Debunking 9 11 Myths Why Conspiracy Theories Cant Stand Up to the Facts
The first conspiracy theories about September 11 began to emerge while the wreckage was still smoldering. Today, nearly five years later, hundreds of books and thousands of Web pages are devoted to the idea that the U.S. government encouraged, permitted, or actually carried out the attacks. These theories claim to be based on hard evidence. But an in-depth investigation by POPULAR MECHANICS—first published in the magazine’s March 2005 issue, and now greatly expanded into book form—definitively proves that the evidence most often cited by conspiracy theorists is inaccurate, misinterpreted, or false.
The original article in POPULAR MECHANICS caused a huge groundswell of interest, setting off online debates that continue to this day. Debunking 9/11 Myths expands that investigation to include the 20 most prominent and persistent claims underlying the conspiracy theories, focusing on concrete, physical facts rather than political hypothesizing. Among the issues examined: claims that air traffic control violated standard operating procedures by not immediately intercepting the stricken jets; that the fire caused by the crashes wasn’t actually hot enough to melt steel and cause structural damage in the World Trade Center; that the holes in the Pentagon were too small to have been made by a Boeing 757; and that Flight 93 was actually shot down by an Air Force plane.
The fascinating and in-depth findings come from leading experts in all the relevant fields, including aviation, air defense, air traffic control, civil engineering, firefighting, metallurgy, and geology.
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars The Truth is finaly told
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts this is a great book it go into detail about 9/11
and uses science,facts and common sense to disproves all the misleading and Wrong conspiracy theories .The conspiracy theorie orented liberals (dems) will probably hate this book like the hate hate every thing else that tells the truth
2 Stars The fact that the foreword is written by John McCain tells you all you need to know
Oh, and another tip for the writers of this piece: if you’re trying to debunk a conspiracy about the federal government, make sure that 95% of our verbal testimony isn’t from GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
I am not a 9/11 truther, but I’m not exactly one who buys the whole story as well. Neither really seems to convince me, but Popular Mechanics’ ‘Debunking 9/11 Myths’ is hardly the “cold light of reason” one of the reviews on the cover propels it to be. Neither is it a “nonpartisan” investigation as the magazine editor bizarrely claims in the afterword (it’s hilarious that he calls it “nonpartisan”, then a couple pages later makes some asanine statement about “radical Marxists” or what-have-you. Yeah. No bias. I believe it.) The whole piece also has the writing style of a 3rd grader, both in its lack of detail and its stunning shortness (90 pages). How on earth do they consider this a refutation of the 9/11 conspiracy theories when half the time they dedicate less than 3 pages of junior-high sized book pages on each individual point? And however short they are, they still offer what is mainly opinion and/or pure pathos-based logic and bias on mysterious and eerie happenings of that day, not to mention the fact that nearly all of the engineering and other testimony was, again, from government employees.
I also want to add one more thing: a review on the back cover cited the 9/11 truthers’ questioning the government as “toxic propaganda.” Questioning your government is not “toxic”, especially with a country with the murderous and hypocritical foreign policy of the US. The people who wrote this book, as well as the majority of the government today, no doubt would have looked upon our Founding Fathers’ as terrorists. The only two people in Congress whom I believe would NOT have viewed the Founders as such are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, aka the only two useful people in Congress. What a shame.
Also for all those who tagged the book “lefttards”, “left wing nuts”, etc., most of the 9/11 truthers are paleoconservatives and libertarians. Most liberals are too ignorant to think 9/11 was an inside job.
4 Stars Putting a TV spin on this…..
Most of the conspriacy 9/11 books are like the same no substance reporting done by the networks every night.
This book is done more along the lines of PBS journalism shows like The News Hour and Frontline. It’s that good.
1 Star Omitted Facts
1) What about the molten metal? It can be seen pouring out of the towers before they fell. Its thermate.
2) What about pictures of support columns that were perfectly cut (at an angle), just as is done in controlled demo?
3) What about all of the eyewitness accounts of basement explosions?
4) Why was all of the WTC rubble immediately shipped to China, and recycled?
5) How can a few small fires cause a perfect symmetrical collapse of building 7? Fire cannot cause a modern, steel framed (with fireproofing) skyscraper to collapse. THe recent NIST report on building 7 is complete nonsense.
6) Even if you dont believe the US gov had something to do with 9/11, how can you not suspect that they at least knew about it, and that there is some sort of cover up going on? Bush and Rice went on national television claiming the possibility of an attack such as this had never been considered, or even dreamed of. In fact, the US gov had been doing simulations / drills involving planes flying into buildings.
There was a training exercise being conducted on 9/11 that involved hijacked planes flying into buildings. Bush and Rice lied. Debunk that one.
I dont claim to know every detail of what happened on 9/11, but the “conspiracy theorists” have a lot more hard science on their side. A lot of the “debunking” consists of simply calling people liars, and denying facts.
This book is a good read, if you need a refresher course on NWO propaganda.
4 Stars Momentum and speed of free fall collapse concerns
I’ve not read this book, but noticed some reviews questioning the pancaking theory based on the observation that the buildings collapsed at free fall speeds. The claim is that this should be impossible, since the momentum of each impacted floor would reduce the velocity of the collapse, slowing the collapse speed considerably.
These arguments are missing one major factor in their assumptions though. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. The propagation of collapse would only be significantly slower than free-fall for the first few floors collapsed, since the weight and velocity of a few collapsed floors is not overwhelmingly greater than momentum of the next floor in the chain. However, when you get 10 or so floors slamming into the next, the momentum of the falling floors is much greater than the impacted floor, causing the impacted floor to be initially accelerated much faster than the gravitational acceleration rate, and only slightly decreasing the acceleration of the accumulated floors. As more floors are added to the stack, each additional impacted floor slows the collapse even less, until no appreciable deceleration is noted upon impact.
What is perhaps even more telling is that those who question the pancake theory argue that a controlled demolition was used to collapse the floors consecutively to give the appearance of the buildings pancaking. But even this demolition theory is subject to the momentum argument. According to those who argue that momentum would have slowed down the collapse rate, the bottom floor should have been traveling as fast as the stack when it was impacted, otherwise its momentum would have slowed the collapse. That means the bottom floor would have had to start falling at the same time as the top floor to get around the “momentum problem” claimed by some. Obviously, it can be seen that this is not the case, as all videos show the bottom of the structure intact until about the time that stack reaches it.
These “momentum theories” don’t even hold up internally against their own notions of how the buildings collapsed. If you detect a problem (which turns out to not be a problem), but your own hypothesis is still subject to that problem, then you’ve got a problem.
And, no I’m not a Dr. or a structural engineer or a physicist, but I did take college physics, which is about all that’s necessary to understand this argument.
Leave a Reply
Sarah Palin Blog
-
Custom Search