Post by 8real on Aug 11, 2006 15:30:14 GMT -5
I have quoted the conclusion of Jim Hoffmans article "Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth" down below. I suggest you sit down and read the whole thing, you will see why he has come to that conclusion.
911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
Conclusion
Others have pointed out that the Popular Mechanics article is full of errors and sloppy analysis. While I agree, I believe that the article's shoddiness is engineered to achieve certain ends -- such as drawing attention toward red-herring issues. For example, PM is unpersuasive in debunking the Pentagon no-jetliner theories and the Flight 93 shoot-down claim. The sloppiness is apparently part of PM's strategy of setting up and attacking straw-man arguments: It leaves some its straw men relatively unmolested, presumably because they have value in distracting from the facts that conclusively refute the official story.
Popular Mechanics may have elevated the straw-man argument to a sophistication never before seen, wherein specious arguments are nested within specious claims. The entire article is a kind of straw man because it addresses only physical evidence topics while ignoring other bodies of evidence. Of the four topics, one is a likely a hoax, and the other is incidential to the falsity of the official story. The other two topics contain a mix of valid and specious claims, and the valid claims are attacked with false, deceptive, and straw-man arguments.
Others have pointed out that the Popular Mechanics article is full of errors and sloppy analysis. While I agree, I believe that the article's shoddiness is engineered to achieve certain ends -- such as drawing attention toward red-herring issues. For example, PM is unpersuasive in debunking the Pentagon no-jetliner theories and the Flight 93 shoot-down claim. The sloppiness is apparently part of PM's strategy of setting up and attacking straw-man arguments: It leaves some its straw men relatively unmolested, presumably because they have value in distracting from the facts that conclusively refute the official story.
Popular Mechanics may have elevated the straw-man argument to a sophistication never before seen, wherein specious arguments are nested within specious claims. The entire article is a kind of straw man because it addresses only physical evidence topics while ignoring other bodies of evidence. Of the four topics, one is a likely a hoax, and the other is incidential to the falsity of the official story. The other two topics contain a mix of valid and specious claims, and the valid claims are attacked with false, deceptive, and straw-man arguments.