articles archive source fair use notice

Popular Mechanics Cites Hoaxes To Discredit 911 Truth

From Mark Robinowitz

Popular Mechanics, March 2005 cites several hoaxes on websites as "proof" against 9/11 complicity claims, mixing fake claims with real evidence.
The original article ("9/11 Lies")

Point by point rebuttals:

"Popular Mechanics Attacks Its 9/11 LIES Straw Man" by Jim Hoffman

"Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth" by Jim Hoffman

The tactic of citing fake claims to distract from real evidence is being used to discredit 9/11 skeptics -- nearly every mainstream media article in the past year about 9/11 complicity claims has focused on hoaxes that are easily debunked while ignoring well documented, credible, serious evidence. Some of these hoaxes appear to have been created by the cover-up, and disseminated by "false flag" fake websites that pretend to be part of the 9/11 truth movement. - bogus 9/11 websites that muddy the waters (a guide to disinformation about 9/11 complicity) - the Counter Intelligence Program - "Bush's Brain" has a history of these types of hoaxes to discredit journalists and investigators - use fake evidence to smear a real conclusion, such as the "Bush AWOL" memos given to CBS last fall that may have been forgeries (but Bush really did go AWOL from the Air National Guard)

How cynical is the Popular Mechanics article?

Two of the photos that PM used to debunk"conspiracy theorists" were from the website, a 9/11 truth website that has done excellent work to debunk hoaxes used to distract from real evidence. Popular Mechanics claims that 9/11 skeptics all support the fake claims, but most don't - as proven by PM's use of photos from "questionsquestions."

PM's use of these photos is probably a subtle jab at 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 show that the "pod" claim is BS). In other words, it's an inside joke, rather mean spirited. has two of the photos used by PM (note: questionsquestions has some material on the site that is excessively conspiratorial in some of its analyses, but the "pod" page listed here is excellent for debunking this silliness.) a bad joke "hidden in plain sight" "pod people" try to hijack the 9/11 truth movement

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) "yellow journalism" (all wars need a pretext, often fabricated)

The "Complete 9/11 Timeline" and "Crossing the Rubicon" have the most authoritative accounts of what really happened. The Popular Mechanics article does not dare mention the documentation in these and other quality reports about 9/11 complicity. "The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Hour by Hour, Minute by Minute" "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil"

Popular Mechanics ignores evidence that is well documented from the mainstream press (a partial list):

* the numerous warnings from US allies that 9/11 was about to happen and warnings provided to a few not to fly or get out of the way

* the "plane into building" CIA / National Reconnaissance Office war game in Virginia on 9/11 and the NORAD "live fly" exercises that were also conducted on 9/11

* the fighter planes sent the wrong way from Norfolk (over the Atlantic, instead of toward DC). 9/11 was a cloudless day, and this scramble happened after the towers were hit (but before the Pentagon) - what's their excuse? (even the official 9/11 commission report mentions this, but without providing an explanation)

* stock trades a few days before 9/11 betting the value of American and United Airlines would drop

* the fact that Flight 77 hit the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon -- something a terrorist would not have chosen (or been able) to do