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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 terrorist. 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.

This book really puts 911 conspiracy theorists in their place--as people who are more hostile to real science than creationists! I have yet to see a real, positive piece of evidence presented by the "truthers" (what an Orwellian phrase they use for their wacky selves.) The rhetorical trick used by "truthers" is trying to cast doubt on tenents of the scientific position. One example is the "steel doesn't melt trick" they used at first. As this and other pseudo-scientific positions were demolished, they moved on to new "facts" which are soon demolished by those who believe in reality. I think the "truthers" just hope to wear down people who believe in the truth through quantity of their theories rather than the quality of their theories.

A true classic of American propaganda! Buy it now, so that when the truth comes out (and it will) they won't be able to pretend they never told these outrageous lies.

There was a big change of staff right before this project at PM. All the real journalists were shown the door.

i was fortunate enough to be spared purchasing this drivel by pulling it from the local library. i would go into detail discussing the "debunking" the authors undertake, but there is very little of it. this book is a light bit of froth filled with non-conclusions and references to secondary sources often neither named or validated. case in point - the laughably microscopic section dedicated to WTC7. the authors offer up nothing more than what "experts now believe". huh? who are these experts? how did they reach their conclusions?

the PM editorial team and most of PM's readers were destined to immerse themselves in this drivel, being the types that obsess over militarism at a distance, and pro-establishment opinion up close.

regardless of where you stand in the 9/11 debate, this book does nothing to address any questions in a meaningful manner.

Sadly, the fact that the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 were about the most witnessed disasters in history also makes them even riper fodder for conspiracies. Video footage, physical evidence, thousands of live witnesses...nothing is ever good enough these days.

Presumably the editors of Popular Mechanics wanted to stop the nonsense sooner than later, but of course give at least partial additional airtime to the conspiracies themselves, which range from the controlled demolition theory (even the professional-sounding term 'controlled demolition' makes it sound serious) to theories that no planes crashed, or no one died, or we were all blinded by those pens from the Men In Black movies.

Are there interesting things about 9/11 that perhaps were never fully explained to everyone's satisfaction? Certainly. But how many people with time, a laptop, and a few ideas are now experts on controlled demolitions, inter-agency government workings, and the world in general since 9/11?

If you must read, it's a good single book on this topic, which probably shouldn't exist at all. With every year that passes since 9/11, that many more people can be lead to read conspiracies into the complex workings of the world, which has taught us that the government is often incapable of covering up simple adultery scandals, let alone the mother of all 'inside jobs'.

I'm especially upset this book debunked my personal theories on me personally having planned 9/11 conspiracies before 9/11 so I could write Amazon reviews about it.

I read Dunbar and Reagan's "Debunking 9/11 Myths" from the perspective of a professional airline pilot with several thousand hours flying the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft. While there are professionals in the conspiracy movement, they are decidedly in the minority for reasons made so abundantly clear in this book.

The book is fairly basic and actually allows the appendices (from official sources) to do much of the heavy lifting when it comes to impact analysis. I found no eye-opening contentions in the book that made me question the basic premise that 19 terrorists hijacked four aircraft and crashed them with resulting calamitous damage. There many members of a vociferous minority who continue to propagate the myths this book takes on (and new ones), largely (though not exclusively) with little formal or professional qualification to analyze the data. The problem is that even when proven wrong, many conspiracy theorists spin ever-grander conspiracies with ever-larger casts to attempt to explain their preordained opinions.

I think the book is largely futile because the intended audience (9/11 sceptics) is so enamored with the conspiracy angle that they are totally unwilling to objectively examine evidence. The vast majority of 1-star reviews of this book are brief and discordant invectives asserting a huge cover up (frequently with anti-Bush or nihilistic overtones) with non sequiturs about straw men or yellow journalism, yet containing no real insight or fact-based rebuttal of anything in the book.

The bottom line is that this is a simple, generally well-written analysis, but will make no difference to the people who most need to read it.

I hesitated to buy this because I saw all the one star reviews but then I actually started to read those reviews and realized fairly quickly they are conspiracy proponents and any deviation from that agenda will be openly despised and given lots and lots of bad reviews. It has become a disturbing but familiar trend when it comes to 9/11 here in America. But it is amazing to listen and read these people, who come to a conclusion first based on almost no evidence and then try to reduce the known facts, or cherry pick the information, so that at some point the implausibility of a conspiracy becomes almost nil, at least when you step back and try not to take them too seriously. I find it sadly entertaining, especially after watching Loose Change, which should be shelved under 'fantasy', it is such a wild leap from reality.
The book itself is short and very much to the point. It is not a detailed account of the events leading up to and happening on 9/11/01 but rather a point by point analysis of the specific charges conspiracy believers have leveled against the U.S. government. It is broken up into sections on the pilots (the terrorists), the WTC buildings, the Pentagon and Flight 93. There is also some superb technical information supplemental to the book that is very interesting as well.
Now, I have taken many science and math courses, most especially a course on materials, which covers how metals react to varying conditions. I found the explanations in this book to be right on the mark, especially after having watched video of the collapses of the WTC buildings. I wont go into too much detail but suffice to say that all the points brought up in this book make perfect sense. There are some very good photos in the book but if there is one complaint (and the reason 4.5 stars and not 5) it's because I would like to have seen more photos and diagrams. That is, however, a minor complaint and only slightly diminishes the enjoyment of this book.
As far as the actual event, it is truly amazing that people would so readily believe that an 'event' such as 9/11 could be perpetrated by (and on) this country, which would have to involve a huge network of conspirators and on such a massive scale it literally boggles the mind. Well, that never stops conspiracists, who are at the very least flexible when it comes to conforming the facts to their ultimate goal. But it also makes them incredibly gullible, not to mention pathetic. I seriously doubt anyone on here who claims to be an engineer and agrees with conspiracy theories is in fact an actual engineer.
If I had seen one bit of evidence that pointed towards a conspiracy, I wouldve been more than willing to jump on that bandwagon. I think the current administration to be the worst in my lifetime. However, my disdain for them does not go so far as to cloud my judgment and impair my ability to think things through clearly, dispassionately. At least I hope not.
I would add that a lot of people died that day and it was a very sad and hard day for all of us, but then in the wake of that tragedy there comes an element in our society that needs sensationalism. I dont mind that per se, since I find many outlandish stories intriguing, to a degree. I enjoy watching documentaries on anything from the Loch Ness monster, to UFOs, to Bigfoot. But when it came to 9/11, I really could not believe how many people did not just believe in a conspiracy, they WANTED it, and many have a financial interest in it being true. If they had any facts to back them up, ANY facts, I would at least be more willing to consider the viability of a conspiracy, but the plain fact is there is not one iota to be found.

I heard that Popular Mechanics received a large "Gift" to the tune of
58 million dollars around the time of their published findings. Anyways, you would have to be mentally challenged to believe the Neo Cons rather than your own eyes. I will never touch another one of their magazines again.

I am certain that each one of the persons who wrote these pro-government reviews believed that government's explanation was, within the limits of their minds, the truth and nothing but the truth. Do you notice that the so-called debunkers just use name calling and cannot discuss any issue on its own merits.

The book cited no essential facts but periferal facts. THE BOOK HAD NO CONSISTENT ANALYSIS OR LOGIC. IT MADE THE WRONG OBSERVATIONS AND DREW THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS.

Professor DAVID RAY GRIFFIN'S book, on the other hand (DEBUNKING 9-11 DEBUNKING) is a masterpiece and an excellent answer if the majority of the defenders of Popular Mechanics' book could even understand it.

The absolute smoking gun that the towers were demolished by explosives is this (aside from the hundreds of others).

The towers absolutely, positively could not have been demolished by the weight(mass) of the upper floors "no matter by what mechanism the first ceiling and the mass above it dropped onto the floor beneath". Because they, the floors, felled! (no pun intended) AT THE SPEED OF FREE FALL. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IRREFUTABLE FACTS. THIS MEANS NO TRANSFER OF MOMENTUM OCCURRED BETWEEN THE DEBRIS OF THE UPPER FLOORS AND THE IMMEDIATE LOWER ONES. CONVERSELY IF THE TRANSFER OF MOMENTUM HAD OCCURRED THE SPEED OF COLLAPSE, AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT THE FREE FALL SPEED. It had to be SLOWER. Speed of free fall indicates that the obstacles beneath were removed faster than a free falling object could hit them. THIS CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REMOVING THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ADVANCING FRONT FASTER THAN THE FRONT CAN REACH IT. And what better way to remove it but by explosives!

How do I know all that? Because the Almighty GOD has created the universe and pre-programmed it with SCIENCE such as Physics, The Universal Laws of Gravity, (and of course other laws as well)

There are hundreds of other extremely strong technical, logistical, political and chronological evidence that tell us that the whole event could not possibly be conceived, planned and excuted BY ANY AUTHORITY from outside the United States. Therefore the defenders of the Government's own conspiracy theory are doing extreme disservice to America, albeit out of the love for their country, but mostly out of their ignorance.

A Turkish education minister once said: " THIS MUCH IGNORANCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED WITHOUT EDUCATION." So the debunkers owe their brilliance! (not to mention dishonesty) to the brain washing they received over the years in their vast education. I hope one day soon they will see this.
Regards and May God Bless.

I am certain that each one of the persons who wrote these pro-government reviews believed that government's explanation was, within the limits of their minds, the truth and nothing but the truth. Do you notice that the so-called debunkers just use name calling and cannot discuss any issue on its own merits.

The book cited no essential facts but periferal facts. THE BOOK HAD NO CONSISTENT ANALYSIS OR LOGIC. IT MADE THE WRONG OBSERVATIONS AND DREW THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS.

Professor DAVID RAY GRIFFIN'S book, on the other hand (DEBUNKING 9-11 DEBUNKING) is a masterpiece and an excellent answer if the majority of the defenders of Popular Mechanics' book could even understand it.

The absolute smoking gun that the towers were demolished by explosives is this (aside from the hundreds of others).

The towers absolutely, positively could not have been demolished by the weight(mass) of the upper floors "no matter by what mechanism the first ceiling and the mass above it dropped onto the floor beneath". Because they, the floors, felled! (no pun intended) AT THE SPEED OF FREE FALL. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IRREFUTABLE FACTS. THIS MEANS NO TRANSFER OF MOMENTUM OCCURRED BETWEEN THE DEBRIS OF THE UPPER FLOORS AND THE IMMEDIATE LOWER ONES. CONVERSELY IF THE TRANSFER OF MOMENTUM HAD OCCURRED THE SPEED OF COLLAPSE, AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT THE FREE FALL SPEED. It had to be SLOWER. Speed of free fall indicates that the obstacles beneath were removed faster than a free falling object could hit them. THIS CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REMOVING THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ADVANCING FRONT FASTER THAN THE FRONT CAN REACH IT. And what better way to remove it but by explosives!

How do I know all that? Because the Almighty GOD has created the universe and pre-programmed it with SCIENCE such as Physics, The Universal Laws of Gravity, (and of course other laws as well)

There are hundreds of other extremely strong technical, logistical, political and chronological evidence that tell us that the whole event could not possibly be conceived, planned and excuted BY ANY AUTHORITY from outside the United States. Therefore the defenders of the Government's own conspiracy theory are doing extreme disservice to America, albeit out of the love for their country, but mostly out of their ignorance.

A Turkish education minister once said: " THIS MUCH IGNORANCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED WITHOUT EDUCATION." So the debunkers owe their brilliance! (not to mention dishonesty) to the brain washing they received over the years in their vast education. I hope one day soon they will see this.
Regards and May God Bless.

Thorough and unbiased, this is an excellent treatment of the unfortunate controversy which has arisen from the events of 9/11. Sound engineering and excellent investigative reporting make this an outstanding book.

This book is based on distortions, omissions, lies and disinformation.
If you want your IQ lowered substantially, please read this book.
It is the literary equivalent of a labotomy.
Hearst Publishing- the supreme kings of yellow journalism! Popular Mechanics is a JOKE, but not the funny kind.

I wrote a longer review for this book over a week ago and it has not been posted so I am writing a synopsis of my earlier review at this time. If this review shows up before the first one, I will write an amendment.

At first glance this seems like an excellent book with an important purpose, unfortunately it falls short on substance and objectivity. It is clear that the conclusion preceded the evidence. This is not a scientific approach to the problem.

This is a very complex and multi-facetted topic, so I will limit myself to the issue that often keeps me awake at night. I can not even imagine a relationship between the plane crashes and the collapse of the twin towers. What is most disturbing is the rapid and symmetrical failure mode. I would also like to make it clear that I want someone to show me how this could have happened. This was my objective when I purchased this book.

When a design fails, engineers immediately initiate a Failure Mode Analysis. In brief, the EXACT process by which the design failed must be understood in order to prevent similar failures in the future. Bill O'Reilly has claimed that Purdue University has done this, but they have only shown graphically what happened when the planes entered the buildings. There is no mention of why the buildings collapsed.

The pan caking theory is not a reasonable probability in my mind and the thought of two identical buildings collapsing in the exact same way within minutes of each other just hurts my head. The collapse of Building 7 just puts the whole thing in a class with poorly written fiction.

The truth could be easily determined if some wealthy individual or organization would offer a substantial cash prize to the first engineering or architectural school that can present a credible Failure Mode Analysis. In order to be credible it must be widely accepted by all the other engineering and architectural schools in the country. My guess is that the winning scenario would show no cause and effect relationship between the planes and the collapse. At that point our universities would find themselves in the awkward situation of having to challenge our government's official conspiracy theory.

Bottom line: The Popular Mechanics book might be satisfying to those who are unaware of, or unwilling to consider, the evidence. For many of us, it does not deliver on its promise.

I would highly recommend: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory Unlike this book, it approaches the topic in a very scientific manner.

If you read this and/or the PM article also read "Popular Mechanics Assault on 9/11 Truth" by Jim Hoffman and 'debunking 9/11 debunking' by David ray Griffin just to get multiple points of view. The Jim Hoffman article is available for free online. Go ahead, do it now. I'll sit and wait while you cut and paste the phrase 'Popular Mechanics Assault on 9/11 Truth' and google it.

Anyone who follows politics knows the Heritage foundation and CATO institute make great arguments. Their arguments are clean, concise and persuasive. Anyone who reads them would run out and become a libertarian or a conservative the same day, they just make so much sense.

But only to people who lack the insight to realize that the arguments are based on strawmen, omissions and cherry picked facts presented in a manipulative fashion. They portray their side of events with strawman arguments backed up with pre-selected, half true facts and whatever they cannot explain, they just ignore and hope thier audience is too lazy and trusting to investigate for themselves. This book falls in that category. In my honest opinion, anyone who gives this book anything higher than 3 stars is just too lazy to do any meaningful independent research. If you have investigaed the 9/11 truth movement, criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement like this PM piece, and criticisms of these criticisms like 'debunking 9/11 debunking' and are still believe the official story is the best explanation you really aren't paying attention. That or your opinions are based solely on propriety, not reason. This book uses strawman arguments, the most outrageous conspiracy theories and omission as its bread and butter. I honestly expected more from a science rag.

Read the article "Popular Mechanics Assault on 9/11 Truth" by Jim Hoffman to see why this is a strawman based, omission laden, cherry picked fluff piece. Look at all the facts PM chooses to ignore, and how weak many of the facts they choose to include are. As a scientist with a background in biochemistry who understands the rigors of investigation I honestly expected better from a scientific magazine like PM. Luckily I do not have a subscription but if I did I might cancel it, because who knows what other manipulative strawman arguments they are putting out each month. I can't trust what they say to be unbiased, honest or competent after reading this and the response(s) to it, and the responses to them.

The reality is none of us truly know what happened on 9/11 yet, we just have theories (the official theory and various conspiracy theories), not certainty yet. I don't know what happened, that is up to a legitimate, international, clean, bi-partisan, rational 9/11 investigation to determine. But as more and more people realize the official story has dozens of holes in it (google the phrase: "Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11th, 2001" for examples of 40 of the bigger holes and the phrase "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie" to see holes in the official story) and people ask questions that aren't answered well by the official theory, media outlets like popular mechanics will be seen for what they are, purveyors of pathetic attempts to uphold propriety and the status quo over honest, impartial investigations by any means necessary. Hardly worthy asperations of a serious media outlet.

If the 9/11 truth movement eventually is proven true American faith in the media will collapse, PMs subscriptions will fall hard and they should (for this alone they should plummet). The media hasn't been doing the tough, unpopular job of asking embarassing but important questions like 'why are there 115 omissions in the 9/11 report' or 'why is a piece written by a science magazine so full of holes a software engineer can tear it apart'? Again, for a big list of questions google "Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11th, 2001" Nobody is asking or investigating, as a result of the information black hole conspiracy theories thrive. I don't know for sure what happened, but I do know PM doesn't know either. If these mainstream, well organized groups like PM did, a lone wolf like Hoffman or Griffin wouldn't tear their arguments to shreds.

At the end of the day ask yourself this. If this book is well researched, persuasive and reliable why are about 40% of its ratings as 1-star when the book that debunks this book, 'debunking 9/11 debunking', has barely 13% of its ratings as 1-star ratings?

I guess because 9/11 truthers are all gullible, angry and stupid. Or maybe because we actually bother to read and think with an open mind rather than giggle and laugh at controversial ideas. Believe it or not some Americans place honesty above propriety or the status quo. Too bad a proposed scientific magazine like PM does not.

If you read this and/or the PM article also read "Popular Mechanics Assault on 9/11 Truth" by Jim Hoffman and 'debunking 9/11 debunking' by David ray Griffin just to get multiple points of view. The Jim Hoffman article is available for free online.

Anyone who follows politics knows the Heritage foundation and CATO institute make great arguments. Their arguments are clean, concise and persuasive. Anyone who reads them would run out and become a libertarian or a conservative the same day, they just make so much sense.

But only to people who lack the insight to realize that the arguments are based on strawmen, omissions and cherry picked facts presented in a manipulative fashion. They portray their side of events with strawman arguments backed up with pre-selected, half true facts and whatever they cannot explain, they just ignore and hope thier audience is too lazy and trusting to investigate for themselves. This book falls in that category. In my honest opinion, anyone who gives this book anything higher than 3 stars is just too lazy to do any meaningful independent research. If you have investigaed the 9/11 truth movement, criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement like this PM piece, and criticisms of these criticisms like 'debunking 9/11 debunking' and are still believe the official story is the best explanation you really aren't paying attention. That or your opinions are based solely on propriety, not reason.

Read the article "Popular Mechanics Assault on 9/11 Truth" by Jim Hoffman to see why this is a strawman based, omission laden, cherry picked fluff piece. Look at all the facts PM chooses to ignore, and how weak many of the facts they choose to include are. As a scientist with a background in biochemistry who understands the rigors of investigation I honestly expected better from a scientific magazine like PM. Luckily I do not have a subscription but if I did I might cancel it, because who knows what other manipulative strawman arguments they are putting out each month. I can't trust what they say to be unbiased, honest or competent after reading this and the response(s) to it, and the responses to them.

The reality is none of us truly know what happened on 9/11 yet, we just have theories (the official theory and various conspiracy theories). I don't know what happened, that is up to a legitimate, international, clean, bi-partisan, rational 9/11 investigation to determine. But as more and more people realize the official story has dozens of holes in it (google the phrase: "Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11th, 2001" for examples of 40 of the bigger holes and the phrase "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie" to see holes in the official story), media outlets like popular mechanics will be seen for what they are, purveyors of pathetic attempts to uphold propriety and the status quo over honest, impartial investigations by any means necessary. Hardly worthy asperations of a serious media outlet. If the 9/11 truth movement eventually is proven true, American faith in the media will collapse.

At the end of the day ask yourself this. If this book is well researched, persuasive and reliable why are about 40% of its ratings as 1-star when the book that debunks this book, 'debunking 9/11 debunking', has barely 13% of its ratings as 1-star ratings?

I guess because 9/11 truthers are all gullible, angry and stupid. Or maybe because we actually bother to read and think with an open mind rather than giggle and laugh at controversial ideas. Believe it or not some Americans place honesty above propriety or the status quo. Too bad a proposed scientific magazine like PM does not.

If you read this and/or the PM article also read "Popular Mechanics Assault on 9/11 Truth" by Jim Hoffman and 'debunking 9/11 debunking' by David ray Griffin just to get multiple points of view.

Anyone who follows politics knows the Heritage foundation and CATO institute make great arguments. Their arguments are clean, concise and persuasive. Anyone who reads them would run out and become a libertarian or a conservative the same day, they just make so much sense.

But only to people who lack the insight to realize that the arguments are based on strawmen, omissions and cherry picked facts presented in a manipulative fashion. They portray their side of events with strawman arguments backed up with pre-selected, half true facts and whatever they cannot explain, they just ignore and hope thier audience is too lazy and trusting to investigate for themselves. This book falls in that category. In my honest opinion, anyone who gives this book anything higher than 3 stars is just too lazy to do any meaningful independent research. If you have investigaed the 9/11 truth movement, criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement like this PM piece, and criticisms of these criticisms like 'debunking 9/11 debunking' and are still believe the official story is the best explanation you really aren't paying attention. That or your opinions are based solely on propriety, not reason.

Read the article "Popular Mechanics Assault on 9/11 Truth" by Jim Hoffman to see why this is a strawman based, omission laden, cherry picked fluff piece. Look at all the facts PM chooses to ignore, and how weak many of the facts they choose to include are. As a scientist with a background in biochemistry who understands the rigors of investigation I honestly expected better from a scientific magazine like PM. Luckily I do not have a subscription but if I did I might cancel it, because who knows what other manipulative strawman arguments they are putting out each month. I can't trust what they say to be unbiased, honest or competent after reading this and the response(s) to it, and the responses to them.

The reality is none of us truly know what happened on 9/11 yet, we just have theories (the official theory and various conspiracy theories). I don't know what happened, that is up to a legitimate, international, clean, bi-partisan, rational 9/11 investigation to determine. But as more and more people realize the official story has dozens of holes in it (google the phrase: "Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11th, 2001" for examples of 40 of the bigger holes and the phrase "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie" to see holes in the official story), media outlets like popular mechanics will be seen for what they are, purveyors of pathetic attempts to uphold propriety and the status quo over honest, impartial investigations by any means necessary. Hardly worthy asperations of a serious media outlet. If the 9/11 truth movement eventually is proven true, American faith in the media will collapse.

At the end of the day ask yourself this. If this book is well researched, persuasive and reliable why are about 40% of its ratings as 1-star when the book that debunks this book, 'debunking 9/11 debunking', has barely 13% of its ratings as 1-star ratings?

I guess because 9/11 truthers are all gullible, angry and stupid. Or maybe because we actually bother to read and think with an open mind rather than giggle and laugh at controversial ideas. Believe it or not some Americans place honesty above propriety or the status quo. Too bad a proposed scientific magazine like PM does not.

I recently purchased a copy of this book from my local bookstore, and I must say that it's about time somebody took on the kook-fringe and their crackpot theories.

Dunbar and Reagan present a solid analysis of the evidence presenting by "internet investigators" and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "alternative theories" are built on a foundation of junk science made to look like critical scholarly investigation. The afterword by PM Editor Jim Meigs is particularly telling, giving the reader an insight into the conspiracist mindset, as well as the excerpts from the NIST Report on the WTC, which I found particularly useful in understanding what happened.

Though indeed there are many unanswered questions with regard to 9/11, no one is helped by kook theories and political rants disguised as scholarly works. PM does an excellent job in dispelling the rumors and presenting the facts.

This book wades through all the crazy ideas out there and puts the nuts to shame. If you want to know the facts and not crazy ideas this is the book for you.

so i haven't read the book, i will tell you that, but i think it's funny how John McCain helped write it. That guy needs to be off the balot and in jail for sure. Not all CT's are crazy either. They are family memebers who didn't get a proper investigation from the gov't. The Gov't doesn't care about them or the investigation and they call it a horrible attack on America. Bin Laden isn't even wanted for it. He i wanted for bombing in 198 or something on an american embassy killing maybe 200.
Anyway, read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" wesome "truther" book

Buy a copy of Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin before buying this pack of lies. You can save your time and money and learn what Popular Mechanics says and OMITS in building their case against the truth. Hearst Publishing is still in the business of propaganda. Wake Up.

I wish just once somebody would publish an objective book or collection of writings about this topic. The afterward is particularly insulting to the millions of concerned citizens with legitimate questions. Anyone can see that this book was written with an agenda. If this book doesn't give you ammo for you hate-spewing debunking arsenal, it might actually convince you that there are suspicious circumstances to consider.

This analysis doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong. You don't have to be a structural engineer to know that a steel-framed building cannot "pancake" at free-fall speed. You don't have to be a metallurgist to know that jet fuel won't leave pools of molten metal weeks after the fire is out. If you cherry-pick your "facts" you can make Stalin look like a boy scout or Mother Theresa look like the devil. This book starts with the conclusion and then tries to prove it. If you want an analysis that starts with the facts and works towards a logical conclusion, try any (or all) of David Ray Griffin's books.

I really wanted to fall for the "Official" fairytale. Sorry. Anyone who read this steaming terd and didn't find it insulting to their intelligence must be jacked up on fluoride. Do you know Prozac is 97% sodium fluoride? Do you know Hitler used it to sterilize and dumb down people? Do you know it is toxic waste from nuke power plants and aluminum production? You DO know your government puts it in YOUR water supply and toothpaste? Tell you what, figure out how MINOR structural damage and jet fuel pulverizes tons of concrete and EVERYTHING inside these giant skyscrapers into a fine dust before it can hit the ground, each with 47 welded and riveted massive core columns (approx 2/3 of its footprint!) Spraying sheitloads of human bone fragments atop the many adjacent buildings only to be discovered and reported years later and I will forget all about the bazillion lies, scandals and "coincidences", the complete failure of NORAD. Better stop, too much too list. Get a frikkin' clue retards, this is a cover-up hit piece AND do some homework to discover who owns Popular Mechanics Magazine. Better yet, buy the books of the great scholar David Ray Griffin instead, he easily destroys these brownshirt bootlickers using simple and sound logic.

I've spent a lot of time following the "inside job" conspiracy theories and participating in discussions on the matter, and while I applaud PM for their efforts, as you can tell by these reviews the conspiracy theorists cling to their fantasies despite all evidence to the contrary. Like the saying goes, as a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool to his folly.

None of the "inside job" theories ever made sense in the first place, not even "in theory". None of them are coherent, or supported by evidence. Yet people believe. So while this book is accurate, it won't make one bit of difference to anyone who chooses (yes, chooses) to delude themselves with tales of conspiracy.

This book contains few facts and lots of opinions that try to discredit real facts about the events of 9/11/2001. Don't waste your time or money buying this yellow journal. It fails to be balanced in addressing the true concerns of the 911 Truth movement.
This book has been debunked point by point in David Ray Griffins,
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

This book is full of half truths and out right lies to the cover-up the truth of 9/11.

9/11 was an "inside-job" and this book covers up the murder of 2700 people.

This is a crime.

For people who have no knowledge of the real facts or those with a very low IQ, this book may seem convincing. On closer inspection it is yellow journalism of the worst kind.
The book uses "strawmen" in order to build a seemingly convincing argument. However, most of the nonsense laid out in this book is not mentioned by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement.
The lawnmower experts at Popular Mechanics also use the ruse of ignoring vast swathes of evidence in order to support their drivel.
DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK!!!

I think you just have to look at who wrote the forward to this book to know exactly where it's going to go: John McCain, recently seen singing and giggling 'bomb,bomb,bomb, bomb Iran to a Beach boy tune at a republican rally. Not to mention his ridiculous recent trip to Iraq, where returned home to tell everyone that the streets are safe in Bagdad. Don't believe me? It's all kindly there for re-runs on 'you tube', Genuinely bizaar!
This book debunks nothing, no analysis of why, out of the hundreds of cameras around the Pentagon, all 'they' are willing to show is a crappy little time delay parking camera.

But the real smoking gun is No 7. Who called it? Well Mr Dan Rather of course 'looks like one of controlled demolishions with well placed dynamite' and who got a nice thank you letter with US military grade anthrax? And an FBI investigation that turned up nothing.

Why is it that we can always believe that other countries can be evil, germany, north korea, now Iran and so on. Yet we find it outragous to even think that that could occur in our own country. That's how they get away with it.

An important guidebook to face down and battle against the narcissistic, simplistic, and, frankly, idiotic, "theories" that have come down the pike since that horrible day. A much-needed book for anyone who cares deeply for their country and its integrity, no matter their political stripe.

By all means read this book (don't buy it- borrow it from your library), and then read David Ray Griffin's excellent response to it (below). You will come away from the experience skeptical of PM and all the defenders of the official government story about 9/11.

Why aren't there more books trying to debunk the 9/11 truth movement's questions? Is Popular Mechanics one of the few publications willing to prostitute itself to defend the incredible conspiracy theory put forth by the government? Why would a once respectable do-it-yourself handyman type of publication, risk its reputation by putting out flimsy arguments and easily disprovable "facts"? I canceled my subscription after their article which this book is based on, came out.


Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

Incredible debunking of all the hype surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Popular Mechanics takes a well balanced approach to each myth or urban legend and then using science refutes all allegations.

Even in the unlikely case that the impact of the jet liners could have caused all of the impacted floors and columns to fail, that still does not explain how the towers fell. As you can see, the roughly 90 or so stories of undamaged building offered nearly no resistance to top portion. FEMA attempted to explain this with the embarassing "pancake theory", which the goverment took of the table rather quickly, so NIST did one better, and didn't even attempt to explain it despite a 16 million dollar budget.

The towers were very strong buildings capable of carrying MANY times the required load. After looking at the evidence critcally, you have to be obtuse to think fires brought down the buildings in this manner.

this is fun!

VH1 should hop on the bandwagon... this is a reality show that could last a good, say... 10 years!

Add to cart!

The book is an outright lie and an insult to my intelligence. I read this, and then read David Ray Griffin's excellent book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory and it totally destroyed this book's assertions. This book looks credible at a glance, but further examination shows it to be a total farce. Save yourself the time and money and instead buy Dr. Griffin's book for more valuable and educational reading.

Wow, there sure are a lot of conspiracy experts on 9/11. For those of you who still have issues with fuel not being able to weaken the integrity of the towers, think about this: Earlier this month (May 2007) a fuel truck caught fire on an overpass in Oakland, California. The heat from the fuel truck MELTED the concrete and steel overpass and caused it to collapse onto the freeway below. So how is it that a truck carrying standard gasoline can take out an entire overpass by simply burning, but two jetliners filled with jet fuel can't bring down buildings made of steel beams and glass, after crashing into them at around 500 miles per hour? Oh well, commons sense and the critical analysis of facts should be placed on the endangered species list.

Maybe you believe the general noise from those who favour the official explanation, or maybe that from the 9/11 Truthers. Either way, don't believe the noise. Don't believe the hype. Set aside your preconceptions and investigate it properly - have some intelligence, and some belief in your own powers of judgement. And don't be scared, no matter where that leads you. Be 100% prepared to believe the official explanation is the truth. Be 100% prepared to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Because if you are not prepared for both, you are pulling the wool over your own eyes.

Read this book. Read David Ray Griffin's "New Pearl Harbor", and his latest "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" - a direct response to this book. Be open minded, not closed minded, about what you discover.

I used to get angry at 9/11 Truthers. What a load of hogwash. How dare they? But as an open minded sceptic, I slowly gave the other side a fair hearing, and then the counter arguments in this book by PM, and then the counter counter-arguments from Griffin (and others). I don't care who wins the argument, I just want the truth. And the result so far? I'd say 99.5% - 99.9% in favour of an inside job. Really. America is a great country, and worth every ounce of our efforts to save it from dark forces. But we cannot do that if we deny logic, and reason, and science, and instead live in a fantasy world because it's too scary to face reality.

FYI - Just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine's editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of homeland security director and Bush insider Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated.

First, I haven't any of the books mentioned in the posts on this subject, but by reading all of the comments, it is clear that many of the commentators don't care about the facts. The arguments are all seemingly "well, did you read so and so's account?" Or, "this group has proven..."

Guys, this isn't how you advance knowledge. In any argument, one side can almost always find some "expert" who supports one's opinion. The correct answer is to look at as much of the information as possible, from all sides, and form an opinion. A big part of it is removing biases. In this case, almost every post has biased assertions.

The people who cling to the emotion without considering other information and altering their opinions are just childish.

From what I have read and seen on TV, two jets loaded with jet fuel hit the buildings. The fuel probably burned out pretty quickly, but it set the building itself on fire. The jets were traveling around 500mph and many load bearing columns and beams were taken out. For the load bearing columns and beams that were left to hold up the building, the jets probably took off the asbestos coatings on some of the steel and, since steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 degrees F, it makes sense that there was collapse. At 1,800 degrees F, steel is probably only left with 10% of it's strength. With so much load bearing capacity compromised, there wasn't enough strength left to hold all of the upper floors - so the buildings collapsed.

That's plausible, but were there thermite charges placed to collapse the buildings? I haven't seen anything but emotional assertions that support this.

The editor responsible for checking the facts for this publication gave a promotional radio interview on the Charles Goyette Show (on KNFX 1100 AM). Before you waste your money on this book, listen to the interview. It shows what happens when these "facts" are subjected to a few sensible questions. Search for "Charles Goyette Show Popular Mechanics" to find the interview (MP3 file).

The Philip Zelikow 9/11 Commission report was a 571 page myth, this 'book' is a 192 page fable. They are both works of fiction and full of lies.

It isn't worth comparing this 'book' with the works of academic, journalistic & investigative merit which dissect away (with a scalpel of truth) the putrid lies, obfuscation and deception propagated by the corrupt main stream media and aided by this 'book' surrounding the events of 9/11.

If you wish to learn something and discover the truth I would suggest the following books, which are all a worthwhile read.

1. Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christian Faith and The Truth Behind 9/11, both by David Ray Griffin.

2. 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley

3. Towers of Deception Barrie Zwicker

4. 9/11 and American Empire Volume 1 by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin

5. The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs

The fiction produced by Zelikow and now Popular Mechanics is simply high treason. The 'official conspiracy theory' surrounding the events of 9/11 can't stand up to independent scientific scrutiny.

The day after this happened I said to a friend "How long before the conspiracy theorists jump on this and say it was a government plot?". Well it didn't take long at all.

I've known many conspiracy theorists they tend to be very similar. They are usually above average in intelligence, but not as smart as they think they are. They are often self educated, though some have college degrees.

They share one basic trait, that they like to walk around feeling that they are wised up and they know something that nobody else knows. They like to deride those of us who don't sign on to the nonsensical conspiracy du jour as sheeple. It makes them feel superior. I think they watch too many movies like Enemy of the State, Absolute Power, Clear and Present Danger and Oliver Stone flicks.

Anyway, I read everything I could about the supposed conspiracy and one thing stuck in my mind. The old saying goes that two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead, yet a conspiracy of this magnitude would require dozens, if not hundreds of people. Everyone from at,or near the very top, to low level operatives. Where are they?

Next, the missle theory at the Pentagon has one minor flaw. Dozens of witness saw the plane. I know one personally.

Anyway, enough of that. This is supposed to be about the book. While reading many of the conspiracy websites and books, I could easily dismiss
some of the claims and huge leaps of logic, but I don't have the backgroud to address the technical and procedural issues brought forth by the conspiracy theorists.

This book does a great job of addressing those issues. Popular Mechanics went to the real experts, not the conspiracy theorists who have little or no expertise to back up their claims, like Steven Jones whose background is in cold fusion, not civil engineering. Putting a Phd. next to someone's name doesn't make him an expert in every field.

It also provides very plausable reasons for everything from the late response by the military to the ability of the novice pilots to fly the jets.

After years of reading tracts by the conspiracy theorists, it's refreshing having a source that addresses their wild claims point by point.

The editors of Popular Mechanics have bizarrely resorted to name calling and pseudo-psychoanalysis of anyone who questions the profoundly unbelievable official story of 9/11/2001.

They have denied the fact that there was molten steel roiling in the rubble of the Twin Towers, and WTC Building #7, for weeks after 9/11/2001. Why is this important? Jet fuel and building fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel. Physics Professor, Steven Jones, found traces of the patented controlled demolition steel cutting agent "thermate" in the WTC debris.

If thermate is what cut the steel in the WTCs that means "controlled demolition brought the towers down, not the plane fires as Popular Mechanics would have us believe. To place controlled demolition charges you'd have to have access to security of the WTCs. 19 Arabs did not have such access. However, GW Bush's brother and cousin were on the board of Securicom, the Kuwaiti based security company that controlled the WTCs security.

Employees in the WTCs testified of security anomalies in weeks leading up to 9/11, including security camera blackouts, and the stopping of normal bomb-sniffing dogs routines days before 9/11/2001.

WTC, which was referred to by Rosie O'Donnell on The View, was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. This is critically important because WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane on 9/11, yet collapsed in a classic controlled demolition fashion.

The media, including Popular Mechanics, would have you believe that Rosie or anyone who questions 9/11 is alone and unstable. This is a myth. If you google "patriots question 9/11" you'll see a website that lists nearly 100 high level military, intelligence, engineering, and aerospace experts who now believe we've been lied to about 9/11, and in fact many believe now that 9/11 was an inside job. One such expert is a former head of US aircraft crash investigations.

David Ray Griffin has written several well researched books on 9/11, and also on so-called debunkers like Popular Mechanics. Griffin shows how people like the Popular Mechanics editors are deceiving you.

Many 9/11 family members are demanding a new 9/11 investigation, yet the mainstream media ignores them, and many media, including Popular Mechanics editors, pundits attacked truth seekers suggesting the 9/11 families do not want a new investigation. This is a lie. The majority of 9/11 family members do want another truly independent investigation.

The 9/11 Commission was not an investigation but a cover up. Philip Zelikow who headed the 9/11 Commission over protests of 9/11 family members, was a confidant in the Bush Administration, and co-authored a book with Condaleeza Rice. He was not qualified to lead an investigation. In fact he steered the Commission away from crucial facts, and also left out key facts in the report.

Once such fact he deleted from the report was then Transportation Secretary, Norm Minetta's testimony that VP Cheney was informed by a staffer several times of an approaching aircraft (the one heading into the Pentagon). Finally the exasperated aid asked Cheney "Do the orders still stand?" Cheney retorted, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything different?"

Rtd. Air Force Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, has stated that those orders must have been STAND DOWN orders, because if normal procedures had occurred that flight would have been intercepted by Air Force intercepter jets, just as had occurred routinely over 60 times in 2001 before 9/11.

Why did the 9/11 Commission leave that out of their report? Why does Popular Mechanics pretend that molten steel was not roiling in the WTC debris for weeks after 9/11? Popular Mechanics has some 'splainin' to do.

Again, read David Ray Griffin's books on 9/11 and the fake 9/11 Commission investigation.

It is a common characteristic of many stone age cultures to believe that ALL EVIL PHENOMENON HAVE SOME HUMAN AGENCY. The Gebusi tribe, for example, a small society of some 450 people living in a lowland rain forest in south-central New Guinea believe that any time someone dies of illness, the cause is witchcraft, so they ALWAYS find a witch and promptly kill him (or her). This otherwise peaceful tribe has the highest murder rate in the world. DO NOT ARGUE WITH CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, on the left or on the right. They gave us the Spanish Inquisition (Jews were accused of conspiring to desecrate the eucharist). They gave us medieval pogroms (Jews were accused of conspiring with lepers to poison rivers and wells with the plague). Catholic ethnologist René Girard in his excellent book SCAPEGOAT explains how SCIENCE WAS BORN **AFTER*** society learned to discipline the wild FALSE NEUROTIC PRESCIENTIFIC inferences of CONSPIRACY THEORY thinking. It is the logic of the mob promoting pseudo-logical explanations for major catastrophes in order to achieve cathartic relief. They resent exceptional people, both the exceptionally beautiful or exceptionally ugly, intelligent or dumb, powerful or weak, and they will try to organize mobs to defame both leaders and stigmatized groups, ultra rich and ultra poor. Conspiracy theorists are the single most evil, anti-civilizing force in all human society. So, as the conspiracy theorists are fond of saying: WAKE UP FOLKS!!!! Conspiracy theory should be stigmatized in any civilized culture as the FOUL EVIL that it is. Don't argue with them. In fact, DON'T EAT WITH THEM and DON'T LET YOUR CHILDREN ASSOCIATE WITH THEM.

This is a well-thought, well-presented analysis of facts and engineering details presented by individuals who know science, not wingnuts who know only how to read fringe blogs. As to the claims by one agitated reviewer that McCain's forward is somehow racist in pointing the finger at the "brown people" who engineered the mass murder, does the fact that in-flight phone calls from Flight 93 and the plane that struck the Pentagon clearly described the Middle Eastern killers who hijacked the planes mean anything? No, wait. Those calls must have been faked after the fact, just like the assertions that this was an "inside job." The best thing about the inside-job conspiracy culture is that Alcoa has probably seen a major uptick in sales of aluminum foil for people who are busily wrapping their heads to keep the voices out.

It is a common characteristic of many stone age cultures to believe that ALL EVIL PHENOMENON HAVE SOME HUMAN AGENCY. The Gebusi tribe, for example, a small society of some 450 people living in a lowland rain forest in south-central New Guinea believe that any time someone dies of illness, the cause is witchcraft, so they ALWAYS find a witch and promptly kill him (or her). This otherwise peaceful tribe has the highest murder rate in the world. DO NOT ARGUE WITH CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, on the left or on the right. They gave us the Spanish Inquisition (Jews were accused of conspiring to desecrate the eucharist). They gave us medieval pogroms (Jews were accused of conspiring with lepers to poison rivers and wells with the plague). Catholi