Thought I would expand a little on the Popular Mechanics blast for you so you can see what a sham of a front it is for the official dis-information for 911. You should look into who owns it and trace back their alliegences to the cartels of the past. History reveals the truth of today
This is the transcript of an interview that the dis-information “researcher” for Popular Mechanics, one Davin Coburn remember him (come the treason trials), did on an Arizona talk radio show. The Interviewer and caller simply made a fool of him and his stance on the events and causes. He could not answer their questions because he could not tell the truth.
Saturday, August 26 2006 – In the Media
AZ Radio Host Deconstructs Popular Mechanics’ 9/11 Disinformation Researcher 9/11 Facts and Myths: Charles Goyette interviews Davin Coburn, editor / researcher of PM’s original 9/11 conspiracy slam
The Charles Goyette Show KFNX Radio August 23, 2006
Ever wonder why prominent “official story” apologists always shun 9/11 truth debates? Here perhaps is the nightmare that they dread. Show host Goyette is not an overt 9/11 sceptic, just a fearless interrogator with a very logical mind. One guesses the battered Mr. Coburn will be picking his interview venues with much more care next time. A podcast of this powerful show is available – Ed. UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
Popular Mechanics: Davin Coburn “researcher”, editor, reporter on the original 9/11 article
Charles Goyette, Radio Show Host
CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?
PM: Very little… there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.
CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven’t seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.
PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material…
CG: I’ve talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they’re not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don’t really show much of anything.
PM: They don’t show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it’s not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.
CG: Are you telling me that’s the only video?
PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they’re still being used for various investigations.
CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it’s five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?
PM: I think there’s plenty of evidence out there…
CG: It’s not the evidence we’ve seen that we’re concerned about, it’s the evidence we haven’t seen. Does that make any sense?
PM: Oh sure it makes sense…. The evidence is abundant…
CG: It’s the dog that didn’t bark… We know the evidence we’ve seen, that doesn’t cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don’t see. It’s not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?
CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, “Oh shut up, you peons don’t know what you’re talking about, everything’s fine, keep on moving, there’s nothing to see here.” Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn’t it?
PM: (does not answer this question)
CG: …I want to come back to the unseen evidence – the dog that didn’t bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle – where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..
PM: It’s not up to us…
CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don’t know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We’re told who did it, we’ve invaded two countries in response to it, we’ve spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?
PM: How can I answer the question?
CG: Because you don’t know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?
PM: (Cannot answer question)
CG: …Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics…say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.
PM: When the North Tower collapsed… there was damage to Building 7…. What we found out was…about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it… Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower…
CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true… I go, oh that’s interesting…if that’s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you’ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn’t show that. So I’m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don’t show me the picture.
PM: …We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate….
CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them.
CG: Well, that’s a fine kettle of fish, isn’t it? ….What did you see there that I can’t see?
PM: Just what was described.
CG: Well it must be something that’s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You’re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they’ve done the worst possible thing, they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!
PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.
CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn’t know we had different classes of citizens. You can’t tell me it’s because it’s a criminal case because they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.
PM: ….I can’t answer that question.
CG: I know you can’t.
PM: (is speechless)….
…Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, “We’re alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We’re alive and well.” How do you explain that one?
PM: It was one BBC report – I am saying that is false.
Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?
PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes…
Caller: What remains?
PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.
Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven’t heard anything about autopsy reports.
CG: I want to know, even if we presume you’re correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh…I mean, where the hell did they get it? You’re not even talking sensibly with me.
PM: Off the top of my head, I don’t know the answer to that.
CG: Of course you don’t.
PM: I’ll get back to you with it.
CG: Is that a promise?
PM: I will do my best.
CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he’s gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had…hijacked those planes. Good, I’d like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?
PM: No, actually I don’t…
CG: You don’t understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers’ DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against – Do you think that’s bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it’s conspiratorial just to want to know?…You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers…
PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that’s worth answering….
CG: …You’ve told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You’re the one with the answers, I’m not. I just ask questions.
PM: …A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over….
CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we’ve invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we’re gonna spend trillions of dollars. It’s not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What’s so hard about that?
PM: The way that you’re framing it is intentionally…
CG: Of course it is, ’cause it’s five years later and we haven’t heard the answer. And you haven’t given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that’s it. You see, it’s the way I’m framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.
PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.
CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that’s it. Hey Davin, thanks…
the Charles Goyette Show.
Well that was just a farce. He couldn’t answer anything. I could hear him squirm from here. When the truth finally comes out these people should not be free from prosecution. They should be found as traitors as much as the people who planned it
Now here is an analysis of Popular Mechanics from 911lies.org that debunks their ridiculous conclusions that they are travelling around pushing onto the public to re-inforce the official line with supposed “professional technical” validation
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 sceptics, 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
“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 defence 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.
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 labelled 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 original 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.
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.
So there it is
I hope you found lots of good eye opening information in that and you will go look for more about who is involved in the cover-up. You will start to notice things are wrong with the media now you are awake