|
This month, from the science-version of the "National Enquirer" err... at
least it appears to that same mentality of magazine buyer... yes, you know, the
one we love to hate, "Popular Mechanics," we find the most bizzaro
debunking of all time.... I'm convinced this mag is attempting to go to
tongue-in-cheek humor, more like "Mad" than "Star" but just hasn't quite got
that craft down yet either.
"9/11: Debunking The Myths"
"PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most
persistent conspiracy theories of September 11."
Call me doubtful about this magazine's grasp on what constitutes
"debunking"... and particularly since I do not buy into 99% of the myths
floating around anyway, but this is about the most lightweight debunking
treatment in recent memory.
For instance, the first comparative images, meant to explain the
"pods" shows two obviously different airplanes. Admittedly much of the BS
(missiles, etc) is pretty easy to debunk from just a logical
standpoint (what is the advantage of a missile with a hundred pound warhead when
you are carrying 200,000 pounds of jet fuel?) but nevertheless, PM gets my vote
for "fish wrap" journalism of the decade, once again.
Jones
|
