Popular Mechanics crank can't admit defeat

From http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/popular-mechanics-crank-cant-admit.html


Popular Mechanics crank can't admit defeat
The Truth Will Set You Free September 13 2006
What a loser.

Rather than admit that he's wrong and we're right, the man who thinks he 'debunked' the Truth, with his empty commentary in Popular Mechanics last year, wails and whines about being compared to a Nazi.

ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/ Halliburton/ Zionist/ CIA/ New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals.
For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff.
Boo-hoo. Where's the beef? There is none.
Unable to admit that he was discredited because his piece lacked substance, he wants readers to believe that he was persecuted because he conducted 'research.' The man is in absolute denial and suffers from paranoid delusions. Instead of accepting the fact that 9/11 Truth theories are now mainstream, he insists we 'inflitrated the mainstream' as if through some voo-doo powers and not simply through logic and reason.

"Conspiracy theorists want to pick and choose which facts to believe," he cries. Yeah, so what? Judges do it all the time. Witnesses present evidence, the Judge decides which facts to believe and which to discard as incredible.
Then he has the nerve to characterize the mickey mouse evidence upon which the official version relies as 'a huge preponderance of evidence' and the glaring gaps that could fit a herd of elephants as 'a small handful of anomolies.' What a joke.
These anomalies include the claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a commercial jet (but just right for a cruise missile); that the Twin Towers were too robustly built to have been destroyed by the jet impacts and fires (so they must have been felled by explosives), and more. If true, these and similar assertions would cast serious doubt on the mainstream account of 9/11.
"But they're not true," he cries. And to prove it, he attacks two inconsequential quotes, which even if false, only discredit the quotes, not necessarily the underlying facts. More importantly, he doesn't come any where near the gaping holes and impossibilities in the official story that prove it's a LIE.

The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world. I couldn't agree more - the most seductive (and absurd) of which is the conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers with box-cutters collapsed three colossal buildings into their footprints by hitting them with two planes.
Give it up, Meigs - like it or not, the Truth will prevail.