Popular Mechanics: Hearst CorporationPM attacked OilEmpire.us in their 2005 "9/11 Lies" article and sandwiched the mention of this website between hoaxes. PM now ignores OilEmpire in its debunking since this page shows they copied graphics from QuestionsQuestions.net (a 9/11 truth website) to debunk some of the fake conspiracy claims.
- Democracy Now! fake debate between Popular Mechanics and Loose Change on Sept. 11, 2006, Hearst Corporation starts publishing newspaper column by Amy Goodman a month later
- highlight hoaxes, avoid best evidence
- Popular Mechanics critique of OilEmpire.US
- book & website don't mention OilEmpire.US
- knocking down strawmen
- PM used graphics from QuestionsQuestions, a "truth" website, to debunk hoaxes
Popular Mechanics ignored:
The "Complete 9/11 Timeline" and "Crossing the Rubicon" have the most authoritative accounts of what happened. Popular Mechanics does not dare mention the documentation in these and other quality reports about 9/11 complicity.
Popular Mechanics is part of the Hearst media empire.
The term "yellow journalism" came from shoddy reporting from Hearst newspapers, most notoriously Hearst's promotion of the fake claim that Spain had blown up the USS Maine in Havana harbor (the pretext for the Spanish-American war)
The neo-Nazi American Free Press / Barnes Review wrote an article shortly after Popular Mechanics published their story claiming that Ben Chertoff, one of the Popular Mechanics writers, is a relative of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. AFP / Barnes has inserted a lot of hoaxes into the "9/11 truth" literature, but they also publish some accurate material. Not surprisingly, Ben Chertoff denies any relation with the other Chertoff - and there has not been any follow-up from a journalist with a track record of accuracy to determine whether this is true or not. Either way, it is a distraction and possibly bait to discredit the "9/11 truth movement."
Popular Mechanics March 2005 "9/11 Lies" articles attacked this website (oilempire.us) for supposedly misrepresenting the issues of the air defenses, but it avoided the issues of the military and intelligence war games or the warnings from US allies and FBI agents that 9/11 was about to happen. It is likely that the editors of Popular Mechanics did not appreciate this website's highlighting of the fact that their debunking used the 9/11 "truth" website questionsquestions.net to debunk one of the sillier claims - the false idea that there were observed anomalies on Flight 175, the second plane to hit the World Trade Center. Popular Mechanics used photographic analysis from questionsquestions.net to point out that this assertion is wrong yet did not credit their use of photos and highlighting from that "truth" website. Popular Mechanics 2006 book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" did not mention oilempire.us at all, but it did find some new obscure, sloppy websites to attack - which suggests that they did not want to acknowledge that any of their critics pointed out they knew they deliberately highlighted hoaxes to avoid the real evidence.
Popular Mechanics avoided discussion of how foreign governments warned the Bush administration that the attacks were imminent and that numerous war games were underway that morning, including a "plane into building" exercise at the National Reconnaissance Office near Dulles Airport, Virginia. Even if every criticism in the Popular Mechanics article and book is proven valid, that does not mean that there was not foreknowledge that allowed the attacks to happen to get the excuse to seize Middle Eastern oil fields as we pass the point of Peak Oil.
"Popular Mechanics Attacks -- Its 9/11 LIES Straw Man" by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
"Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Hit Piece Against 9/11 Truth" by Jim Hoffman http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
from Hoffman's article:
No mention of OilEmpire.US in book version (published 2006), presumably because this page shows how Popular Mechanics copied graphics from QuestionsQuestions.net to debunk two of the sillier conspiracy claims.
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
by The Editors of Popular Mechanics, John McCain (Foreword), David Dunbar (Editor), Brad Reagan (Editor)
The first conspiracy theories about September 11 began to emerge while the wreckage was still smoldering. Today, nearly five years later, hundreds of books and thousands of Web pages are devoted to the idea that the U.S. government encouraged, permitted, or actually carried out the attacks. These theories claim to be based on hard evidence. But an in-depth investigation by POPULAR MECHANICS—first published in the magazine’s March 2005 issue, and now greatly expanded into book form—definitively proves that the evidence most often cited by conspiracy theorists is inaccurate, misinterpreted, or false.
The original article in POPULAR MECHANICS caused a huge groundswell of interest, setting off online debates that continue to this day. Debunking 9/11 Myths expands that investigation to include the 20 most prominent and persistent claims underlying the conspiracy theories, focusing on concrete, physical facts rather than political hypothesizing. Among the issues examined: claims that air traffic control violated standard operating procedures by not immediately intercepting the stricken jets; that the fire caused by the crashes wasn’t actually hot enough to melt steel and cause structural damage in the World Trade Center; that the holes in the Pentagon were too small to have been made by a Boeing 757; and that Flight 93 was actually shot down by an Air Force plane.
The fascinating and in-depth findings come from leading experts in all the relevant fields, including aviation, air defense, air traffic control, civil engineering, firefighting, metallurgy, and geology.
With a foreword by Senator John McCain.
Paperback: 192 pages
Publisher: Hearst (August 15, 2006)
Attacks -- Its 9/11 LIES Straw Man"
by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
"Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Hit Piece Against 9/11 Truth"
by Jim Hoffman http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
Popular Mechanics Investigates 9/11 Myths: FAQs
By The Editors
Published on: August 20, 2007
Did you deliberately focus on some of the more ludicrous conspiracy claims in order to make the conspiracy community look ridiculous?
This objection surfaced within days after we published our original article: "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its '9/11 Lies' Straw Man," read the headline of an article by conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman. His claim was that PM chose weak theories in order to discredit conspiracy theories in general. For example, he argued that the claim that seismic spikes were detected by Columbia University seismographs moments before each Twin Tower collapsed, was a "red herring." The claim about spikes originated in an article by Christopher Bollyn in the ultraright newspaper, American Free Press.
We agree that many conspiracist claims seem far-fetched. And we are aware that not all conspiracy theorists agree with each other as to which theories to take seriously. But we don't take sides in those debates. Instead, we simply did out best to include the most widely repeated claims at the time we published.
Interestingly, when the popular movie Loose Change appeared in 2005, it featured many of the same claims Hoffman had denounced, and included an image of the seismic spikes article in American Free Press. Although several theorists have criticized the film, Loose Change has generally been embraced by the conspiracy community. By the same token, the book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, by David Ray Griffin, quotes both Christopher Bollyn and Jim Hoffman as authoritative sources. We don't see any reason why Popular Mechanics should work harder than do leading conspiracy theorists themselves to make such claims appear coherent or consistent.
note: By plagiarizing from questionsquestions.net - using their highlight of a photo exposing the "pod plane" hoax - Popular Mechanics admitted it knows that some of the so-called conspiracy theorists state the claims their magazine highlighted in its famous debunking are distractions and disinformation.
update Summer 2007:
Popular Mechanics / Hearst removed from their website the graphic they copied from QuestionsQuestions.net that debunked the "pod" hoax (which was in the March 2005 article and the book).
Where's The Pod?
What an amazing coincidence that Popular Mechanics used the exact same photos (and graphic highlights) that questionsquestions used a half year before the Popular Mechanics article to debunk the "pod" nonsense. (Popular Mechanics forgot to point out that most of the 9/11 truth movement does not accept this claim, or that they borrowed a photo to ridicule the theory from a 9/11 truth website that proved this claim is disinformation.)
Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims
Two of the photos that Popular Mechanics used to debunk "conspiracy theorists" were from the website questionsquestions.net, a 9/11 truth website that debunked hoaxes used to distract from real evidence.
Popular Mechanics claimed that 9/11 skeptics all support the fake claims, but their use of photos from "questionsquestions" proves they know this is not true. PM's use of these photos is probably a subtle jab at the "reality based" part of the 9/11 truth movement. It is similar to the cover graphic for the fake film "9/11: In Plane Site" -- which used a 757 photo that previously had been posed to the 911truthalliance e-mail list to debunk that the bizarre claim that Flight 175, which hit the WTC south tower, had a missile firing "pod" under it (a claim that is BS). In other words, PM's article is a bad joke "hidden in plain sight."
Popular Mechanics and questionsquestions used the same photo showing windows from the plane that was first used by questionsquestions to refute the "no windows" nonsense.
from Popular Mechanics, March 2005
in reality, only In Plane Site, their co-conspirators and a few dupes have "widely referenced" the cargo plane theory -- and virtually no one has pushed this "no windows" nonsense, as Popular Mechanics knew by using photos used by questionsquestions.net This was a deliberate effort by PM to use 9/11 truth websites to debunk the extreme disinformation claims as a subtle, mean spirited effort to smear the whole 9/11 truth movement with the fake claims that have been injected into it.
photo on the "questions questions" page
debunking the "pod" hoax
from questionsquestions.net in 2004: