But why then did the buildings come down? A common answer is that the crashes of the planes into the buildings, combined with the fires, brought them down. Scientists could give a technical explanation of why this claim could not be true. But all one needs to know is that WTC 7 came down, even though it was not hit by a plane. Having ruled out explosives, Hayes would appear to be left without a possible explanation.
Conspiracy Theories
Criticisms of the 9/11 Truth Movement almost always refer to its position as a "conspiracy theory," while the official account is not thus described. Given the fact that Americans have been taught to reject, at least to be highly suspicious of, "conspiracy theories," this practice tends to make the official account seem the more plausible position.
However, the official account of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory. The official account claims that Osama bin Laden conspired with a bunch of young Muslims to hijack some airliners and then use them to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. This was the original 9/11 conspiracy theory.
What the 9/11 Truth Movement advocates is an alternative conspiracy theory. Accordingly, one cannot honestly claim that, because this movement's position is a conspiracy theory, it is probably false. Rather one of the two conspiracy theories can be judged to be superior only by showing that it is more adequate to the facts.
The Popular Mechanics book is correct in saying that the issue is which theory stands up better to the facts. But its title - Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts[15] - is incoherent. The book wants to argue the official account of 9/11 is true while that of the Truth Movement is false. But because the official account is a conspiracy theory, Popular Mechanics implies that its position is false, because it cannot stand up to the facts.
In any case, if we look aside from the self-contradictory nature of its title, the Popular Mechanics book correctly states the central issue: Which of the conspiracy theories can stand up to the facts? Careful examination shows that it is, in fact, the Popular Mechanics book that "cannot stand up to the facts." [16]
For example, researcher Jeremy Baker wrote that "if this absurdly flawed attempt to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement is an example of PM's [Popular Mechanics'] research skills and technical expertise, I'm definitely not building that tree house on page 87." Writing more directly, Baker characterized Popular Mechanics' original article as "a train wreck of disinformation and as conspicuous a propaganda ploy as one could imagine." [17]
To provide an example: Popular Mechanics argued that the Twin Towers had been brought down by the airplanes and the fires they started. But this statement is contradicted by experts. Frank De Martini, the on-site construction manager, said that either of the towers "could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners." [18] John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the WTC, had said that, if one of the towers were to be hit by a plane loaded with jet-fuel, "there would be a horrendous fire" and "a lot of people would be killed," but "the building structure would still be there." [19]
One final point: No steel frame high-rise building has ever collapsed without explosives, even though some such buildings had bigger and longer-lasting fires. For example, the 1991 fire in One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, which burned for 18 hours, did not cause the building to collapse, not even a single floor. The same was true of the 2004 fire in Caracas, Venezuela, which raged for 17 hours in a 50-story building, completely gutting its top 20 floors. [20] (By contrast, the North Tower collapsed after an hour and 42 minutes, the South Tower after 56 minutes.)
9/11 Unmasked
One of the difficulties in defending the position of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been difficulty in saying what it is. Some people might define it as consisting of people who believe "9/11 was an inside job." But with such a loose definition, hostile journalists could quote ridiculous statements by such people and then say, "that's what truthers believe."
To avoid this situation, about 25 serious 9/11 scholars created, about seven years ago, an organization called "Consensus 9/11," led by Elizabeth Woodworth and me. Our task was to reach consensus, using a standard best-evidence model, about the falsity of various claims of the official account. These scholars came from various fields - physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, piloting, airplane crash investigation, medicine, journalism, psychology, and religion.
These scholars reached consensus about the falsity of official claims about nine issues:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
1
