Blah...blah..blah. What a joke! UM, Im starting to wonder if you are a computer bot that randomly spits out redundant lines of half-baked thought. Your posts are getting quite ironic.
I did in fact refer you directly to the fallacy you made, which was of the form, "Because there are not X number of experts making a public statement B, that therefore B is untrue." This is a non sequitur (meaning the conclusion does not follow from the premise), combined with an appeal to unbelief (few people believe A, therefore A is false.) And yes, fallacies can be combined to form ultra fallacies! :o
You committed a similar fallacy by exclaiming that one must be a demolitions expert in order to understand the most basic characteristics of controlled demolition
as seen in WTC7.
And you have also made a factual error in claiming that Popular Mechanics somehow constitutes an expert opinion. The best they could do with the article on 911 was obtain a list of experts without any explanation of what evidence or research these experts provide to substantiate their inclusion in the article. Yes, this is an appeal to authority.
And just now you committed your favorite fallacy again by saying that because I am not "one of the experts who reads Popular Mechanics" that I am therefore not in a position to critique it. Seriously, given your astounding repetition of the same errors of reasoning its hard to believe you are being honest in debating at all.
Youtube: Popular Mechanics Caught Lying
Also
"In the case of Popular Mechanics, we see people being quite openly deceptive in their strong support of the Bush Administration's terror story. In their book they promote false claims that the government no longer supports, including the Pancake Theory. They also promote other, more ridiculous ideas including the claim that massive damage was done to the basement levels of a WTC tower by a bolus of jet fuel that meandered its way through several elevator shafts in the jogged elevator system, moving carefully around the elevators themselves and waiting all the while to explode in the sub-basements over 90 stories below. Additionally, PM repeats the false and ludicrous claim that the buildings were designed for airliner impacts, but not for jet fuel fires. In fact, John Skilling, the actual chief engineer of the WTC, made it clear in 1993 that jet fuel fires were considered in the structural design.[19]"...