Comment by Joseph Northpal

Entered on: 8/12/2012 11:44:57 PM

Hotel rooms, car rentals, even your home have many different DNA laying around. You still need a controlled, absolute identifiable source to compare it too. To have us believe uncontaminated DNA was pulled out of that WTC mess, well only those who believe the jews are the chosen buy this also.

Comment by Clay Rains

Entered on: 2/23/2010 9:45:02 AM

 

I agree with freakazoid44, they were in the U.S. for months and some apparently trained at U.S. military bases, so it is definitely possible the military has the DNA of at least some of the hikackers.

Comment by freakazoid44

Entered on: 9/16/2008 1:37:46 AM

The fact checker was hardly debunked or backpedalling.

#1) The interviewer kept asking him to answer questions to which he could not possibly answer - "Why won't they release this" or, my favorite "What information HAVEN'T they shown anyone?" That was simply stupid.

#2) The great "gotcha!" moment "What did they compare the DNA to?" Contrary to what the interviewer said, all the alleged hijackers weren't just from the middle east - they were in the US for months and months, preparing and training for the attack. Hey had known addresses, which were searched, and when you live somewhere, you leave behind DNA, against which samples can be compared. The same is true if you rent a car, or stay in a hotel room.

While the fact checker may have been stumped on that one, it merely meant that he didn't know the answer at the time, not that the answer didn't exist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

Comment by Matt Crist

Entered on: 11/4/2007 8:49:56 PM

Anyone who considers himself any sort of interviewer would not conduct an interview in such a way. The man who is being interviewed is supposed to be supplying facts about the 9/11 situation, about the structural eng, demolition, and aviation and not the politics... YET just about every question had to do with politics.

I feel sorry for the man interviewed because he would not cut off quesitons which were outside of his purview. Its not "Popular Politics" its "Popular Mechanics"...

Despicable conduct of sophistry.

Comment by Dave Iles

Entered on: 9/22/2006 7:53:48 AM

Like many of the informed, I too, will avoid touching an edition of Popular Mechanics from this point forward. After, this radio interview and the excellent interview with Alex Jones, it is beyond criminal what these liars are trying to sell.
If they weren't so arrogant and ignorant they would realize how much they have exposed and embarrassed themselves in broad daylight.
I for one hope, that they continue giving interviews because, they are so effective at discrediting themselves.

Comment by Steven Welch

Entered on: 9/17/2006 9:50:45 AM

Mr. Charles Goyette has an especially engaging manner, even when strident, which easily trumps the smug monotone of patient 212 condescension issuing from Mr. Davon Coburn. It's almost a slight lisp that Mr. Goyette affects, (is it natural?) which surely caused the unwary Mr. Coburn to foolishly let down his guard. He didn't know what hit him. Mr. Goyette's agnosticism on 9-11 is also helpful here--he sounds commonsensical, when other 9-11 truthseekers become so overwhelmed by the lies and distortions contained in a Popular Mechanics-style argument that they become "framed." Barf National Review Commentator James S. Robbins equated 9-11 truthseeking with Holocaust denying, and where do you go from there? Excellent work! Thank you.

Comment by Peter Sault

Entered on: 8/30/2006 5:02:15 AM

I quote myself as published at:-
http://www.rense.com/general62/ppop.htm

I have just read Mr Jim Hoffman's response at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
to the recent article in 'Popular Mechanics' at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
that tries to debunk the truth about 9/11 by the use of the 'straw man' tactic. Although everything in his response is quite correct and exposes the straw man for what it is, I feel Mr Hoffman was dealing with this particular issue at the wrong level. Approached from a different angle the article tells us who really was behind 9/11 and who is still desperately trying to cover it up. This is how it works:-

'Popular Mechanics' is published by the Hearst Corporation, proprietor (chairman of the board) George R. Hearst, grandson of William Randolph Hearst, sometime would-be builder of large aeroplanes.
http://www.business-magazines.com/prd1350.php
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/hearst.asp http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/corp_bio_hearst.html

The president and CEO of Hearst Corporation is one Victor F. Ganzi, since June 1st, 2002. Mr Ganzi is also an officer/director of the Hearst Foundation. http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/media/GANZI_2003_2_BW.jpg http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/corp_bio_ganzi.html http://www.oaklandwib.org/Images/ImageUploads/F82200432537.pdf
A close look at the titles of the books on the shelf behind Mr Ganzi in the photo (GANZI_2003_2_BW.jpg) reveals that some part of Mr Ganzi's early career was spent working for the owners of the Atlantic City Boardwalk and associated hotels and casinos; sometime friends of a certain Mr Frank Sinatra, as I recall.

Victor F. Ganzi is on the board of directors of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), alongside Columba Bush, wife of Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, brother of George W. Bush, President of the USA and son of George H.W. Bush, former DG of the CIA.
http://www.nationalfamilies.org/prevention/casa.html

Victor F. Ganzi is a member of B.E.N.S. - "Business Executives for National Security"
http://www.bens.org/what_threats_intel.html#intel - wherein we learn that "When it came time to evaluate In-Q-Tel, the CIA's innovative technology development enterprise, Congress turned to BENS"

In October 2002, B.E.N.S. received a "CIA Agency Seal Medallion" for its work on the In-Q-Tel program.
http://www.bens.org/highlights_InQTelMedal.html

In-Q-Tel? It is described as "A new partnership between the CIA and the 'private sector' [my apostrophes].", making it a classic front for traditional fascism and other American-style old-fashioned family values. http://www.in-q-tel.org/

A look at the names involved in In-Q-Tel quickly reveals it as a front for Zionism Central.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/inqtel/

So, we should all be most grateful to 'Popular Mechanics' and its new editor James Meigs for indirectly telling us who the real perpetrators of 9/11 were by its rather long-winded "blind 'em with science" attempt to suppress the truth of behalf of those perpetrators.

Kind Regards Peter Sault

Comment by KupuKupu

Entered on: 8/27/2006 8:11:34 AM

For many years Science publications such as Popular Mechanics were a common fixture in my home. The moment they came out with this propagana piece, was the moment they lost me as a customer. Permanently.

I was also aware of the Chertoff family member being involved. No credentials, just Poly Tics doing their usual deceptive tactics.

Science is objective. I must assume that people who seek knowledge based upon scientific INQUIRY are not the target audience they hope to dupe. How can a scientific publication such as this be so insulting to their [former] loyal customers? People who gravitate to scientific subjects are not unintelligent human beings. I know they lost numerous customers. But the general public that swallows MSM 'news' whole would think anything PM publishes as credible based upon the fact that it is [WAS] a Science Magazine. That is their ultimate goal. As they will not and cannot decieve those knowledgable in scientific fields, nor those who question everything.

So PM sacrificed its credibility and readership simply to further obfiscate inquiry from the small segement of society that has already swallowed whole the MSM lies. Which is evidence of very short term and unintelligent thinking in the highest positions of PM staff where such decisions are made. Some of us refer to any media that prints spurious news as 'prestitutes'. As they will say or do anything for the right price.

Pity Popular Mechanics sold its soul. And I would suggest they remove the word "Popular' from their moniker. As I and my collegues look at PM as a pariah, in the precise manner in which objectivists percieved the "Science Institute" and its director in the novel 'Atlas Shrugged.'

Thankyou for making this interview available to the public. My hat is off to the interviewer. That pseudo scientist from PM should hang his head in shame. His obfusaction was blatant. And his comprehension of logical inquiry appears to be as bankrupt as his moral integrity.

I discovered you via Whatreallyhappened.com. I will be sharing this page with many others.
Thank You.

Comment by Mike Bro

Entered on: 8/26/2006 11:03:24 AM

The PM article was conducted by Michael Chertoff's cousin, but they never admitted this. They're a true example of propaganda journalism. if you want to hear and see a lot more about what concerns people, go to http://www.SupportTheTruth.com There are a lot of videos and audios to download and get more information on 911 discrepencies. Good job by Charles to asked pointed questions. I'll be listening more to this guy.