Popular Mechanics Charlatan Gets Roasted!

[Me]

I love this one....

Talk about an uninformed invalid.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3


The show host continually presses him for answers on various issues and the PM "research editor" can’t answer any of it with any amount of clarity. It was as bad as I’ve ever heard. The host asked him why it was that he was allowed exclusive access to supposed photographic evidence of damage of building seven while no one else has been able to see it and he couldn’t explain it. He just claimed that they weren’t given permission to allow anyone else in the public domain to see it. Why the hell not!!!! The PM guy also consistently complained about the way the certain questions were phrased. Yet when given the opportunity to frame the question anyway he wanted he still couldn't provide an answer. He then deemed that it wasn't an important question. The guy was dancing around in circles. This is what coincidence theorists hang their hats on? It’s an embarrassment of the worst kind.

[Snowygrouch]

Me,
Thats a real crack up, had me in tears that did

I like how he denied anyone in demolition every said PULL, I`ve got video of a demolition engineer saying it on air!

The host absolutely killed him!

[jason67]

Nice one me, where did you get that from and how old is it?

Top marks to the host!

The question about where did they get the match for the DNA was just great. I've never heard anybody squirm so much in my life.

He really didnt have a clue how to answer the question.

[IronSnot]

yep that's a good one. Must be pretty recent because they're talking about the much lauded PM book at one stage if I remember correctly.

[kbo234]

Listening to people like this PM creep makes my blood boil.....and how often have our friends CTS, SOG, Jay Ref etc referred us to Popular Mechanics as an academically serious 'peer-reviewed' authority on all things 9/11.

Fair play to the host. he made them look exactly what they are.

[Andrew Johnson]

The PM guy was a researcher named David Colburn.

[Me]

The PM editor’s interview was from the Charles Goyette show and yes it was recent as far as I can tell.
http://www.1100kfnx.com/goyette.php

The cowardly Popular Mechanics people have been canceling radio interviews lately so it seems they can’t handle the heat. It’s tough when the facts aren’t on your side I guess?

NIST won’t debate, the 9/11 Commission won’t debate and now the people of Poplar Mechanics are even running scared. It’s an epidemic of truth and the liars are being buried beneath the sheer weight of their own hypocrisy. So long suckers!!!!

[DeFecToR]

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=009309

Have a listen to the audio.

Its...er...interesting to say the least.

[Me]

Jim Marrs on the Charles Goyette Show:

http://rapidshare.de/files/30736067/Jim_Marrs_on_Goyette.mp3.html

42 MB local mirror here:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/Jim_Marrs_on_Goyette.mp3

[scubadiver]

[Serge]

This man was pissed on from a great height. He was squirming so badly its hilarious. On the WTC7 issue there was never any hole of any sort. In fact, watching videos of the WTC7 collapse, its as clear as crystal that explosions can been seen taking place as shoots of white smoke as the explosives go off, are seen from the middle sides of the building.

[Mark Gobell]

Another object lesson in why many "reporters" cannot and should not be trusted with the task of uncovering 9/11 truth.

That this Daven Coburn is a contributor to the recent "Popular Mechanics" book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" only serves to underline the paucity of their arguments and the nonsense that even now, some five years on is still being peddled in support of the US Government's Official Conspiracy Theory.

To quote an excerpt from the interview:

Caller: What about the 7 hijackers, 7 to 9 hijackers reported in the British press who came forward and said "we're alive, what are we doing on the FBI's list of so called hijackers - we're alive and well ? How do you explain that one ?

Daven Coburn: Actually my explanation for that is that I have read that one BBC report that claims . . .

Caller: It was more than one BBC report . . .

Daven Coburn: But actually it's not. That's the one thing we've found and that was absolutely one of those things we looked into I promise you. I mean, that, that would be . . .

Caller: Are you saying that it is false ?

Daven Coburn: I am saying that is false.

Caller: OK, how do you verify that ?

Daven Coburn: Have you seen any other reports beyond ?

Caller: Let me ask my question again. How did you verify it's false ?

Daven Coburn: Because . . .

Caller: Just because you don't want to believe it's true, is that it ?

Radio Host: Stop. Stop. Stop. You asked him the question, now let's find out what his answer is. It's a real simple question: How did you verify that the British story was false ?

Daven Coburn: The remains of the hijackers, who have been widely understood to have been on those planes.

Caller: What remains ?

Daven Coburn: 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 to do autopsies on bodies ? Are you crazy are you insane ?

Daven Coburn: Have you seen photos of these hijackers that you are talking about, the reports ?

Caller: Where are the autopsy reports that you're referring to on the hijackers ? Where are those reports ? I haven't heard anything about autopsies.

Radio Host: What I want to know is, even if we presume that you are correct that they have recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA against which to match it ?

Daven Coburn: My point is . . .

Radio Host: No, don't go to your point. Go to my point. Where did they get the original DNA from a bunch of Middle Eastern, Islamic madmen ? Where did they get the DNA ? Had they submitted their DNA before they er, I mean where the hell did they get it ? You're not even talking sensibly with me.

Daven Coburn: Off the top of my head I don't know the answer to that, but I'll look into . . .

Radio Host: Of course you don't.

Daven Coburn: I'll get back to you with it.

Radio Host: Is that a promise ?

Daven Coburn: I will do my best.

Radio Host: People all across the State of Arizona now are hearing David Coburn, say on the show that he is going to find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists, who had shaved their bodies naked to hijack those planes that day. Good, I'd like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made ?

Daven Coburn: No actually I don't and may I ask the caller a question ?

Radio Host: No

Daven Coburn: OK

Radio Host: Alright. You don't understand why when you tell us they found the hijacker's DNA remains amongst the molten steel and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijacker's to match it against, do you think thats bizarre to ask a question like that ? Do you think it's conspiratorial just to want to know ?

Daven Coburn: I think the way you are framing it is not . . .

Radio Host: How would you frame it ? Frame it differently but get to the same issue for me. How would you frame it ?

Daven Coburn: I think I would take a different take on the entire question.

Radio Host: Well OK there's DNA evidence, you told me they had DNA evidence that matches the hijackers, I want to know where . . .

Daven Coburn: I think the entire question however, is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that is worth answering . . .

Radio Host: You're the one that told me that they had the DNA evidence.

Daven Coburn: You're the one who wouldn't let me approach the question from the way that I would answer it.

Radio Host: Well go ahead and approach it.

Daven Coburn: And that is that if that report, if these men are still alive..

Radio Host: Right

Daven Coburn: Why have we not seen any news reports? and why have we not . . .

Radio Host: Ok, but you're the one that, can I answer that for you ?

Daven Coburn: Sure

Radio Host: I don't know the answer. That's my answer. Now let me ask you a question in the same spirit. You told me that they've checked their DNA. Where did they get the original DNA to check it against ? You're the one with the answers. I'm not. I just have questions.

Daven Coburn: And I'm telling you that actually, you can, a seven year old can ask why. Over and over and over and there's no . . .

Radio Host: 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 ?

Daven Coburn: The way that you're framing it is intentionally . . .

Radio Host: Of course it is, because 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 re-frame it. Tell me how to ask it differently.

Daven Coburn: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked and I would say . . .

Radio Host: How about the question I asked ?

Radio Host: Alright that's it. Hey Daven everybody expects you'll get back to me. Look forward to it on the Charles Goyette show.

::End of transcript::

My response to you Daven and the rest of your colleagues who put so much effort into "researching the facts behind 9/11 conspiracy theories."

I understand that you are a research editor for the magazine Popular Mechanics and that you took part in the show in that capacity and because you have contributed to the recent Popular Mechanics book titled "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Facts"

Having listened to your performance on this radio show, I for one will not be buying the book.

I am however, very interested in "researching the facts behind 9/11 conspiracy theories" especially the facts behind what many consider to be the biggest conspiracy theory of them all, that which has been spun to the world since 9/11/2001 that "19 Arab hijackers were responsible".

My time is spent trying to learn about the facts behind that huge consipracy.

Listening to your words further encourages me in this task and only adds to the immense controversy that you claim to "debunk".

Also you help to provide additional important evidence that the official government conspiracy as delivered by a largely complicit media and books such as this cannot possibly be true.

For that I thank you.

If Daven, you are unable to provide answers to such fundamental questions as to the source of original DNA samples which must have been available to forensic scientists to enable them to match the DNA that you alledge was "collected all over the place" from "the remains of the hijackers" then you really have no case.

If Daven, after five years, you are trying to persuade us to accept that because such questions are asked of you in response to your assertions, then these questions must be "framed incorrectly" then I think your efforts are misguided.

You admit that you do not know the answer, so what are we to make of the integrity of your claim ?

We can all write stuff Daven but for that stuff to have integrity it must be verifiable. You say you do not know the answer, which, uncannily is the same position that many of us are in within the 9/11 Truth Movement. We don't claim to have answers, we have questions, just like your radio host had questions.

If you cannot answer questions about claims you make on-air, live to the world in support of a book that you have contributed to that attempts to "Debunk 9/11 Myths" by explaining "Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Facts" would you understand if I announce live to the world that I do not believe you are able to do what your book sets out to do.

Would you also understand why many might believe that your inability to answer these valid and pertinent questions actually adds integrity to the counter argument ?

That being:

"Why the Government's Official Conspiracy Theory Can't Be True"

Oh and one more thing Daven.

I am not a reporter but I can do simple maths.

You will no doubt have become aware during the course of your "journalistic investigations" that it has been "reported" that the Flight Data Recorder from Flight 77 which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon shows that it's terminal velocity was 345 mph.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34412,00.html

Yet, confusingly, you state in the radio piece that "Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second".

Daven, any bright seven year old asking questions might be able to calculate that 780 feet per second equates to a speed of 531 mph not 345 mph.

Who are we to believe Daven ?

Or, have I framed that question incorrectly too ?

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Aren't those WTC7 photos showing "the gouged out 10 floor central section" available under the freedom of information act?

Are we going to monitor that popular mechanics person's promise to get back to the radio presenter with proof of how they found terrorist DNA in the twin towers rubble and matched it against terrorist DNA they were holding?

[TRUTH]

is this avaible on youtube? if it isnt could someone please post it thanks.

[Andrew Johnson]

There is picture in the NIST report of some WTC7, but not the same one as Pop Mechanics was referring to I don't think:

http://www.wtc7.net/docs/June2004WTC7_Page_16_cropped.jpg

[Me]

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14963.htm

Where is the evidence?

[Jim]

Here's an interesting thread containing images of the damage done to surrounding buildings, including WTC7:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread202085/pg3

This is also good reference for WTC7 damage:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=158966

The latter article asserts that the SW corner damage, as reported by NIST, is in fact just a smoke obscured (SW) part of the WTC7 building.