Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths

Part 1: Introduction, Popular Mechanics (PM) has been the primary cheerleader in the mainstream media defending the NIST reports.

Global Research, November 05, 2018 15 February 2012


This Article was first published by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2012

A decade has passed since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and many people feel that we have still not had a real investigation into what really happened that day.

Indeed, a growing number of citizens believe that the probe into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) was at best incomplete and at worst fraudulent. These critics include the 1,600-plus architects and engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition demanding an unbiased, independent investigation into the attacks.

By contrast, Popular Mechanics (PM) has been the primary cheerleader in the mainstream media defending the NIST reports ever since its book, Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up To the Facts, was published in 2006.

For the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, PM put out a second version of its book, which it updated in an attempt to dismiss new findings that corroborate the controlled demolition hypothesis. The main revisions concern the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7.

pop mech mag book v4 768

The revised version of Popular Mechanics’ book Debunking 9/11 Myths, far right, continues to defend myths that are scientifically impossible.

Our 10-part series, which starts with Part 1 today, demonstrates that PM has still not adequately explained the numerous anomalies surrounding the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7—anomalies that prove the structures were destroyed with explosives.

World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2

The introduction to PM’s chapter on the collapse of the Twin Towers briefly discusses the main theory put forward by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement: “The buildings were brought down intentionally—not by hijacked airplanes, but by government-planted bombs or a controlled demolition” (pg. 28).

PM then goes on to give a few examples of people promoting this theory. One of the people they cite is a Danish writer named Henrik Melvang, who, according to PM, “markets his book and video claiming the Apollo moon landings were a hoax” (pg. 28). This is obviously an attempt on PM’s part to portray those who question the collapse of the Towers as conspiracy theorists who have irrational beliefs.

PM also cites Morgan Reynolds, the chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor during President George Bush’s first term, as someone who believes that the three WTC towers were destroyed through controlled demolition.

We must ask ourselves why PM would choose to cite these people as examples of those who question the cause of the collapse of the Towers. Why didn’t the book cite anyone with experience in the fields of engineering and building construction? According to PM, it’s because the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn’t have any technical credentials. In its 2011 book, PM writes:

Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields (pg. 28-29).

This statement is by far one of the most off-the-mark passages in PM’s book. One need only look at what most consider the lead organization in the 9/11 Truth community, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to see that there are currently over 1,600 professional architects and engineers with backgrounds in engineering, architecture, and building construction who question the destruction of the three WTC high-rises. How can PM possibly have omitted mention of more than a thousand experts who all contend that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down with explosives? In PM’s entire 216-page book, there is not a single mention made of AE911Truth or its founder, architect Richard Gage.

When one looks back at their 2006 book, we can see that this exact same statement appears on the exact same pages. This fact shows how PM has decided to structure their new book: i.e., update it onlywhere it benefits them. As we will see, this tactic is used more than once in PM’s grossly flawed book.

1.1 The Empire State Building Accident

PM discusses the incident in 1945 when a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the side of the Empire State Building. They claim that “some conspiracy theorists point to [this incident] as proof that commercial planes hitting the World Trade Center could not bring down the towers” (pg. 29).

To counter this assertion, PM compares the construction of the Towers to the construction of the Empire State Building, calling the former structures “in some ways more fragile” (pg. 30).

They also quote structural engineer Jon Magnusson, who says, “These structures look massive, but they’re mostly air. They are air, punctuated with thin layers of concrete and steel” (pg. 30).

While it is true that the Towers were mostly empty space by volume, this is the case with any large skyscraper. The idea that they were in some way less structurally sound than the Empire State Building is contradicted by a variety of technical sources, including this telegram written by Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, which was the architectural firm that designed the Twin Towers:




It is quite apparent that the Towers were extremely well built—and may have been even more structurally sound than the Empire State Building. Even supporters of the official conspiracy theory, such as Thomas Eager, praise the buildings’ structural integrity: “The towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft. . . . [T]he buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft. . . . [T]his ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising” [Eagar and Musso, JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11].

Next PM quotes WTC assistant structural engineer Leslie Robertson’s comment that the Towers were only designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, but did not take into consideration the fires that would be produced by the jet fuel. After 9/11, Robertson noted, “I don’t know if we considered the fire damage that [a plane strike] would cause” (pg. 31).

However, someone evidently did consider that problem, and that someone was John Skilling, the original WTC lead engineer. When interviewed in 1993, Skilling told the Seattle Times:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”2

Although PM mentions John Skilling briefly in their book, they make no mention of this statement from him. Apparently, PM felt no need to quote the lead WTC engineer on his views about the structural strength and stability of the Towers.

Interestingly, PM quotes a few sources who, after 9/11, claimed that the Towers were doomed once the planes impacted the buildings, yet virtually every engineering source quoted before9/11 said just the opposite.3

1.2 Widespread Damage

The next section of PM’s book deals mainly with the damage to the lobby floors of the Towers and mentions the assertion by the 9/11 Truth Movement that lobby destruction proves explosives were planted in the buildings. The argument that the PM book puts forward is different: It claims that the jet fuel from the planes traveled down through the elevator shafts and caused explosions that damaged the lobby.


The walls and trees in the lobby of one of the Twin Towers show no evidence of being burned by a jet fuel fireball, which Popular Mechanics claims was the cause of an earlier explosion.

Although viewpoints differ within the 9/11 Truth Movement4 regarding the cause of these explosions, some features of the lobby damage indicate that they were not due to a fireball explosion from the jet fuel. For example, the white marble walls show no signs of being exposed to fire. Also, the plants next to the blown-out windows show no signs of having been burned.

And at least one explosives expert said he does not believe the damage was caused by the jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts, based on the appearance of the lobby.5

Whether or not the lobby damage is indicative of explosives, however, is essentially irrelevant to the discussion of the Towers’ demolitions, since the collapse sequence started above the plane impact zone, not at the lower levels. The lobby damage is not necessary to prove the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition; there are far more obvious indicators of demolition that will be discussed later in this report. The fact that PM claims that the jet fuel travelled down the elevator shafts is actually more damaging to their case, for it shows that not all of the fuel from the planes contributed to the fires that allegedly brought the Towers down.6

This section of PM’s book also discusses the testimony of firefighter Louie Cacchioli, one of over one hundred first responders who said that there were bombs in the WTC. PM counters this by asserting that members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have taken his quotes out of context. Though Caccholi himself does not believe explosives were placed in the buildings, numerous quotes from firefighters and first responders strongly indicate that explosives were placed in the buildings.7


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


1 Quoted from: City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, pg. 134-136

2 Quoted from: Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times

3 For more information on the pre-9/11 claims about the Towers’ strength, see:

4 The following links provide arguments against the lobby damage being caused by explosives:

5 The following link provides arguments against the lobby damage being caused by a jet fuel fireball:

6 This paper provides detailed measurements for how much fuel actually remained on the impact floors, and shows that the amount in either Tower was actually quite small in relation to each Tower, much less a single floor:

7 See:

All images in this article are from


  1. ⭐ Dr. Wood doesn’t make an unfounded claim of naming a weapon. All she does is describe the effects it produces.

    Thermite produces a blinding white light. The towers did not light up like sparklers on the Fourth of July! 😁 If they found chocolate chip cookie 🍪 crumbs in the dust would that be the cause of destruction? 😁

    Let me introduce you to Dr. J. Douglas Beason

    New weapons and how they may change war subject of talk Thursday at Museum

    Light-wave energy in the same spectrum of energy found in home appliances may soon be used in a new generation of weapons. On Thursday, the Laboratory’s Associate Director for Threat Reduction, Douglas Beason, will talk about America’s new directed energy weapons in a talk at the Laboratory’s Bradbury Science Museum.

    The talk is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m., and is free and open to the public. After the talk, Beason is scheduled to sign copies of his new book, “The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed Energy Weapons will Change the Way Future Wars will be Fought,” at the Otowi Station Bookstore next to the museum.

    Beason, who was named Los Alamos’ Threat Reduction Directorate (ADTR) leader in January, is a leading expert in directed energy research. At the talk, he will describe the development of a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy. The technology that supplies the same spectrum of energy found in microwave ovens or television remote control devices is a revolution in weaponry, perhaps more profound than the atomic bomb. Beason will discuss these new weapons and answer the questions that everyone is asking: What is directed energy? How do these new weapons work? How lethal are they?

    According to Beason, the first directed energy weapons are being tested now and their deployment is being planned for today’s battlefields.

    The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed-Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will be Fought

    In science fiction, futuristic soldiers are often shown wielding light emitting weapons – Flash Gordon’s ray gun, Captain Kirk’s phaser, and Darth Vader’s light saber. Today, this imagined future of science fiction is on the road to reality. After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge light-wave energy, the same spectrum of energy found in your microwave or in your TV remote control. They’re called “directed-energy weapons” – lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams – and they signal a revolution in weaponry, perhaps, more profound than the atomic bomb.

    Those who control the energy control the people. But those who control their perception control everything.

    The oil industry (leaded gas), tobacco industry (lung cancer), and more recently the NFL (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), have all spent millions and millions of dollars marginalizing scientific findings and the scientists that find them by way of “public relations” which is another word for propaganda. Lead in the food chain, carcinogens in the air, and brain damaged football players are all good for you, right?

    What Sound?

    The mass of each WTC tower was around 500,000 tons or 1,102,311,310.9 pounds.

    Garbage trucks weigh around 33,000 pounds empty.

    The destruction of each tower would equal the sound of 33,403 empty garbage trucks raining down. (a little over one quarter of all U.S. garbage trucks in service) That didn’t happen. The towers were turned into dust in mid air never hitting the ground. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

    Both the super-duper thermite gang 👥 and the super-duper nuclear gang 👥 are covering up the lack of high heat 🔥 when a careful observation of ALL the evidence concludes that the destruction was cold molecular disassociation produced by a type of directed energy. There is also the CGI/Remote controlled plane coverup gangs 👥 – when it was actually image projection of some kind. There are also gangs 👥 that coverup both lack of high heat and image projection technology.

    What high heat?

    High heat is part of the government’s official conspiracy theory and is as relevant as “19 bad guys with box cutters”. Using water and dirt to quench cold molecular disassociation is not evidence of high heat.

    High heat? Why hasn’t the steam cooked these workmen alive? Why are the pressurized hydraulic hoses on the heavy equipment still working and not bursting under high heat?

    Why is wet dirt fuming?

    Steam? If this were steam, these workers would have been cooked. If this were as hot as a grill, these people would become something that looked more like a grilled-cheese sandwich. The hoses to their torches would melt and ignite the fuel.

    On September 27, 2001, the four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.


    A fallacy is an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. Decredentializing a highly qualified expert like Dr. Wood by appealing to spite, ridicule, or willful ignorance does nothing to support a valid argument. Also, an opinion and an Internet connection does not qualify someone as an expert in forensic engineering and science, nor nuclear physics, nor structural engineering, nor materials engineering science, nor engineering mechanics (applied physics). The empirical research Dr. Wood performed is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience, not by performing experiments. Steven Jones [Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies or J.O.N.E.S.] and Greg Jenkins used to ridicule Dr. Wood by claiming that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? LOL What experiments would Dr. Wood perform? What are the experiments for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence! A forensic scientific investigation involves the collection and analysis of ALL of the evidence. Even though A&E911truth appeals to authority and popularity, a controlled group is not synonymous with evidence.

    Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or “spacebeams”). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave at the University of California, Berkeley [available here at timestamp 1:53:47 ],

    telling his audience that “Judy Woods (Dr. Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space” while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]

    At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing “name the weapon” game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting “HAARP” for “Bin Laden.”

    In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up.


  2. The 9/11 cover-up crew 🤡 is not as effective as they once were…

    9/11 Alchemy – Facing Reality

    By Raymond F. Baldorossi, Jr.

    The art of deception
    Is a magician’s illusion
    To make one’s perception
    Become their conclusion

    But once you arrive at
    The Big Top Show 🤡
    You’re loved and adored
    For the truth they don’t know

    The fear that you feel
    That you’ll be exposed
    Makes your heart beat faster
    Enough to explode

    The lie that you live
    Underneath your mask
    Is an unwanted chore
    A laboring task

    It gets hot in the mask
    And under your skin
    The only way to vent
    Is to reveal your sin

    So I stand here naked
    Please come to my reception
    Immediately following
    My “Art of Deception”

    Hors d’oeuvres will be served


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.