Comment Policy

Comment Policy: Comments are allowed, but please keep them focused on the topic of the post you are commenting on. Comments and/or spam not pertaining to the subject of a particular post will most likely be deleted.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face Up To Reality

I am happy to announce that my latest article is finally available online! My newest work, titled Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality, is a point-by-point refutation of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. If you thought Popular Mechanics' updated 2011 book refuted the so-called "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, think again.

Download Part 1 now at:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:  
Part 5:
Part 6:
(This post will be updated regularly as more parts are uploaded to Related info:

Debunking 9/11 Myths - Popular Mechanics

The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts...

My Amazon Review of Popular Mechanics' "Debunking 9/11 Myths, 2011 Edition"


  1. I just feel like you know so substantially and know how to make people listen to what you have to say. This blog is just too cool to become missed. Terrific stuff, really. Please, PLEASE keep it up!

    mecanica sorocaba

    1. Thank you very much for your support. Please feel free to drop by any time.

  2. Three points on 911:
    (1) Popular Mechanics hired experts to provide the opinions they represent. You do not have the credentials to refute the experts hired by the magazine and if you did, you would need to have your opinions reviewed by an independent source to be taken seriously. Without the review, the argument becomes you saying anything you want.

    (2) An argument that the three WTC buildings fell from controlled demolitions does not make sense unless you can provide evidence that buildings can be wired for demolition while occupied (in this case by security and 27,000 people). The only way you can establish that is to obtain the opinion of demolition companies who can provide you the mechanics of how that could be possible. If you check with demolition companies I believe you will be informed it is not for possible for various reasons.

    3) The subject of what causes a building to fall is a structural and civil engineering matter. Any claim---assuming you want to be taken seriously---will require review by at least two independent civil engineering firms, obviously, because this is a civil engineering matter.

    1. 1. I cite experts in my articles as well. I don't really have an interest in playing the "my experts can beat your experts" game; the information should be assessed on its own merits. I don't say "whatever I want." I cite sources to back up everything I say and explain why PM's sources are wrong. And if I'm wrong, then tell me why instead of just appealing to authority like you're doing now. Who peer-reviewed PM's book? Nobody.

      2. The idea that the Towers couldn't have been wired is based on an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how it could have been done, so it couldn't have been done." The Towers could have been secretly rigged: But ultimately, it's the science that decides what happened to those buildings, not incredulous arguments like you're presenting.

      3. I've actually written a paper on how and when steel buildings collapse due to fire, and I had it reviewed by a physicist and a civil engineer.

      Since NIST's report on the WTC wasn't peer-reviewed, I assume (by your standards) that I can just dismiss it completely. Right?