IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Popular Mechanics Refuse To Discuss 9/11 Flight Data, Refusal Recorded Over The Phone

rob balsamo
post Apr 6 2009, 07:58 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



This is a bit of old news which started with a search for debate opponents on Air America Radio, but i never released the recording. I decided to release this recording today due to Meigs crawling out of his cave to "debunk" FEMA Camps with Glenn Beck. It appears Popular Mechanics would rather "debate" without an opponent as we have seen from so many who make excuses for the govt story.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/PM_RefuseDebate.mp3



Popular Mechanics still have yet to address NTSB provided and plotted Flight Data. When they do --if they do-- im sure it will be sans opponent with actual expertise on the matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 7 2009, 12:55 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



Sounds like you will have to wait until hell freezes over.

Was Meigs really out or hiding behind his receptionist?

I understand that Popular Mechanics is good for tree house plans, maybe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Apr 7 2009, 01:15 PM
Post #3





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 7 2009, 12:55 PM) *
Sounds like you will have to wait until hell freezes over.

Was Meigs really out or hiding behind his receptionist?

I understand that Popular Mechanics is good for tree house plans, maybe!


And letting the populace know how we will take care of the UFO problem.



whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 8 2009, 12:38 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



http://www.prisonplanet.com/popular-mechan...-the-phone.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Apr 8 2009, 12:53 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



That's awesome. Lots of people will see that ... and want to know more.

cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madtruth
post Apr 8 2009, 01:36 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 23-December 08
Member No.: 4,041



That audio is great Rob, thanks for posting it.Meigs is a coward and an accomplice to the murders of 3,000 people for his involvement in the coverup of these murders. He wouldn't debate anyone because he knows he would lose -- he would be crushed. Pathetic piece of crap he is.thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
datars
post Apr 9 2009, 07:34 PM
Post #7


New Terrorist in Town


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 996
Joined: 14-August 06
From: S.F. Bay Area
Member No.: 6



QUOTE (madtruth @ Apr 5 2009, 10:36 AM) *
That audio is great Rob, thanks for posting it.Meigs is a coward and an accomplice to the murders of 3,000 people for his involvement in the coverup of these murders. He wouldn't debate anyone because he knows he would lose -- he would be crushed. Pathetic piece of crap he is.thumbdown.gif
Yep!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Apr 11 2009, 12:25 AM
Post #8


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,015
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



apparently this is what makes mr.meigs qualified to debate science:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/11/b57/65

QUOTE
James Meigs
editor-in-chief at Popular Mechanics
Greater New York City Area

Editor-in-Chief Popular Mechanics Public Company; 51-200 employees; Online Media industry
July 2004 – Present (9 years 3 months)

Popular Mechanics is a leading men's magazine with a print circulation of 1.2 million. We cover science and technology news, as well as offer DIY advice to help readers take care of their homes, cars, and digital tech. Major areas of focus include: alternative energy and environmental engineering; space; aviation; digital technology; and outdoor adventure. In 2008, Popular Mechanics was nominated for three National Magazine Awards, including General Excellence. PM won the award in the Personal Service category for "Know Your Footprint," a series on creating an environmentally responsible home. Our website, popularmechanics.com offers daily news and commentary on science and technology issues.

Executive Editor National Geographic Adventure
2001 – 2004 (3 years)

Editor-in-Chief Premiere Magazine
1996 – 2000 (4 years)

Senior Editor Entertainment Weekly Public Company; 51-200 employees; TWX; Publishing industry
1990 – 1993 (3 years)
Part of the team that launched EW. Supervised video and movie coverage.

Sr. Editor/Editor Video Review magazine
1984 – 1989 (5 years)


Education:
Dartmouth College
BA, Philosophy, 1976 1981


lol.


related article that surfaced during my research:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=114979


*it should be noted that anyone can join linkedin.com for free and set up a profile, so there is no guarantee that page is authentic (even though it seems accurate). i mention this because i was able to verify that meigs attended dartmouth and that he was a 1980 graduate, along with his wife who also attended there <a href="http://unauthorized link.com/cd6a6a" target="_blank">http://unauthorized link.com/cd6a6a</a> , with whom he wrote a book:

http://www.amazon.com/Make-Music-Video-Fir...s/dp/0531102157
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1208815.James_B_Meigs

-i could not and did not find any official documentation to estbalish/confirm what meigs studied while attending dartmouth. aside from meigs' linkedin profile and bollyn's article (who probably used linkedin as his source), there is no record of what meigs studied at one of america's most expensive ivy league schools. but assuming he did indeed study 5 years of philosophy, imo meigs is unfit and unqualified to debate any scientific or technical data, especially with regard to 9/11.




ETA:

btw - i really have to add that im by no means excusing meigs or giving him a free pass. i think its awesome that you called him rob and tried to hold his feet to the fire. i didnt say it before, and i think it requires clarification, but regardless of his lack of proper qualified expertise, meigs has attempted to play the scientific authority on the matter of 9/11, and thus he should be made to answer for it. if you ever do get him on the phone or in person, present him with technical questions first and when he refuses to answer, then ask him how it is that BA in philosophy qualifies him to have any sort of "expert" opinion or insight on the events of 9/11.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Sep 26 2013, 02:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Apr 11 2009, 02:50 AM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



dartmouth has become an interesting college.

if you will study on it, i think that you will find that the "wingers" may have taken over its board of trustees.

i think it was at dartmouth where dinesh dsouza, with winger backing, started a fascist publication to counteract dartmouth's liberalism. i can assure you, dartmouth was never a liberal school.

dartmouth is a very curious college. any graduate of that school who becomes an information controller for the events of 11/09/01 needs to be tracked very thoroughly.

the notion of liberal "ivy league" colleges is as fraudulent as the "liberal" new york times, the washington post.

harvard is often thought to be liberal. it never was. isn't.

most ivy league colleges border on the reactionary fascist ideology. the most overt have been princeton and yale.

if you think otherwise, then you have been procter&gambled...manipulated by public relations/advertising.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 25 2011, 08:10 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Bumping this thread as it has come to my attention, Popular Mechanics have crawled out of their hole to "debate" Kevin Ryan on NPR later today.

I wonder if they will discuss the Flight Data?

Probably not.... as Kevin Ryan seems to think it supports the govt story. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Pop Mechs have agreed to "debate" him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Aug 25 2011, 11:45 AM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



Listening now, and this is infuriating. A two hour show, and Kevin Ryan was on for roughly five minutes. In addition, they had on TWO people AGAINST 9/11 truth. angry.gif

NPR, you guys are traitors!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 25 2011, 11:59 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Well, i tried to call in, but got dropped or busy signals.

If the ZNY controller from ISP who called in is reading this, please contact us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 11 2014, 03:57 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Some have been interested in this thread... so... bump!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 11 2014, 07:30 AM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 369
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 7 2009, 09:28 AM) *
This is a bit of old news which started with a search for debate opponents on Air America Radio, but i never released the recording. I decided to release this recording today due to Meigs crawling out of his cave to "debunk" FEMA Camps with Glenn Beck. It appears Popular Mechanics would rather "debate" without an opponent as we have seen from so many who make excuses for the govt story.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/PM_RefuseDebate.mp3

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf?audioUrl=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/PM_RefuseDebate.mp3" height="27" width="320"></embed>

Popular Mechanics still have yet to address NTSB provided and plotted Flight Data. When they do --if they do-- im sure it will be sans opponent with actual expertise on the matter.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 11 2014, 07:57 AM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 369
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



Dear Mr Balsamo.

Sorry about that: just shows what hitting the wrong button can do: but I guess providing you pull out of it: it can sometimes serve a good purpose.

Having spent a fair bit of my life having similar responses to my endeavours: it has often left me with the thought: does the person really want to be doing what they are doing; or are they protecting their job.

People like you or me in such a position would probably say: "well stuff the job": but we all have our different ways of going through life and that is our entitlement: whether we are doing right or wrong; that of course being up to
individual interpretation.

I am not up with all things on the internet: living so far away from the concerns you hold about things that went on in your country on 9/11/2001: therefore I raise the following with respect: but during more recent times there was
the discovery of aircraft components in Park Place Manhattan.

Was this a subject raised by "Popular Mechanics" at all?

It seems somebody from "Boeing" gave opinion about what the component was part of: although they apparently said they could not identify which of the two aircraft involved in the events on 9/11/2001 the component had come
away from.

Has that opinion ever been formally declared by "Boeing"?

Is the component on display to the public?

Does anybody possess photographs of the component beyond those so far exhibited on the internet?

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jul 11 2014, 08:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 13 2014, 09:32 AM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Good questions Robert.

I'm under the impression that the piece was identified as part of the flap track mechanism.

As for letting others examine it, HELL NO they won't do that.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jul 13 2014, 09:18 PM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 208
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 13 2014, 08:32 AM) *
Good questions Robert.

I'm under the impression that the piece was identified as part of the flap track mechanism.

As for letting others examine it, HELL NO they won't do that.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?


Yes that Park Place 'discovery' a little while ago was quite interesting.

At the time I hadn't formed a conclusion as to whether a plane hit WTC2 or not.

Now that I have more than enough proof a plane did strike WTC2, the plane part discovered is neither here
nor there for me.

If they wanted to plant a part for whatever reason, surely 10+ years is ample time to do the deed.

Then there is the question as to how the part could have threaded the needle to land in the tiny space available. Yet another miracle of 9/11?

But a video clip I found about a year ago has what could be the sound track of that part falling to its
place between the buildings.

The video has two major 'clunks', one the engine on Murray St. and another, which could very well be this other part at Park Place.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jul 14 2014, 10:41 AM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 369
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 13 2014, 11:02 PM) *
Good questions Robert.

I'm under the impression that the piece was identified as part of the flap track mechanism.

As for letting others examine it, HELL NO they won't do that.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?


Dear 'amazed'.

The component certainly has the characteristics of a 'fowler flap' mechanism.

Whether it is from a Boeing 767 is under some question .

Comparison of "parts" of the component with images obtained to date of true Boeing 767 mechanism parts for the inboard and outboard flaps: does not convince me that the component recovered from Park Place is from a Boeing 767.

To be more conclusive it would be very helpful to be able to see images of the parts of a full Boeing 767 flap mechanism.

Those considered to date have the lower portion covered by the "canoe" with the parts that are visible in various state of extension.

The inboard flap of a Boeing 767 is a two slot configuration: which has more "parts" than the outboard flap which has one slot configuration.

The illustration provided in the media said to be on the advice of somebody from Boeing: indicates the component is from on a Boeing 767 inboard flap mechanism.


Separate thinking.

It is very difficult to consider how such a component normally located on the trailing edge of a wing; as substantial as the wing of a Boeing 767: which has two very strong spars between it and the leading edge of the wing: could break through the wing and then exit through the wall columns of the tower.

The drive 'actuator' of the flap mechanism of a Boeing 767 is driven by a shaft that runs along the length of the rear of the wing structure: which would offer considerable resistance to the mechanism coming away from the wing.

There has been no evidence brought forward of wing debris being found: with no evidence apparent in the wall of the tower where a wing exited.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jul 14 2014, 08:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 17 2014, 04:46 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I will take your word for all that Robert, happily.

Coming and going, this is and was a government deception. However it is my belief that 2 aircraft did indeed strike the towers that day. The second was a modified Boeing IMO, and the first was an unknown entity, perhaps a Boeing but probably not.

But I would like to ask you a question if I may, based upon your apparent knowledge of aircraft structures.

The fuselage section piece shown in the Moussaoui trial, the piece allegedly from 93 at Shanksville, was planted evidence IMO, as there was no Boeing there that day.

I have been told by a poster on another site that the window spacing on that piece is not consistent with the window spacing on a 757. In his opinion the spacing is much closer to that of a 727.

Could you offer an opinion on that? Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2014 - 07:10 AM