at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory picked up signals indicating that large bombs were detonated in the towers. The article quotes Columbia geologist Won-Young Kim and certainly looks authoritative. Yet the truth on this issue is not hard to find. A published Lamont-Doherty report on the seismic record of 9/11 says no such thing. Kim told Popular Mechanics that the publication's interpretation of his research was "categorically incorrect." Yet the claim is repeated verbatim on more than 50 Web sites as well as in the film "Loose Change."

Every 9/11 conspiracy theory we investigated was based on similarly shoddy evidence. Most of these falsehoods are easy to refute simply by checking the original source material or talking to experts in the relevant fields. And yet even the flimsiest claims are repeated constantly in conspiracy circles, passed from Web site to book to Web site in an endless daisy chain. And any witness, expert - or publication - that tries to set the record straight is immediately vilified as being part of the conspiracy.

The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world.

James B. Meigs is editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. The magazine's new book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts," is just out.

[Deff Gordon]

pwnt.

[Nyteshade]

He's OBVIOUSLY an ultra-consevative neo-con on the government payroll. Why else would a magazine written by engineers hold more truth than a film made by a couple of college kids?

[Funkenstein]

Internet bullying is for more than just DDM, obviously. I'm glad that he didn't do a petition for horses.

[Mr. Sam]

>>>> Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."


That right there really says a lot. These people calim to be revealing the truth, but are obscuring peoples words to make their claim. That's not the truth. Thats the same bullshit they are accusing the government of doing in the official story. What a load of shit.

[molecule]

There's alot of money to be made in the conspiracy biz, alot of stupid people out there to buy the books and eat that shit up. People are just dieing to be lied to.

[Deff Gordon]

/waits for somebody to cut and paste their thoughts to debunk this.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

He's OBVIOUSLY an ultra-consevative neo-con on the government payroll. Why else would a magazine written by engineers hold more truth than a film made by a couple of college kids?

right there is what it is... that editor is no more than another gov't patsy on the take... more proof of a cover-up

[Deff Gordon]

but wait.. Cos would say it's just 'cause i'm fat and insecure.

[Cos]

No i would say thats why the donuts are missing... and why you wont confess to it.

[alvin]

The Truth Seeker - Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece

[alvin]

radio interview

Charles Goyette eats Popular Mechanics 9/11 myth expert for breakfast

[molecule]

wow. people have cousins...

[alvin]

Originally Posted by molecule

wow. people have cousins...

Can we say "information control"...


NEXUS: Information Control, Social Control

this article may be too lengthy for todays "condensed" loving iculture.

[Deff Gordon]

Originally Posted by alvin

Can we say "information control"...


NEXUS: Information Control, Social Control

this article may be too lengthy for todays "condensed" loving iculture.

damn dude- that is the biggest pile of horse shit i've ever seen!

too much to bring up now... but i'll start later on. i love the marconi/radio reference in the first paragraph. is that supposed to set the tone for the entire article? 'cause that is some weak sauce if i ever read it. marconi sold to everybody... not just the government (he sold to everybody in all of europe and america)- he mainly did wireless communications for ships. so, sorry... radio isn't controlled the way the article wants to set the tone for.