How to talk to Pop Mech fans?

[ZachM]

Well, I tried talking to someone in another forum about WTC 7, and the replies I got were that:

a) Popular Mechanics explains WTC 7
b) It doesn't matter if Michael Chertoff's cousin was the editor, because PM presents facts.
c) We don't want to read the 911review link you gave us that refutes PM's article. (not explicitly stated)
d) Popular Mechanics still explains WTC 7

Anyone else had similar, better, or worse experiences talking about Popular Mechanics?

[ZachM]

I have to add another one here:

e) The 911review article endorses that commercial airlines can be taken over remote control. Why should I believe what it has to say about WTC 7?

Of course I'm paraphrasing all these points. If anyone is interested in the original conversation, here is the link:http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=88693&st=0

[Gold9472]

Here's how you deal with Popular Mechanics.

"Where's Sibel?"

[borepstein]

I've had all sorts of experiences. And yes, they are right to say that who the PM Editor is doesn't matter - I'd say the same thing. What does matter is that they publish rubbish.

Here's a piece I wrote to get people thinking:
9/11: the impossible, the improbable, the implausible (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10355)

I think this might be a start. It is worth noting to those who stick by the PM version of events that most critical issues I go over (such the speed of the WTC buildings' collapse) is not even considered in the PM article.

[ZachM]

Thanks Boris. Yes that is an excellent piece you wrote, and I can see from the replies in your blog that you have dealt with clever people defending the official story.