Debunking the Debunkers
by Dave vonKleist

The technique employed by mainstream news sources in regard to recent worldwide attention given to “911- IPS – The Directors Cut” has become predictable and expected. “Conspiracy theorists,” “fringe groups,” “right/left wing extremists,” are just a few of the stock labels used to discredit or negate any opinions contrary to the official stories promoted by government officials and mainstream media. In most cases, the offending opinion is ignored and the process of attrition is allowed to run its course until the unapproved notion is forgotten or lapses into obscurity. Otherwise, “respectable” researchers and a legion of experts whose testimony is ostensibly unimpeachable attack the unpopular concept. The latter methodology is utilized when either the “conspiracy theory” begins to gain popularity and/or when the credibility of the official story is threatened. The current issue of “Popular Mechanics” (PM) and the follow up promo piece on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper’s 360” where he interviewed James Meigs, chief editor of PM magazine, are textbook examples of what some are now calling “desperation damage control.”

 

The recent release of “911 IPS – The Director’s Cut” has cast a dark shadow of doubt on the official story of 9/11. Unlike the approach utilized by the mainstream media, where the viewer/reader is told what they are seeing by “officials” and “experts,” the viewer of “911 IPS” is simply shown video clips and photos from mainstream sources, challenged to ask honest questions, use common sense, and come to their own conclusions. After all, one doesn’t have to be a certified, registered and licensed pyrotechnic expert to have a valid claim of fire. This approach is apparently why there has been such an effort to discredit those who dare to think outside the “cage”. PM magazine attempted to refute many of the assertions made by other 911 researchers, but this article will deal only with the issues that were raised in “911 IPS”

 

“1. Where’s The Pod?” PM magazine and others claim that the simple reflection of the fairing is what we are seeing in the CNN video clip and photos referenced. Basic physics and common sense should tell you that a reflection is seen from only one angle, not two. We have had numerous airline pilots contact us after viewing the video and have stated that the anomaly could not have been the fairing because it protrudes beyond the front of the wing. The CNN video clip of this event (also seen on CNN’s video “America Remembers”) not only shows this anomaly, but also clearly shows the mysterious “flash” that occurs just before the plane slams into the south tower.

This flash is seen in three additional angles and is directly in line with the anomaly appearing on the bottom of the plane. PM magazine chose to not even address the flash, an event that is irrefutably inconsistent with a simple terrorist hijacking and is inarguably more significant than the “pod” debate.

 

Note that in the fourth angle (bottom right), the flash is to the right and below center of the fuselage, directly in line with the “pod”. Also note that because of the location of the flash in relation to the fuselage, “sparks” or “static discharge” have been ruled out by every airline pilot we have spoken with. You can actually see a reflection of the flash on the plane! A flash was also seen in the video clip of flight 11 that reportedly hit the north tower!

“2. Widespread Damage” PM also attempted to deflect the claims of explosions going off in and around the trade center area. “People Magazine” published an interview with Louie Cacchioli, a NYC firefighter who stated, “We think there was bombs going off in the building”. The Naudet brothers interview with firefighters who said, “It was like a controlled detonation.” Countless reports on television describing, “another explosion…” “Huge explosions”. Reports from nearly every network of explosions in and around the trade center were conveniently ignored and un-addressed

by PM. 

 

 

“3. WTC 7 Collapse” The official story states that WTC7 collapsed due to the tremendous damage that it incurred from the collapsing north tower. Every video angle available showed no debris hitting WTC7. Even the photograph published in PM clearly shows the intact roof of WTC7. The interview with Larry Silverstein, where he stated, “We decided to pull it,” in regard to building 7 was overlooked. The video clip taken from a helicopter before either tower had fallen showed smoke rising from WTC7 was also omitted. The 911 Commission Report never even mentioned WTC7. Despite the fact that never in the history of steel buildings has one collapsed from a fire, we are to believe that it happened not just once, but three times on 9/11.

 

“4. The Pentagon” The controversy revolves around photos and video clips shot before the collapse of the outer ring, the lack of fire or heat damage in the immediate area, the lack of video surveillance footage, and many inconsistencies in the official story. For example, on one hand we are told that the entire plane was vaporized on impact, and yet we are also told that it pierced not one, but three of the rings of the pentagon leaving a neat round hole. The photos taken before the collapse clearly show a small hole, 16-20 feet in diameter, and no recognizable wreckage whatsoever. These photos were not included in the “in depth” article published in PM. One photo published in PM shows a twisted piece of metal, about the size of a car door, with red and white paint on it. This transportable piece of “evidence” is touted as the wreckage of flight 77, ignoring the fact that one piece of steel that could have been planted does not constitute a Boeing 757.

The official story of flight 77 tells us that it was traveling at 530 MPH as it made a 330-degree turn before slamming into the pentagon. Every airline pilot we have spoken with has stated that at that speed, the plane would have pulled approximately 5 G’s and torn itself apart. Physics, photos and common sense again ignored by PM.

The editors of PM (including James Meigs who will not return our phone calls), by ignoring or avoiding the key pieces of evidence, have exposed themselves as participants in the continued cover-up of the events of 911. If they truly were the journalists they purport themselves to be, they would have included the key pieces of evidence and dealt with them honestly and openly. Even a small army of experts cannot provide acceptable answers if they are not asked the right questions, nor provided vital pieces of information.

As long as these issues continue to be avoided by the mainstream media, they will continue to kindle and rekindle the growing controversies surrounding 911. These screaming questions will not go away, and neither will those asking them. Our numbers are growing internationally and are increasing faster than the powers that be care to admit. Time is not on their side and it is their move.