Awesome comment: "I have to laugh at the statement "An honest report might’ve referenced Popular Mechanics’ comprehensive debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories," Why would Architects and Engineers address Popular Mechanics or why would anyone for that matter when it comes to 9/11 since the NIST report itself disputes Popular Mechanics Theories? NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. The floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon” The “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA. The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article. NIST says " The “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7." So any responsible Journalist would consider Popular Mechanics to be exactly what it is RUBISH!" Kimberly McLaughlin
Posted on: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:33:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015