911 Lying Traitors -Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation

  

HOME
PENTAGON FRAUD
WTC DEMOLITION
PILOT IRONY
FAKE BIN LADEN
FAMILIES DEMANDS
VIEW PETITION
FLIGHT 93 SCAM
GOV SEEDS
911 STORE
ABOUT US
DONATE / SUPPORT
911 BLOG
LINKS

Popular Mechanics Owned By War Profiteer

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.  The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 911 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?
 

 

 
  Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 911 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 911 fairytale.

The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 911 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 911 skeptics, and then shot down.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 911, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

NORAD scrambled jets 67 times from September 2000 to June 2001

POPULAR MECHANICS Debunked
by Jon Gold

Reply to POPULAR MECHANICS re 9/11
by Peter Meyer

POPULAR MECHANICS assault on 9/11 Truth
by Jim Hoffman

Grassroots InfoMedia debunks POPULAR MECHANICS

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 911 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.

"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.
 

  The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 911 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.

 click to view video

The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.

Commenting on his own interview for the magazine piece, Alex Jones said that initially he thought it was a fake interview or a crank call. Jones has given hundreds of TV and print interviews and thousands of radio interviews but his experience with Benjamin Chertoff was like no other.

"People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious," said Jones.

Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office and verify that Chertoff actually worked for them. In the course of doing so he was erroneously told by Editor in Chief James Meigs that the story was not going to be a hit piece and that it was simply intended to explore the different theories surrounding 911.

In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted an article that Jones had posted on his website about incendiary devices in the World Trade Center.

Jones' websites feature a cross-section of mainstream and alternative media articles. An article written by Jones himself is clearly labeled as such.

The magazine had contacted the individuals featured in the article who told them that they had never spoken to Jones. The article was clearly attributed to its orginal author - Randy Lavello - and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked Popular Mechanics if they were going to contact the individuals again and ask if they had spoken with the original author, they dropped the subject.
 

  As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly packaged dross, the book 'Debunking 911 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor.

click to view video

Meigs and O'Reilly need to be reminded that constantly parroting the word "fact," without presenting any actual evidence, does not make something a fact.

Meigs contradicts himself completely in claiming that, "No one had ever seen a one hundred plus story building collapse to the ground before," and yet less than two minutes later agrees with O'Reilly's comment that nothing unexpected about the impact of the planes or the collapses surprised analysts.

Meigs concurs that it's an unprecedented event and yet claims that analysts knew exactly what was going to happen. How could they have known the ins and outs of an event that had never happened before?

Meigs calls the WTC implosion, "The most closely studied collapse in world history," yet fails to address the fact that 50,000 tons of steel from the WTC, a supposed crime scene, was shipped to Asia and a further 10,000 tons to India, preventing a detailed analysis.

Meigs, citing opinions of engineers, bizarrely states that, "The real surprise is that the building stood up as long as it did."

In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!
 

  Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation is "not political," and yet the foreword to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator John McCain.

In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 911 having happened exactly as the government claims it did.

 

"We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.

Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul is secure, malnutrition amongst children is the highest in the world outside Africa, and opium production is at record levels. Bellicose statements about chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat contradicted by the fact that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent and outgoing CIA director AB “Buzzy” Krongard told the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this with President President Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned about him," and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.

McCain also uses the callous tactic of saying that questioning the government's version of 911 insults the victims and this is also parroted in the Popular Mechanics magazine piece.

Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 911 family members has to say on this subject.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 911 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 911 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."

Doyle said that half of the family members - relatives of the 911 victims - he represents thought that the US government was complicit in 911.

Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics to whitewash government complicity in 911 via a front page feature story and a new book, recent polls clearly show an increasing trend towards a rejection of the official version of events.

If we are to set aside the 30% of Americans that do not even know the year in which September 11 happened, then we are left with figures of around 36% who agree that the government was involved in the attack and only 34% of Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place that still think it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19 incompetent morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on a kidney dialysis machine.

Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 911 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack changed US foreign policy.
 


 
  Proof that Jets and Jet Fuel were not the cause of the WTC collapse.
More

 

 
The frames from the pentagon video should look more like this:
More

 

 
Project MASCAL participant pilots flight77.  Massive Irony gone unreported.
More
 

 
  Some very Interesting parties have been caught examining 911Lies.org.
More

 
The man in the video is not Bin Laden, not even close.
More
 

 
  911 truth activist,  On 'Hannity and Colmes'
Watch Video
 
  Lou Dobbs Wakes Up to 911 Lies!
Recent airing, Lou details the true deception surrounding 911!
Watch Video
  Pentagon Scene Analyzed.  Obvious Proof; NO AIRLINER!
Watch Video
  Join Our New Yahoo! Group at Yahoo! Groups!
Join Group

If 911 was not perpetrated by people within our own government, why have the following entities visited this site?
The software screenshots you will see, are from LivePerson.com, and they have documented the following visitors:

RAYTHEON
LOCKHEED-MARTIN
US FEDERAL RESERVE
E.E.T OIL
HALLIBURTON
NASA


Don't you find it odd that Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, The Federal Reserve, and big oil companies are the least bit interested in 911Lies.org? If they had ZERO CULPABILITY, logic dictates, they would not be at all concerned with sites like 911Lies.org. Obviously, this is not the case.
WHAT COULD ALL THESE DIFFERENT ENTITIES HAVE IN COMMON WITH 911LIES.org?
PROOF OF SITE HITS



GET YOUR 911 BUMPER STICKERS NOW!

 Web by HostJoe