Popular Mechanics' Sloppy 9/11 Guesswork Passes for 'Science' in Government-regulated Media

Trapped: 9/11 victims cling to life moments before controlled demolitions crush all hope of survival
April 26, 2011
It's official, we can finally stop harboring all our pesky doubts about Barack Obama's scientifically impossible theory as to how the Twin Towers and WTC7 all managed to defy Newton's Laws on 9/11. CNN has published its "Top 11 Political Myths" and the 9/11 false flag attacks, er, Muslim crusade against the west, comes in at a respectable #5.

Citing a 2005 Popular Mechanics (PM) hit piece against the 9/11 justice movement, CNN summarily dismissed the evidence against the traitors who murdered nearly 3,000 innocents and tricked many Americans into supporting torture, illegal wars and rampant sexual abuse at our nation's airports.

But hey, if the establishment media are still buying PM's laughably unscientific "debunking" of the painfully obvious WTC demolitions, then who are we plebs to question it? Nevermind that we now know PM relied on bad assumptions in laying the foundation of their guesswork, e.g., their incorrect guess that NIST's final report on WTC7 would "probably" end up saying that "severe structural damage from the falling twin towers" was a likely cause of Building 7's global collapse at 5:20 pm.

Oops. We now know that NISTs final report ended up contradicting, not supporting, PM's wild-ass guess. Nonetheless, the regulated media still pretend that Popular Mechanics should be taken as gospel.

That's right; NIST investigators in fact ended up claiming that fire alone - for the first time in steel skyscraper history - brought down WTC7 at freefall acceleration into its own footprint, a scenario so scientifically preposterous that PM had itself eliminated that possibility in its 2005 article. PM apparently hoped that NIST scientists could somehow figure out a way to make their collateral-damage scenario seem at least somewhat plausible. They couldn't.

But don't hold your breath waiting for PM to retract or revise its "science" to explain why its guesswork turned out so embarrassingly wrong. Or for the media outlets that dutifully propagated it to inform their audiences that PM's article has been rendered baseless by the very report upon which its legitimacy had so depended.

Instead expect the regulated media to simply go on pretending that PM's sloppy guesswork was "scientific."

Even WTKK's Michael "the Natural Truth" Graham cited on Tuesday the now thoroughly discredited PM article. But then Graham is a proven liar on the issue of 9/11, since he routinely claims that "truthers don't believe planes hit the buildings." This assertion by Graham demonstrates his flagrant dishonesty, for no serious 9/11 researcher has ever made such a silly claim and Graham surely knows it. The real claim of the skeptics is that two planes could not have caused 3 skyscrapers to fall down, especially not in the manner they did. There had to have been explosives of some kind involved. Which, as it happened, there were:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw









.....