As a preface, I must say I am absolutely itching to receive my copy of David Ray Griffin's new book in the mail. Popular Mechanics' role as an arm of propaganda is rearing its ugly head again. Now that Rosie has come forward, along comes Popular Mechanics to "rebut" her. Most of the media is buying in to the PM rebuttal. For example, in response to Rosie's "Bring on a structural engineer!", one news article says: "But what Rosie and the conspiracy theorists overlook is that Popular Mechanics Magazine contacted many experts and have done a thorough investigation that answers the theorists' questions."

On the Randi Rhodes (Air America) 9/11 forum, a poster by the name of "Ohio Girl" made the following comment:

"Oh gosh. This again!!! I think in the end, people will believe what they CHOOSE to believe. I read a very interesting article in popular mechanics that debunked several of the theories. I would expect Popular Mechanics to be pretty unbiased."

This represented a kind of "last straw" exasperation for me. I e-mailed PM the following letter, then I posted it on Randi Rhodes in order to clue "Ohio Girl." Since it is a well-written letter (if I say so myself) I thought I'd post it here too.

Naturally, I have yet to hear from Popular Mechanics.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Meigs and all other Popular Mechanics editors:

Your "Debunking 9/11 Myths" book is sheer propaganda for those grasping at straws. Just in case you guys think "we, the people" are too stupid to see through you, let me show you why most of us realize your book is a fraud. First, let me refer you to Mr. Meigs' afterword:

"A common refrain in conspiracy circles is the claim that 'We’re just asking questions.' One would think that at least some quarters of the conspiracy movement might welcome a mainstream publication’s serious, nonideological attempt to answer those questions. One would be wrong."

Thing is, even though you guys are a "mainstream" (i.e. corporate controlled) publication, your own invective is anything but neutral and non-ideological. Your own introduction to the 2005 article proves this:

"We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists... Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media."

Healthy 9/11 skeptics such as myself do take personal offense to being labelled "paranoid." The fact that James Meigs uses such language in his introduction shows that his mind is already made up: To suggest government involvement in 9/11 smacks of paranoia. Any cherry-picked "facts" in the book serve to support this pre-determined conclusion that only 19 Muslim hijackers were responsible. The book often references the 9/11 Commission Report, which itself has been debunked a million times over by the TRUE 9/11 skeptics community.

In addition, healthy 9/11 skeptics, including the Jersey Girls (9/11 widows) take offense to your use of John McCain. This itself debunks your absurd claim that the book is "non-political" and "non-ideological." When McCain tells myself, countless other citizens, and especially the Jersey Girls that "Blaming some conspiracy within our government mars the memories of the victims," it makes our blood boil. He then parrots about our military's "achievements" since 9/11, achievements which require, at least in the case of Afghanistan, the events of 9/11 to have happened the way we were told.

It's also telling that your original magazine article was March 2005, before Steven Jones entered the scene. If I were heading a non-ideological investigation, I would be genuinely intruiged by Dr. Jones' findings of thermate traces on WTC steel samples he was able to acquire. Instead, as soon as Steven Jones has given the 9/11 Truth Movement much more respectability, credibility and visibility in mid 2006, along comes Popular Mechanics again, bigger and better than before, with their magazine now expanded into a BOOK! And from reading the book and listening to radio interviews, it's all too clear that you're eager to discredit Jones no matter what he says.

To conclude: We the People are not as stupid as you guys think. The reason your "investigation" has been met with anger by "conspiracy theorists" is because you guys exhibit all the very characteristics of which you accuse "conspiracy theorists:" A pre-determined conclusion, limited cherrypicking of data to support your conclusion, and a personal smearing of all who disagree with you.

You guys already know you're propagandists. I'm sure many, many others have called you on the points I've made in this letter. I'm just adding on my two cents for the strength in numbers factor. Shame on you folks.

_____________________________________________________________________________