PDA

View Full Version : Popular Mechanic Editor on the O'Reilly Factor



PhilosophyGenius
08-09-2006, 05:53 PM
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Personal Story segment tonight, I have trouble believing this, but a new poll by Scripps-Howard and the University of Ohio, says 36 percent of Americans believe it is likely or somewhat likely that the U.S. government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks, or did nothing to stop them.

Some nutty college professors are trotting that nonsense. And apparently, some Americans are buying it.

With us now, James Meigs, the editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, which is debunking these conspiracy theories using scientific evidence.

Before we get to the specifics, I mean, I would never have done this story even a week ago. And I see this poll come out, and I'm going, 36 percent are buying this nutty conspiracy garbage? How do you react to that?

JAMES MEIGS, POPULAR MECHANICS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Well, you know, it's been bubbling up kind of from the fringes for years and gradually making headway into the mainstream.

O'REILLY: On the Internet it started, right?

MEIGS: On the Internet.

O'REILLY: Right.

MEIGS: But also a French author, Thierry Mason, had a bestseller in France several years ago, arguing that the Pentagon basically attacked itself on 9/11.

O'REILLY: And Michael — well, Michael Moore hasn't said it, but it's that kind of paranoia that the government's so evil, it wants the War on Terror.

All right now, let's go over the myths one by one:

The World Trade Center towers fell too quickly. That's the big one. And you say what?

MEIGS: Well, they didn't. I mean, you know, one of the things that comes up a lot in these conspiracy theories is kind of a cartoon version, how we think things ought to have happened.

Well, no one had ever seen 100-plus story building collapse to the ground before. And so the idea that it was going to tip over like a big tree or something was based on just a hunch, as opposed to science.

What we found is this is the most closely studied collapse of any kind in world history. You know, thousands of engineers. And witnesses have been interviewed. Engineers have studied it. And the engineering community's unanimous that a combination of devastating impact from the jets — it severed building members — and then the effects of fires over multiple floors gradually weakened what remained until it began to sag and ultimately collapse.

O'REILLY: All right, so basically, the trauma to the building was so much that no building could have withstood it?

MEIGS: Well, actually, it's fascinating. A lot of the engineers say the real surprise is that the buildings stood up as long as it did.

O'REILLY: As long as they did. OK.

Now why wasn't the hole in the Pentagon as wide as the plane's 124-foot, 10-inch wing span?

MEIGS: This is another one that is kind of based on the idea what we think a plane crash ought to look like. That plane was going over 500 miles an hour. It ran into the Pentagon, which is basically built like a bunker. It's reinforced concrete.

Those thin wing tips — a wing is mostly just thin aluminum and fuel. They were not going to be strong enough to penetrate the building and leave a cartoon outline of itself.

In fact, the hole was about 90 feet wide. The building then collapsed around it, but what was left of the airplane after it hit really flowed into that structure, more like a liquid than a solid.

O'REILLY: All right. So there's absolutely no evidence in both the World Trade Center or the Pentagon that anything happened that was stunning to the analysts who, after the fact, examined it, correct?

MEIGS: That's exactly right.

O'REILLY: All right, so it's all scientifically proven that A led to B, led to C.

MEIGS: Right.

O'REILLY: No miraculous things or any of that.

Now the final thing is — and this happened to the TWA crash off Long Island, the missiles things — the notion that "there were other missiles involved." And I'm saying to myself, I was here in New York. I was watching the damn thing on television. I didn't see any missiles. And nobody else did. How does anybody believe this?

MEIGS: Well, every major plane crash leads to conspiracy theories.

O'REILLY: Everyone, right.

MEIGS: People always want to believe that there's a more powerful explanation for these things. It's not just something went wrong, or there's evil people in the world. They want to believe that somebody's more in control, even if it's somebody who they don't like. They want to believe that somebody's sort of pulling the switches back.

O'REILLY: Now you're not a political magazine. Popular Mechanics has been around forever. You don't take — you're not a political magazine, right?

MEIGS: And these aren't political questions.

O'REILLY: No, these are scientific questions, right?

MEIGS: Facts are facts. Facts don't have politics. And we really wanted to establish the core facts. Let people make of it what they may.

O'REILLY: All right. The University of Wisconsin has a professor who is teaching this fall that puts forth this, OK. Would you want your kid taking a class from that guy?

MEIGS: Well, you know, our problem with Kevin Barrett, this professor, is not that he's teaching a certain opinion, it's that he's got his facts wrong.

You know, for example, one of the things he says is that cell phones don't work in airplanes. This is very common in conspiracy circles. And therefore, those phone calls that people make from Flight 93 must have been somehow faked by the government when they called their loved ones and what not.

Well, we just talked to the engineers of the cell phone companies. Cell phones certainly work in airplanes. They ask you not to use them for a variety of reasons.

O'REILLY: Yes, because they don't the dials going up [in the cockpit].

MEIGS: But they work fine.

O'REILLY: All right. Mr. Meigs, thanks for coming in. We appreciate it.

Bull
08-09-2006, 07:21 PM
Fuck O'Reilly and his hate-mongering @$$...

americansovereign
08-11-2006, 04:18 AM
[Slander: in red]
[Hearsay: in green]
[Comments: in blue]

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Personal Story segment tonight, I have trouble believing this, but a new poll by Scripps-Howard and the University of Ohio, says 36 percent of Americans believe it is likely or somewhat likely that the U.S. government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks, or did nothing to stop them.

Some nutty college professors are trotting that nonsense. And apparently, some [stupid] Americans are buying it.

With us now, James Meigs, the editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, which is debunking these conspiracy theories using scientific evidence.

Before we get to the specifics, I mean, I would never have done this story even a week ago. And I see this poll come out, and I'm going, 36 percent are buying this nutty conspiracy garbage? How do you react to that?

JAMES MEIGS, POPULAR MECHANICS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Well, you know, it's been bubbling up kind of from the fringes for years and gradually making headway into the mainstream.

O'REILLY: On the Internet it started, right?

MEIGS: On the Internet.

Popular Mechanics, Fox News, U.S. Government, etc. are on the Internet does that mean those sites contain nutty conspiracy garbage too?

O'REILLY: Right.

MEIGS: But also a French author, Thierry Mason, had a bestseller in France several years ago, arguing that the Pentagon basically attacked itself on 9/11. Comparing the 911 Truth movement to a single author's work is slander.

O'REILLY: And Michael — well, Michael Moore (Michael Moore is not the 911 Truth movement) hasn't said it, but it's that kind of paranoia that the government's so evil, it wants the War on Terror.

All right now, let's go over the myths one by one:

The World Trade Center towers fell too quickly. That's the big one. And you say what?

MEIGS: Well, they didn't. I mean, you know, one of the things that comes up a lot in these conspiracy theories is kind of a cartoon version, how we think things ought to have happened.

Well, no one had ever seen 100-plus story building collapse to the ground before. And so the idea that it was going to tip over like a big tree or something was based on just a hunch, as opposed to science.

What we found is this is the most closely studied collapse of any kind in world history. You know, thousands of engineers. And witnesses have been interviewed. Engineers have studied it. And the engineering community's unanimous that a combination of devastating impact from the jets — it severed building members — and then the effects of fires over multiple floors gradually weakened what remained until it began to sag and ultimately collapse.

Mr. Meigs, Demolition IS CONCLUSIVE

There is CONCRETE (not pulverized) EVIDENCE that it was a demolition. ie. Newtonian Mechanics, Physics and Thermate residue.

No steel high-rise has EVER collapsed due to fire (before or after 911)

911 was the only 3 cases in HISTORY for this to ever happen.

REMEMBER: all 3 buildings fell at FREE FALL SPEED.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fall through 110 floors of concrete reinforced steel as fast as you fall through THIN AIR. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. This violates natural law.

See 911 Demolition Conclusive By Estanislao Carter
(http://www.ealchemy.org/about1.html)

http://www.ealchemy.org/911demolition.html


O'REILLY: All right, so basically, the trauma to the building was so much that no building could have withstood it?

MEIGS: Well, actually, it's fascinating. A lot of the engineers say the real surprise is that the buildings stood up as long as it did.

O'REILLY: As long as they did. OK.

Mr. Meigs, if all these engineers are in agreement, where is peer reviewed paper showing that it was simply ABC?

Can you think critically on your own? If you can consider that fires which have never brought down a steel building might not be the ONLY possibility, check these papers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html)

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/W7Kuttler.pdf (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/W7Kuttler.pdf)

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf)

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf)


Now why wasn't the hole in the Pentagon as wide as the plane's 124-foot, 10-inch wing span?

MEIGS: This is another one that is kind of based on the idea what we think a plane crash ought to look like. That plane was going over 500 miles an hour. It ran into the Pentagon, which is basically built like a bunker. It's reinforced concrete.

Those thin wing tips — a wing is mostly just thin aluminum and fuel. They were not going to be strong enough to penetrate the building and leave a cartoon outline of itself.

In fact, the hole was about 90 feet wide. The building then collapsed around it, but what was left of the airplane after it hit really flowed into that structure, more like a liquid than a solid. Totally illogical – Planes DO NOT vaporize upon crashing, examples requested otherwise assertion is bogus.

O'REILLY: All right. So there's absolutely no evidence in both the World Trade Center or the Pentagon that anything happened that was stunning to the analysts who, after the fact, examined it, correct?

MEIGS: That's exactly right.

O'REILLY: All right, so it's all scientifically proven that A led to B, led to C.

MEIGS: Right.

O'REILLY: No miraculous things or any of that.

Now the final thing is — and this happened to the TWA crash off Long Island, the missiles things — the notion that "there were other missiles involved." And I'm saying to myself, I was here in New York. I was watching the damn thing on television. I didn't see any missiles. And nobody else did. How does anybody believe this? (Saying your experience equates a in

MEIGS: Well, every major plane crash leads to conspiracy theories.

O'REILLY: Everyone, right.

MEIGS: People always want to believe that there's a more powerful explanation for these things. It's not just something went wrong, or there's evil people in the world. They want to believe that somebody's more in control, even if it's somebody who they don't like. They want to believe that somebody's sort of pulling the switches back.

O'REILLY: Now you're not a political magazine. Popular Mechanics has been around forever. You don't take — you're not a political magazine, right?


Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics


Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 10 2006 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html)

Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y)and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.
Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.


This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.


This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/debunking_popular_mechanics_myths.htm
MEIGS: And these aren't political questions.

O'REILLY: No, these are scientific questions, right?

MEIGS: Facts are facts. Facts don't have politics. And we really wanted to establish the core facts. Let people make of it what they may.

FACTS about SCIENCE require EVIDENCE, Politicians just say it is so, physicists struggle to show their theories are true for as many cases as possible. Your proof is equivalent to saying the sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth is flat. A real scientist works hard to prove even the simplest things, he can't wave a magic wand which it seems you are doing here. If someone offered a thesis in college using the same proof you are offering as real science, they would flunk, that's a FACT numerous students find out EVERY YEAR.

O'REILLY: All right. The University of Wisconsin has a professor who is teaching this fall that puts forth this, OK. Would you want your kid taking a class from that guy?

Mr. O'Reilly shame on you, you have attacked Kevin Barett on air several times, but never have you once allowed him to speak on his own behalf. That's not fair and balanced.

MEIGS: Well, you know, our problem with Kevin Barrett, this professor, is not that he's teaching a certain opinion, it's that he's got his facts wrong.

You know, for example, one of the things he says is that cell phones don't work in airplanes. This is very common in conspiracy circles. And therefore, those phone calls that people make from Flight 93 must have been somehow faked by the government when they called their loved ones and what not.

Well, we just talked to the engineers of the cell phone companies. Cell phones certainly work in airplanes. They ask you not to use them for a variety of reasons.

O'REILLY: Yes, because they don't the dials going up [in the cockpit].

MEIGS: But they work fine.

Where is your scientific study that shows that they did work on September 11, 2001?

The link belows states that there is race to get them working in-flight http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2004-07-19-aircells_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2004-07-19-aircells_x.htm)

Why were companies working on this if they worked perfectly fine 3 years ago?

http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm)

A.K. Dewdney's article referenced above on this subject suggest that it is reasonable to doubt that calls where authentic. Meigs, if you have such study that states otherwise, please post it.

O'REILLY: All right. Mr. Meigs, thanks for coming in. We appreciate it.

PhilosophyGenius
08-11-2006, 04:08 PM
That's a real intersting break down.