Re: Popular Mechanics
Read the PM article, and while it does raise some good points, I still strongly disagree with the article's mainstream arguments, especially since it tends to highlight a few of the sillier conspiracy theories, such as the pod on the 767, to try and gain the perceived high ground.
One that really irks me is the way the towers collapsed. It's unlikely that the heat of the fires would have been uniform enough to enable the towers to colapse so evenly - it looked very much like a professional demo job. Compare that with the skyscraper fire in Spain the other day: similar temperatures, but the whole buiolding didn't collapse, only a significantly weakened section of it did. Plus, thalmost identical fall patterns of both towers.
And don't even get me started on the pentagon thing. Planes have fallen from thousands of feet in the sky and hit the ground with far more debris than what was shown in pictures of the Pentagon crash site.
Then there's the whole motive for the incidents in the first place.
The NWO needed an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, events which had been planned long before. 9-11 was just perfect. Iraq has the oil they want, and Afghanistan provided the best route for the Caspian Basin gas pipeline, but the Taliban was making things difficult for them. Not to mention the Patriot Act, which would have been rejected as a Draconian assault on liberty had it been introduced without the spectre of terrorism hanging over Americans' heads. I'm sure they have loads of other plans as well, but those 3 just stare you in the face.
PM can throw in all the experts they like, but if they fail to see the bigger picture, they're just wasting ink and paper.