In its March, 2005 edition, Popular Mechanics (under the tutelage of editor Jim Meigs) set about to "debunk the myths" surrounding the 9-11 terror attacks. To do so, they focused their attention on the sixteen most prevalent "myths" surrounding this horrific event. But prior to beginning this process, PM engaged in a smear campaign that set the tone for what would ensue in their article.

How so, you may wonder? Well, for starters, Meigs very pointedly questioned the patriotism of those who engaged in "conspiracy theory" by saying: "Those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attcks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day." He then went on to declare that "the facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified."

Both of these claims are very damning in their assertions, and needless to say I take exception to both. And, similar to Jim Hoffman, I could spend page-after-page refuting Mr. Meigs' claims. But instead, I'll simply say that in my book, 9-11 on Trial, I don't use a single "conspiracy theory." Rather, I rely solely on physics, mathematical formulas, scientific equations, physical evidence, the laws of nature, and expert testimony to prove my thesis.

Thus, to illustrate how limited Popular Mechanics was in their analysis of what actually took place on the morning of September 11, 2001, I am submitting a copy of 9-11 on Trial to Mr. Meigs, along with this challenge:

        If Popular Mechanics can conclusively disprove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the         primary thesis of 9-11 on Trial --- that the government's "official" explanation of events in         regard to the World Trade Center collapse is an unmitigated lie --- then I will not only offer a         full retraction, but I will also permanently pull this book from the market.

These are admittedly bold words, but I stand behind each and every one of them. So, Mr. Meigs, the ball is now in your court. I will place a copy of my book in the mail this afternoon. In the meantime, put those 70 "experts" on alert - the same ones you placed so much emphasis on in your article - because they have plenty of work in front of them. The only thing I'm wondering about right now is: will you run another cover story on 9-11 when you discover that it was physically impossible for the WTC towers to fall the way the government said they did? We'll be waiting with bated breath!

Note: On Thursday, February 17, I spoke with Jim Meigs, and he agreed to read 9-11 on Trial. That afternoon I placed a copy in the mail.