On September 11th of 2001, a tragedy occurred on American soil. Several innocent American lives were taken. There is a general consensus among Americans, both credulous and skeptic, that these two statements are true. However, that is where similarities between the credulous and skeptic end. Since that day, conspiracy theorists have run amuck looking for any clues or signs that prove the attacks carried out on 9/11 were not caused by Muslim fundamentalists, but by the American government. Debunking 9/11 Myths by Popular Mechanics is an insightful read for anyone who craves logical arguments based on facts, as opposed to fallacious hype.
The book begins by firmly stating its intent: "to answer the questions raised by conspiracy theorists" (xx), and it does just that. It analyzes different claims for the four major issues (The Planes, The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and Flight 93) and rebuts them with substantiated evidence from over 300 comprehensive sources. Concurrently, Popular Mechanics points numerous fallacies in conspiracy theorists' arguments and also proves theorists' arguments are neither sound nor valid, due to invalid premises.
The first section deals with the planes. The first claim analyzed is that the alleged hijackers had no professional flight experience and therefore did not possess the skill set to crash the planes into buildings. Popular Mechanics responds to this by showing that, in fact, the hijackers were not highly skilled. However, documented evidence shows that all pilots had at least private pilot's licenses (and a few even had commercial licenses) and all had simulator training. Further, the planes were hijacked when they were already in air and at cruising altitude and the pilots merely had to set a GPS and point the plane towards their targets. The next claim asserts that Flight 175, according to photographs, had some sort of "pod" underneath its fuselage, which could have been a missile. Upon analysis of the photo, however, the authors show that the "feature" is caused by sunlight and there is no way to modify commercial aircraft to accommodate weapons. Another claim is presented that eyewitnesses allege they saw no windows on Flight 175's aircraft. However, the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and cherry picking are proved prominent in the claim, along with pictures of wreckage that show windows. Another "fact" presented by theorists is that there was a Stand Down order by the government, which forbade the Air Force from flying fighter jets in defense of the country. Interestingly enough, facts prove incompetence and a lack of communication on the Government's part, but no order to Stand Down.
The second section deals with the events that occurred at the World Trade Center. One popular belief among theorists is that the empire state building was hit in 1945 by a b-25 bomber and did not collapse. Popular Mechanics uses the expertise of reputable structural engineers to prove why the much larger Boeings took the towers down. Another speculation is that there was so much damage at remote places like lobbies in both buildings and the elevator shafts, so there must have been explosives (sounds a bit like an argument from ignorance). It's shown, however, that jet fuel rushing down elevator shafts abetted the towers' destruction. The popular belief that the planes alone could not have melted steel is easily squashed by Popular Mechanics, who provide interesting evidence and more feasible explanations.
The third section refutes many theories about what happened at the Pentagon. One postulate used by conspiracy theorists is that debris from Flight 77 are missing. However, there in fact are debris such as the plane's landing gear and black box, although most of the plane was disintegrated immediately due to the speed it was travelling. Another claim is that the hole size is too small for a Boeing 757 to go through it, therefore a missile must have gone through the wall (another blatant argument from ignorance). Not only do the remains of the plane found in the Pentagon prove this theory wrong, but the physics behind the plane's entry into the building are clearly explained by Popular Mechanics. Lastly, the faux-skeptics claim that because the windows of the Pentagon did not shatter, a plane must not have hit it. The simple fact that blast-proof windows and walls were recently added to the interior and exterior walls invalidate the argument.
Finally, theories surrounding Flight 93 are presented and analyzed. Flight 93 was found in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Experts believe it was heading for the Whitehouse, but that passengers may have tried to stop the hijackers. One belief is that missiles shot the plane down, a story not corroborated by anyone. Witnesses claim to have seen a white jet following the plane, which is true; a private jet was instructed by ground control to follow the plane. Another theory is that cell phone use on an airplane in 2001 was impossible. The proof, however, shows otherwise.
The book closes with responses by conspiracy theorists, the majority being ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion rather than attacking an issue. Popular Mechanics identifies many of the fallacies used by theorists: marginalization of opposing views, argument by anomaly, slipshod handling of facts, repetition, circular reasoning, demonization, guilt by association, and the paranoid style. These flaws in reasoning underscore the lack of logic in many of the claims presented and emphasize the coherence and rationality of Popular Mechanic's simple, yet comprehensive and documented arguments.
To the loved ones of those who perished on September 11th and to a country that suffered together, closure is important. Part of closure is knowing how and why something happened, which conspiracy theorists attempted to do. Popular Mechanics replaces outlandish ideas with sensible explanations found through solid research. Popular Mechanics offers many answers for what happened on September 11th, including the recurring message that our government was not adequately prepared for the attack we suffered. Although there is an abundance of evidence to silence speculators, a quick search on YouTube or Google will immediately show hundreds of popular results for conspiracy theories, and few for the truth. It's almost as though people want to believe a lie. To some conspiracy believers, perhaps looking for an alternative answer to what happened is a way of avoiding the real issue: that our nation was vulnerable, unprepared, and that adequate channels of communication and safety measures were not taken. Hopefully, because of Debunking 9/11 Myths, people will come to their senses and face the reality that we must spend time fixing the problems that allowed our country to be attacked, rather than escaping reality.

Hmmm, let me see if I can apply the lessons learned in this book to other situations...

Poor Charles Dickens. He started off with such a promising literary career, with memorable stories like A Christmas Carol and David Copperfield, but then he completely blew any and all credibility as an author with his disasterous "A Tale of Two Cities". He takes a perfectly normal, every day event like the French Revolution, and concocts this ridiculous conspiracy theory to explain it! Reading this book, Dickens would have you believe that Paris of the 1780's was veritably crawling with spies, dissidents, and malcontents- all utterly dissatisfied with the rule of Louis XVI. Worse still, Dickens expects the reader to accept that all these people were running around, communicating with each other through coded messages, using secret handshakes, nodding at each other with knowning smiles, and plotting to overthrow their king! Now I'm not saying that every last Frenchman loved his ruler... but it just strains all plausibility to think so many of them could be in on this elaborate plan without the whole thing being found out! Surely somebody would blab. As a rational person, I just think there has to be a better explanation for the French Revolution.

So where did Dickens get such an outrageous idea? Well, I can't say for sure, but I think he ripped it off from none other than Benjamin Franklin, who writes something similar in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. I like Mr Franklin very well, but I think he is telling some tall tales indeed when he describes groups of colonial men gathering in spooky "secret meetings" to discuss their dissatisfaction with political matters behind King George III's back. Going further, old Ben claims they actually planned aspects of the American Revolution! That's just crazy. Revolutions aren't planned, they just happen. (Read up on the Russian Revolution, if you don't believe me) For one thing, many of the people Franklin names were very successful. Am I really supposed to believe they would risk their careers on something so dangerous and subversive? You almost had me going there, with your conspiracy theories ,Ben!

So Dickens wasn't the first, but what is really beyond comprehending is that he wasn't the last! Author Ann Petry, in Harriet Tubman: Conductor on the Underground Railroad constructs another elaborate conspiracy theory to explain all the slaves who escaped from the antebellum American South to freedom in the North. Why does something like that need some secret cloak-and-dagger story to explain it? All those people cooperating together to do something illegal?... the police would for sure be all over them and find them out. To be fair, Petry does admit that sometimes did happen but still... come on...

Jim Bishop also liked the conspiracy angle in a Civil War setting. In Day Lincoln Was Shot, He hatches up his own little conspiracy yarn to account for the fatal shooting of President Lincoln (which DID really happen, but I believe the shooter acted alone). The way Bishop sees it, there were something like twelve people involved! You know, I'm not saying something like that would be impossible; I'm just saying we don't know, and we never CAN know. See how reasonable I am? Seriously, it all happened so long ago; I can only go by rational thought, and the objective evidence available. To Jim Bishop I say "Take off that tin-foil hat and show me the proof!"

Now, I can't finish this review without mentioning the "big daddy" of the whole "conspiracy" genre: Mario Puzo's The Godfather. He goes WAY beyond Bishop's cadre of twelve. As a backdrop for his story about the intrigues of the Corleone family, Puzo takes the now-hackneyed "conspiracy" plot device to a whole new level. He constructs an international crime conspiracy called "the Mafia" to explain all those tollboth shootings and missing jurors around New York in the 1940's and 50's. ...As if there weren't a less sexy, more pedestrian explanation! Spanning from Italy to the United States, this "mafia" includes hundreds, maybe thousands of conspirators, acting together in secret, lurking around every corner like some sort of parasitic infestation on society. But if such a thing could ever exist, why hasn't anybody I know ever seen any of them? It is simply ridiculous.

To Dickens, Franklin, Petry, Bishop, and Puzo (especially Puzo), I kindly suggest they check out Debunking 9 11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts The Editors of Popular Mechanics could really teach this lunatic fringe a thing or two about rational thinking. The book even has a foreward by Sen. John McCain. That one time when he started singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", I just knew: "Now here is a rational man."

Oh- Debunking 9 11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory handily deconstucts all the rubbish offered in this book. [close]

This book uses objective, thorough, scientific analysis to prove the truth about 9-11-2001. Of course, this should not be surprising in a book published by Popular Mechanics. The conspiracy theorists will despise this book because they only have irrational, unproven, paranoid theories to offer against the facts presented in this book. After reading this book, the only anger I felt toward our Government is how they could have let foreign terrorists attack us so easily. But this book proves that, on 9-11-2001, we were attacked by foreign terrorists, not our own Government.

P.S. - For those conspiracy loons: No, I'm not a Republican. No, I never voted for George W. Bush. Yes, I have a college degree.

PM does an excellent job answering the crazy conspiracy theories using *facts*.
Top notch research punches holes in all the looney claims of the "truthers".


The tinfoil hat crowd hates this book as it tears their pet theories to shreads, but when proven wrong, they'll just spin it another way and continue their looney march.
History is going to have a great laugh on these morons in the future!

Every citizen in this great nation has the right to the freedom of speech. This is not so everywhere around the world, and some nation's leaders find it easier to maintain order and obedience by negating their people of basic freedoms. The United States is different and therefore there have always been skeptics that question the government's motives and actions and sometimes that can be taken to an extreme. Anti-government conspiracy theories are often what result from such extreme perspectives. The book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, is an in-depth investigative report by "Popular Mechanics" and edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, that delves into what the conspiracies are surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and why they are wrong.
The manner by which David Dunbar and Brad Reagan proceed with their investigation is by presenting claims and disproving them through the correct scientific method. First, they present the claim without bias or any discredit. Then, they investigate every aspect of the claim and intricately explain why each possible aspect is wrong or without evidence. One claim, for example, is that the military was capable and should have had no problem intercepting the three missing passenger jets after the first passenger jet hit the World Trade Center. Even a NORAD official was paraphrased to saying that is a regular exercise. After presenting the claim, the investigation proceeds to explain that the only instance of civilian interception by the Air Force in the decade prior to the attacks and that in that instance, it took fifty minutes for an already in-flight fighter pilot to reach the distressed plane, which had its transponder on, making it easy to locate. In the 9/11 case, the transponders were off and the Air Force did not have planes scrambled at the time. The evidence used to prove it includes statements from NORAD, reports from the National Transportation Safety Board, and reports from the FAA. The presentation of evidence for this one claim is substantial, diligent, and factual. It outweighs the evidence presented in favor of conspiracy by a long shot and proves the eagerness of conspirators to only research what they believe and not to take on all of the possibilities and evidence. This is only one of the twenty claims analyzed in the book and it is a superior and fair assessment.
The book investigates twenty claims based around four primary themes. The first is whether the government used military planes or a lack there of to cause or purposefully fail to prevent the attacks. The second theme is in regards to the World Trade Center and analyzes everything from the integrity of the building, the way the planes hit, and even the damage on the ground. The third is in regards to the Pentagon and the lack of debris caused by the crash plus the fact that the holes in the Pentagon were relatively small by comparison to those in the World Trade Center. The fourth theme is in regards to United Flight 93, which has been reported by conspiracy theorists to have been shot down. Each of these events is meticulously analyzed and each conspiracy claim is torn apart by real, hard evidence produced from relentless research by Popular Mechanics.
The book's format is easy to read and interesting. By simply stating a claim and providing an intricate, step by step explanation that disproves each claim completely, Popular Mechanics makes an important statement in disproving conspiracies: skepticism with unbiased and inarguable facts and evidence will always trump skepticism with bias, distrust, and premeditated expectations. The overarching message purveyed is that America is a great nation built of great people and that it is nothing but harmful to continue to dwell on conspiracies and false theories that can easily be disproven. Senator John McCain's honest and patriotic introduction to the book sets a tone that can be followed throughout. Then, after you have read why all of the conspiracies are false, James Meigs, editor in chief of Popular Mechanics, explains the "Conspiracy Industry". This afterward explains the many reasons why people jump on board to these conspiracies and relates the 9/11 conspiracies to others throughout American history including the JFK assassination and McCarthyism. The book ends with the exact account of what happened on 9/11 in three separate appendixes. Read like a transcript, the appendixes explain without any commentary exactly what transpired on that tragic morning.
Debunking 9/11 Myths is a fantastic book that demands attention from anyone who has the slightest belief that the government orchestrated the attacks. For those who believe in facts and evidence, it is a testament to what good facts and scientific evidence can prove beyond any fathomable doubt. While there was no question in my mind on what happened on 9/11, this book has shown me how crazy theories and ideas can get when put into the wrong hands and how vital it is to do diligent research and find worthy evidence before believing much of anything. Popular Mechanics has proven why it is the most prestigious technical magazine and has demonstrated the worthiness of its work through this insightful book.

This bookseller always does a great job. The product(s) always arrive in the condition advertised and on time.

In reading other reviews criticizing the book, I'm come to the obvious conclusion that they are mostly 'truthers'. Given the fact that none of them have offered any physical counter-evidence of the actual accounts in here, one is obligated to conclude that they found no flaw or could not disprove any of it. But I'm not here to convince the Truthers, once you go conspiracy theorist you never go back...

Popular Mechanics did NOT write this book for political reasons (thank God), and has stood only by what the PHYSICAL evidence says. Political ramifications are for you to decide, not them. Each case is gone through thoroughly, with many experts and eye-witnesses. The theories are gathered from various, tinfoil-hat 'truth' sites, to the hilariously disinformed copy-paste movie Loose Change. WTC7 wasn't blown up, no missle hit the Pentagon, no bombs in the towers, ans no jet shot down the plane in Shanksville. These facts cannot be denied, the fault of 9/11 lies mostly in government ineptness. Physical evidence shows it impossible to be an inside job.

And in the words of Ron Paul "...sometimes when [people] find ineptness in government, its easy to make a giant leap over into conspiracy, and they do it on purpose." 12/18/07

Highly recommended book. Question everything folks, but when the evidence is shown let it go.

Sadly, a few years after it's publishing, this book is still relevant. The conspiracy points presented here still frequent American conspiracy boards/blogs/sites. And of course, this book is entertaining as all hell. Doubtless, this review will be subsequently swarmed and downvoted by shadowy internet conspiracy people. Still, it's important to note for everyone who did not read this book that a major theme of it is that the destruction of the WTC and Pentagon are some of the most scholarly researched events in American history, by private researchers from universities and various other organizations. The NIST cited some of this private research in their own publications, so although some of the information is from NIST, it is not all "the government's story". Plenty of scientists have been involved in published and peer-reviewed studies surrounding 9/11 which are inconsistent with that of Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists (hence why many of these organizations are rarely mentioned in favor of claiming that non-governmental studies have been suppressed). Please read the first-hand lit for yourself if you doubt it. I only encourage people to think for themselves and debate logically.

[...]

This short book is written by the editors of the US periodical Popular Mechanics, and includes a forward by US Senator John McCain from the state of Arizona. The aim of the book is to support the offical version of the events of 9-11 as put forth by the 911 Commission Report. They do this by citing some of the facts and theories proposed by conspiracy theories that point to a cover-up, and then proceed to refute these facts and theories. Given the enormous amount of evidence presented by authors such as David Ray Griffith, Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, and in films such as Loose Change and Terrorstorm, this book is quite short. And rightly so, for it only addresses the evidence (of a cover-up) that is easiest to refute, and does so in a shoddy manner. I will cite some examples in the following paragraphs.

-Conspiracy theory claim: Home video footage shown in the film "911 In Plane Sight" shows what seems to be a protrusion from the bottom of the 2nd flight that hit the WTC. This movie shows that this pod runs along the entire length of the fuselage, and hence proves that it is not the commercial airline flight as reported in the news and confirmed by the federal government.
-This book's rebuttal: A still frame of one of the vidoes of the plane hitting the WTC is magnified. The book claims this pod is the fairing (housing for the landing gear).
-Problem with this book's rebuttal: Unfortunately, this book's conclusion is quite disingenous. The protrusion, or pod, that is referred to in "911 In Plane Sight" runs the entire length of the fuselage. The photo in this book is blown up such that you only see the protrusion right under the wings; exactly where the fairings are located. Why doesn't the book show the same bulge near the cockpit, or at the end of the fuselage, and then try to explain its presence?

-Conspiracy theory claim: Why is there no video footage of a jetliner hitting the Pentagon? In fact, the Pentagon only released video footage years after the incident, in response to lawsuits filed to get the video released. And the video does not show an airplane hitting the Pentagon. It shows a blur and then an explosion.
-This book's rebuttal: This book states that security cameras are usually set up to collect data (save frames of footage) at about 1 frame/second, which is too slow to capture a speeding jetliner hitting the Pentagon.
-Problem with this book's rebuttal: This book does not cite any source stating that the Pentagon's external video cameras record at 1 frame/second. It just makes a generalized statement that could, or could not be true. To me, this seems like the classic lawyeristic tactic of responding to a question with an answer to a different, but closely related question. In short, a cover-up.

Another example is the citing of the reports by NIST and several engineering societies that backup the conclusions of the 911 Commission Report. Interestingly, this book only cites the studies; it does not cite the evidence used by the studies. For example, it does not cite failure analysis studies of samples from either of the 2 WTC towers hit by the planes. Why not? Because the metal from the towers were shipped of to China and India to be melted down before any metallurgical studies were conducted. Of course this is not mentioned in this book. Now the question is why were the metal remains from the WTC rubble shipped of to China and India for immediate melt-down? Probably to preclude any chance of failure analysis studies being done.

And there is course all the evidence of a cover-up that is not even mentioned in this book. The biggest one is the anthrax attacks. Starting one week after 9-11, anthrax-laced letters were sent to major media outlets, and the Senate offices of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The letters generally had the same text on them; phrases such as Death to Israel, Death to America, Allah is great, and other slogans one would associate with Muslim fundamentalists such as Al Queda. During and after these attacks, numerous officials in the Bush administration made public remarks that this was the handiwork of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Interestingly, within a year, numerous scientists had concluded that Iraq never had the skilled labor or facilities to make the antrhax used in the attacks. Steadily, evidence mounted that the source of the anthrax was the US, and by 2007, the FBI were investigating US Army scientists.

Finally, when the FBI went to question a Dr. Bruce Ivin in 2008, he turned up dead, having committed suicide by overdosing on aspirin. This conclusion was wholly ignored by the mainstream press. Let us now re-examine the anthrax attacks. First of, why would a scientist with access to the world's most dangerous toxins commit suicide by overdosing on aspirin. Even teenagers know that aspirin is probably the last choice of the medicine cabinet to use for overdosing. Second, if the FBI was wrong, and Muslim terrorists were actually behind the anthrax attacks, then why go after Senators Leahy and Daschle. The strongest supporters of Israel are Senators Joseph Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Jesse Helms. What then did the FBI give as motive for Bruce Ivin sending the anthrax letters? The FBI said it was because he was a catholic and staunchly pro-lif; hence anti-abortion. If this is true, why again did he target Senators Leahy and Daschle? Both of them actually voted to ban partial-birth abortion. The strongest pro-choice Senators in September 2001 were Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, and John Kerry. My belief is that Leahy and Daschle were targeted because they were the primary road-blocks to passage of the US PATRIOT Act. Leahy was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Daschle was Senate Majority Leader. The PATRIOT act had to go thru Leahy's committee and be approved for a floor vote by Daschle. Both were staunch opponents of the Patriot Act until their offices received the anthrax letters. After that, the pressure from the public and their Senate colleagues pushed the bill out of committee and to a near unanimous approval. Given this evidence, one can only point to the Bush administration as the culprit behind the attacks. Yes, Dr. Bruce Ivin might have been involved, but he was certainly taking orders from higher up.

Probably the best way to summarize the truthfulness of this book is recalling journalist Carl Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article in which he revealed that over 400 journalists were paid by the CIA to write biased news-stories. Many of them came from the Hearst publishing house, which published this book.

This short book is written by the editors of the US periodical Popular Mechanics, and includes a forward by US Senator John McCain from the state of Arizona. The aim of the book is to support the offical version of the events of 9-11 as put forth by the 911 Commission Report. They do this by citing some of the facts and theories proposed by conspiracy theories that point to a cover-up, and then proceed to refute these facts and theories. Given the enormous amount of evidence presented by authors such as David Ray Griffith, Michael Everett, and in films such as Loose Change and Terrorstorm, this book is quite short. And rightly so, for it only addresses the evidence (of a cover-up) that is easiest to refute, and does so in a shoddy manner. I will cite some examples in the following paragraphs.

-Conspiracy theory claim: Home video footage shown in the film "911 In Plane Sight" shows what seems to be a protrusion from the bottom of the 2nd flight that hit the WTC. This movie shows that this pod runs along the entire length of the fuselage, and hence proves that it is not the commercial airline flight as reported in the news and confirmed by the federal government.
-This book's rebuttal: A still frame of one of the vidoes of the plane hitting the WTC is magnified. The book claims this pod is the fairing (housing for the landing gear).
-Problem with this book's rebuttal: Unfortunately, this book's conclusion is quite disingenous. The protrusion, or pod, that is referred to in "911 In Plane Sight" runs the entire length of the fuselage. The photo in this book is blown up such that you only see the protrusion right under the wings; exactly where the fairings are located. Why doesn't the book show the same bulge near the cockpit, or at the end of the fuselage, and then try to explain its presence?

-Conspiracy theory claim: Why is there no video footage of a jetliner hitting the Pentagon? In fact, the Pentagon only released video footage years after the incident, in response to lawsuits filed to get the video released. And the video does not show an airplane hitting the Pentagon. It shows a blur and then an explosion.
-This book's rebuttal: This book states that security cameras are usually set up to collect data (save frames of footage) at about 1 frame/second, which is too slow to capture a speeding jetliner hitting the Pentagon.
-Problem with this book's rebuttal: This book does not cite any source stating that the Pentagon's external video cameras record at 1 frame/second. It just makes a generalized statement that could, or could not be true. To me, this seems like the classic lawyeristic tactic of responding to a question with an answer to a different, but closely related question. In short, a cover-up.

Another example is the citing of the reports by NIST and several engineering societies that backup the conclusions of the 911 Commission Report. Interestingly, this book only cites the studies; it does not cite the evidence used by the studies. For example, it does not cite failure analysis studies of samples from either of the 2 WTC towers hit by the planes. Why not? Because the metal from the towers were shipped of to China and India to be melted down before any metallurgical studies were conducted. Of course this is not mentioned in this book. Now the question is why were the metal remains from the WTC rubble shipped of to China and India for immediate melt-down? Probably to destroy any chance of failure analysis studies being done.

And there is course all the evidence of a cover-up that is not even mentioned in this book. The biggest one is the anthrax attacks. Starting one week after 9-11, anthrax-laced letters were sent to major media outlets, and the Senate offices of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The letters generally had the same text on them; phrases such as Death to Israel, Death to America, Allah is great, and other slogans one would associate with Muslim fundamentalists such as Al Queda. During and after these attacks, numerous officials in the Bush administration made both public remarks that this was the handiwork of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Interestingly, within a year, numerous scientists had concluded that Iraq never had the capability to make the antrhax used in the attacks. Steadily, evidence mounted that the source of the anthrax was the US, and by 2007, the FBI were investigating US Army scientists.

Finally, when the FBI went to question a Dr. Bruce Ivin in 2008, he turned up dead, having committed suicide by overdosing on aspirin. This conclusion was wholly ignored by the mainstream press. Lets now re-examine the anthrax attacks. If the FBI was wrong, and Muslim terrorists were actually behind the anthrax attacks, then why go after Senators Leahy and Daschle. The strongest supporters of Israel are Senators Joseph Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Jesse Helms. What then did the FBI give as motive for Bruce Ivin sending the anthrax letters? The FBI said it was because he was a catholic and staunchly pro-life (anti-abortion). If this is true, why again did he target Senators Leahy and Daschle? Both of these Senators actually voted to ban partial-birth abortion. The most fervent pro-choice Senators in September 2001 were Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, and John Kerry. My belief is that Leahy and Daschle were targeted because they were the primary roadlbocks to passage of the US PATRIOT Act. Leahy was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Daschle was Senate Majority Leader. The PATRIOT act had to go thru Leahy's committee and be approved for a floor vote by Daschle. Both were staunch opponents of the Patriot Act until their offices received the anthrax letters. After that, the pressure from the public and their Senate colleagues pushed the bill out of committee and to a near unanimous approval. Given this evidence, one can only point to the Bush administration as the culprit behind the attacks. Yes, Dr. Bruce Ivin might have been involved, but he was certainly taking orders from higher up.

This short book is written by the editors of the US periodical Popular Mechanics, and includes a forward by US Senator John McCain from the state of Arizona. The aim of the book is to support the offical version of the events of 9-11 as put forth by the 911 Commission Report. They do this by citing some of the facts and theories proposed by conspiracy theories that point to a cover-up, and then proceed to refute these facts and theories. Given the enormous amount of evidence presented by authors such as David Ray Griffith, Michael Everett, and in films such as Loose Change and Terrorstorm, this book is quite short. And rightly so, for it only addresses the evidence (of a cover-up) that is easiest to refute, and does so in a shoddy manner. I will cite some examples in the following paragraphs.

Conspiracy theory claim: Home video footage shown in the film "911 In Plane Sight" shows what seems to be a protrusion from the bottom of the 2nd flight that hit the WTC. This movie shows that this pod runs along the entire length of the fuselage, and hence proves that it is not the commercial airline flight as reported in the news and confirmed by the federal government.
This book's rebuttal: A still frame of one of the vidoes of the plane hitting the WTC is magnified. The book claims this pod is the fairing (housing for the landing gear).
Problem with this book's rebuttal: Unfortunately, this book's conclusion is quite disingenous. The protrusion, or pod, that is referred to in "911 In Plane Sight" runs the entire length of the fuselage. The photo in this book is blown up such that you only see the protrusion right under the wings; exactly where the fairings are located. Why doesn't the book show the same bulge near the cockpit, or at the end of the fuselage, and then try to explain its presence?

Another example is the citing of the reports by NIST and several engineering societies that backup the conclusions of the 911 Commission Report. Interestingly, this book only cites the studies; it does not cite the evidence used by the studies. For example, it does not cite failure analysis studies of samples from either of the 2 WTC towers hit by the planes. Why not? Because the metal from the towers were shipped of to China and India to be melted down before any metallurgical studies were conducted. Of course this is not mentioned in this book. Now the question is why were the metal remains from the WTC rubble shipped of to China and India for immediate melt-down? Probably to destroy any chance of failure analysis studies being done.

And there is course all the evidence of a cover-up that is not even mentioned in this book. The biggest one is the anthrax attacks. Starting one week after 9-11, anthrax-laced letters were sent to major media outlets, and the Senate offices of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The letters generally had the same text on them; phrases such as Death to Israel, Death to America, Allah is great, and other slogans one would associate with Muslim fundamentalists such as Al Queda. During and after these attacks, numerous officials in the Bush administration made both public remarks that this was the handiwork of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Interestingly, within a year, numerous scientists had concluded that Iraq never had the capability to make the antrhax used in the attacks. Steadily, evidence mounted that the source of the anthrax was the US, and by 2007, the FBI were investigating US Army scientists.

Finally, when the FBI went to question a Dr. Bruce Irvin in 2008, he turned up dead, having committed suicide by overdosing on aspirin. This conclusion was wholly ignored by the mainstream press. Lets now re-examine the anthrax attacks. If the FBI was wrong, and Muslim terrorists were actually behind the anthrax attacks, then why go after Senators Leahy and Daschle. The strongest supporters of Israel are Senators Joseph Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Jesse Helms. What then did the FBI give as motive for Bruce Irvin sending the anthrax letters? The FBI said it was because he was a catholic and staunchly pro-life (anti-abortion). If this is true, why again did he target Senators Leahy and Daschle? The most fervent pro-choice Senators in September 2001 were Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, and John Kerry. My belief is that Leahy and Daschle were targeted was because they were the primary roadlbocks to passage of the US PATRIOT Act. Leahy was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Daschle was Senate Majority Leader. The PATRIOT act had to go thru Leahy's committee and be approved for a floor vote by Daschle. Both were staunch opponents of the Patriot Act until their offices received the anthrax letters. After that, the pressure from the public and their Senate colleagues pushed the bill out of committee and to a near unanimous vote. Given this evidence, one can only point to the Bush administration as the culprit behind the attacks. Yes, Dr. Bruce Irvin might have been involved, but he certainly taking orders from higher up.

On September 11, 2001, the world as we knew it changed. America was thrown into a tailspin of emotion as we tried to sort out the events that had occurred. It is only natural, then, for citizens to want to find out what happened on that day, why it happened, and what can be done to prevent it from happening again.

However, there are always those in a society for whom the truth is not enough. And when some questions, such as "why", can't be answered to their satisfaction, they begin to look for alternate theories to fit their preconcieved notions of reality. 9/11 featured previously unheard-of events, hijackings in which the safety of the passengers or hijackers was a non-issue, civilian planes being used as missiles into buildings, and the very centers of our economic and defense systems being hit. It could not compare to any previous event, and it caused emotional trauma to many Americans, some more so than others. Investigations were launched, and we sat glued to our televisions as reports unfoled in the aftermath of the event, hoping to learn the truth. But though the truth may be learned, it is not always satisfying; this is where conspiracy theories come in.

Over the seven and a half years since 9/11, many conspiracy theories have developed, and with the help of the internet, have spread across the world. In "Debunking 9/11 Myths", the authors of Popular Mechanics set out to explain why the theories are wrong. They tackle four areas of myth: the planes, the collapse of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, and United 93. Among the issues explained are the prevalence of cell phone calls from the doomed flights; the impact craters left at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, PA; why the WTC towers collapsed (including the collapse of WTC7 several hours later, despite its not being hit by a plane); and the "appearance" of a controlled demolition at the site. To help answer these qustions, the editors of the magazine consulted over 300 experts in everything from demolitions to aeronautics. Some of them, especially those whose field of expertise is in defense, work for the government, but others are independent contractors and academics. And their work is solid.

As one of millions of Americans who watched the tragic events of 9/11 unfold on live television, I've wondered what went wrong and have searched for an explanation of events. How could this have happened on US soil? The truth isn't always emotionally satisfying, but this book helps to solidify it.

I cannot believe that popular mechanics would betray its readers and its history with such fabricated "Hollywood" style book. Popular Mechanics should have stayed away from the start or at least maintained a level of honesty and not to put its name on the line by assuming that the readers are childern that can be taken advantage of. I am truly very disappointed. What a waste of money and time!

The editors at Popular Mechanics have done a good job in collecting and responding to the conspiracy theories that have unfortunately flourished after 9/11. Facing the facts and the claims of the conspiracy theorists, I believe they have done a good job in refuting those theories responsibly. Of course conspiracy theorists will not agree, and will likely continue repeating their claims in spite of the paucity of evidence or logic they offer for their theories. This book points out that most conspiracy theorists look to the smallest anomaly and out of that argue for an even more grandiose theory, for which they furnish no proof, only their zealously decided opinions. Most crimes involve a suspect, a murder weapon, and motive, yet I would venture to state that most conspiracy theorists only look at one of those three elements, and fill in the details of the rest with whatever they wish to believe. We have a suspect - Al Qaeda, we have a motivation - Al Qaeda's openly hostile condemnation of our policies (since 1998 and before), and we all saw the murder weapon fly into those buildings, with tragic effect until 9/11. Conspiracy theorists wishing to refute the ideas presented in this book must be willing to fact the facts as the real experts have relayed them, and if they have a viable alternative that involves a real suspect, a real motive and a real alternative murder weapon, to put that in as concise and compelling terms as possible. This is what conspiracy theorists have not been able to do. If you wish to debunk their hype, or simply begin to become familiar with it, this book is not a bad place to start. . .there is only one error I clearly found on this book. In the color photos following page 42, the pictures of Hani Hanjour and Ziad Jarrah are mixed up. Does this mean the rest of book is wrong? I don't think so.

First, I'd like to point out that there are 475 arch and eng's who disbelieve the government's conspiracy theory. The government has only a handful of such professionals formally advocating the official myth. I repeat this: There are fewer than a hundred professionals who have formally signed onto the NIST theory. AE have 500. There are 140 military officers, many pilots, many ex-NORAD personnel, some quite central. They have risked, and even sacrificed careers, to publicly state that they do not believe the government Conspiracy Theory, using terms like hogwash, the dog that won't hunt, and a white-washed farce. There are hundreds of intelligence personnel, former FBI and CIA who absolutely believe that rogue government elements are complicit in 911 and lying to the American people. There exist dozens of members of the European Parliament, the Japanese Parliament, the Russian Chief of military command, the President of Egypt, and the President of Italy, all of whom have made statements on record that the government Conspiracy Theory is an out and out lie. Several members of the US Congress have made career risking statements that the government Conspiracy Theory is false. Most of the members of the 911 Commission made statements that the CIA and White House severely obstructed their investigation. And this is a mere fraction of the authoritative voices. I'd really like to share a few of these statements. There are thousands of them.
Over half the population of seventeen major countries, such as Germany, China, Japan, no longer believe the U.S. government Conspiracy Theory. 23% of Germans, a notably well-informed citizenry, directly blames the United States government for a false flag attack. As of 2006, Seventy five million Americans think it likely the government was involved, and twenty million are certain of it. Seventy five million is one fourth of the population, more than voted for George Bush. No matter how this fool tries to paint it, this is no nutty fringe conspiracy. This is the American and world citizenry finally waking up from its long spell of 911 shock and awe.

There are so many problems with the NIST account. It's scientifically absurd. It requires a chain of highly unlikely, if not impossible, events. If any of them fails, the entire collapse fails.
For example, and this is far from an inclusive list:
* NIST needs a free fall of the top part of the tower onto the bottom, but the account directly contradicts this because the steel weakens. They said the fire was not hot enough to melt the steel. But their account would make the top sag down. That is the meaning of the word they used: weaken. They did not use the word vanish, though the successive account requires it. It's a direct contradiction built into their argument: the steel both weakens from the low level fire and suddenly vanishes to institute free fall. Which is it? It cannot be both. Hence - NO COLLAPSE. It's easy to show.
* We'll just skip the fact that, by NIST's account, the fire didn't even become hot enough to weaken the steel and we'll skip the fact that the fire was visibly not a hot one by the lack of flames and the thick smoke. No collapse, as far hotter skyscraper fires demonstrate. No skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, except on 911.
* And we'll skip the fact that, by NIST's account, the much softer aluminum only violated the integrity of the solid steel structure by at most 25% and that it was built to withhold at least four times tolerances, really, up to twenty times, at least according to lead engineer Frank DeMartini (died on 911), who also said the towers could take multiple aircraft collisions. Watch the video on you-tube.
* Let's also skip the MIT estimate that sufficient fireproofing could not have been removed by the airplane because it would have needed to turn entirely into shotgun pellets aimed directly at all the diversely located steel frame. Of course, then it could not have severed ANY inner columns.
* Let's also the skip the total lack of NIST testing, except for the steel heat test which directly contradicted NIST conclusions. It showed that the metal would not have softened under a far hotter fire than NIST claimed occurred! Not incidentally, that's when they stopped the scientific process of laboratory tests and relied solely on complex computer modeling. (The recent financial debacle has a similar failed history, ironically.)
* So, let's give them the easily demonstrated free fall perjury so that we can show how, at every stage, their argument is nonsensical. NIST has the top transfer a shock into the bottom to rupture the steel below. Logical enough, until you visualize it with some detail. The concrete flooring simply gives way to the steel as it smashes through. The lighter pieces of cross-member steel would intersect and break one after another, arresting collapse over a few seconds. This has been empirically shown in shipyards. There would be no sudden, single impact which their theory requires to rupture the lower connections. To attain it, the steel needs to strike top severed beam to bottom severed beam for virtually all 248 beams. Without that, NO COLLAPSE. Considering the beams are only 1/1000th the surface area, it's impossible. And we see in the North Tower videos the steep angle of the top as it falls. There was no sharp impact, only a gradual edge-on crush. NO COLLAPSE. The arrest would take four or five stories at a maximum. The math is simple, which is why we have nearly 500 architects and engineers and they have fewer than 100.
* Okay, now we've given them the impossible free fall, the ridiculous sharp shock, so progressive collapse all the way to the ground is inevitable? That's what they say without further analysis. Their model, unbelievably, stops right there with those very words. It's patent crap passed off as science. We should be a little skeptical here, considering. The sharp shock transfers all of the energy into the top floor of the lower section so that it ruptures. We'll skip the fact that they used the standard tolerance and ignored the actual four times (or greater manufacture). If they had used the actual strength, the steel, of course, would not break. But the real sin here is that they ignore both elastic and plastic deformation, standard calculated properties of structural steel which absorb tremendous energy. I mean they're really desperate with their evasions, if you want to examine it using a tool they ignored called logic. These properties transfer the energy throughout the steel structure, as such structures are designed and have been shown to do over and over. Steel has a wonderful ability to absorb energy, like a truck spring. There would be no rupture at a single point because the energy is diffused throughout the entire ninety stories, as per ACTUAL PHYSICS and actual experimentation. But we have NIST physics, or alternate universe physics. It's really out there. It just makes no sense. Again, the NIST account fails at a sixth point? Is it seven? I've lost count.
* Why not take this sharp shock account even further? Would all the energy be transferred into the bottom, as NIST needs? Well, if you like physics, then what happens is that the energy, by the still valid laws of Newton, divides between top and bottom. Again, NO COLLAPSE.
* The account also requires, by logical extension, the sharp shock to repeat every floor for ninety floors. But this makes no sense. Does it bounce, then fall back ninety times, requiring several minutes to collapse? No, it aggregates after the initial psychosis-induced free-fall. No series of shocks equals NO COLLAPSE. It's just absurd the way they explain it.
* Fine, let's allow this series of physics defying miracles which runs contrary to the video records. The collapses occur at near free fall speeds, according to NIST up to fifteen (?) seconds. Why don't we give them twenty, or even thirty, just for fun. First, the breaking of steel and pulverization of ninety thousand tons of cement absorbs many, many times the amount of energy available from the standing potential, which is all the energy NIST has. But we'll skip that and do a playful visualization game. Let's pretend the floors are floating in space, without the steel, which is essentially the NIST scenario. We'll visualize a set of seventeen, because that's the top section of the North Tower. As each set of floors falls and combines with the floors below, the inertial frame takes effect. It's high school phyics. So each doubling of mass halves the speed. The equation isn't too complicated. Even under this scenario with no energy absorbing steel or cement pulverization, the inertial framework alone requires a full forty-five seconds to reach ground.
* There are perhaps ten points here? I could make many more points, such as the violation of the second law of thermodynamics which states that an asymmetry increases over time. Straight down collapse is impossible. It is a root law of physics. It isn't optional, despite the NIST approach. The government's alternate universe theory fails if even a single link in this chain fails. It's cartoon physics, like Wil-E Coyote or something. And it happens twice! There are plenty more points. This is actual physics. It's easy, easy, easy to prove. That's why NIST refuses to debate Richard Gage and his team. They actually refuse a debate. AE truth are willing anytime, anywhere, to debate them. Nist refuses.
* Then, of course, you have building 7, which took 7 years to get a report on. The original FEMA account says `Our principal theory, collapse by fire, is highly improbable.' And that's where they arrive at, seven years later. The ludicrous idea that a single steel beam out of hundreds in a 47 story building, weakened enough to allow a free fall, straight down collapse. There is literally NO RESISTANCE from over a hundred structural steel beams. It's beyond belief! And what about the numerous accounts of molten metal, the video records of it, and the hundreds of video records of firefighters and survivors who speak of multiple explosions and a controlled demolition? They just ignore it all, and a whole lot more evidence.

As you start to read this book, it appears to be a reasonable, well thought-out book. If you are not aware of the real issues that the 9/11 truth community has with the official story, you will fall for some of the straw-man theories presented in this book.

They try to deceive you by constantly saying, "Engineers say" or "such and such say". However, they rarely quote (by name) all of the professionals they claim support their claims. The ones that they do quote are in most cases, under government contracts. The biggest give-away, that this book was in-fact a shill for the globalist, was the fact that Presidential Candidate John McCain wrote the foreword to the book.

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 and sensical manner.

On a certain level, books like this one (and also the article in Popular Mechanics that lead to it), seem to make a lot of sense. They're well written and they seem to offer solid information and evidence. After a first read, one could easily become a "believer."

The thing is, that if you keep learning about 9/11 while having an open mind - especially toward views that are opposite to those of this book - and you temporarily suspend your disbelief in what others are trying to say - no matter how crazy their ideas may seem - after awhile you'll realize that other ideas make just as much sense, if not more.

If you start here, please don't stop here. After reading this book, at least also give a fair chance to things you'll find at 911docs(dot)net.

The establishment press has been been lying to us for seven years telling us that the Emperor is wearing clothes. The worst fault of this book isn't just its junk science; it is most offensive in its effort to distort the laws of physics (e.g., repeal the law of conservation of momentum)the way quack scientists tried to distort the laws of genetics in the old Soviet Union: e.g., a giraffe has a long neck because generations of giraffes really badly wanted the green leaves along the treetops. Science in the service of propaganda- have things really gotten this bad?

This book wasn't the best I've ever read, but it also wasn't the worst. It had some parts I liked and some parts I didn't like. Overall, (in my opinion) I think it's just "ok".

I researched the topic of 9/11 Conspiracies for months, collecting all sorts of information. There was something about 9/11 that never sat well with me, so I decided to read up on it. Some (not all!) of the views were worth thinking about.
In order for me to make up my mind, I picked up the book,"Debunking 9/11 Myths" by Popular Mechanics. I am no part of any 'movement' about that day, I am only in the pursuit of truth. I don't think we were given that by our government or mainstream media.
I was disappointed in the book for the reasons that out of all the claims made by the conspiracy theorists, the authors only focused on the weakest ones, and left too many questions out there regarding the tough ones. I believe this approach is called 'Straw Man'?
One example of this is when they are talking about "No Stand Down Order". Their explanations go conveniently right around where the tough claim is. They say "only 14 fighter jets were on alert...". They neglect to mention that war game exercises were taking place, and although there more jets, they were dispatched out in North Carolina, Alaska, and Canada for their exercises. This is why there were only 14 left. They also don't mention that in June 2001, Dick Cheney ordered Donald Rumsfeld to change the laws, no longer giving NORAD it's freestanding ability to respond to a threat w/out the Pres, V.Pres, or Sec. of Defense approval. This is part of the explanation of how NORAD ended up 'Standing Down'. There is more to the claim, but this one stands out to me.

The other ludicrous claim is about Building 7. They go on to systematically explain why this building collapsed, even though firemen and other authorities were telling everyone to `get back, the building is going to come down'. Also, when Larry Silverstein was on record telling everyone to `pull it', the book says the statement was a misinterpretation, and he was referring to the firefighters to get out. There were no firefighters in building since 11:30, and the building went down at 5:20. Also, why would Silverstein refer to the firefighters as "it", when he says "we made the decision to pull it"? (Plus, Silverstein also made changes to his insurance plan in the Spring of 2001, to make sure the WTCs were insured against acts of terror- how convenient). Not only that, the BBC's Jane Standley started making claims that WTC Building 7 collapsed @ 4:57, 20 minutes too soon. In fact, the building is still standing right behind her head- in plain sight, soon as she steps to the right. The building was still standing, how did they know it was going to go down? (Want to see this? Type in "BBC WTC 7" on YouTube.) The book makes no mention of any of these claims- why didn't they debunk these? Instead, they work on the engineering claims. You know, the ones we can't argue about, because we are unfamiliar with it.

Anyway, the book didn't help me draw any definite conclusions. But here's the thing- do the research. Look in depth at the claims first. Then get the book and draw your own conclusions. There were more things I read in the book that had me saying, "Hey wait a minute." The book makes sense if you don't really know what the claims are to begin with. So beware.

This book wasn't the best I've ever read, but it also wasn't the worst. It had some parts I liked and some parts I didn't like. Overall, (in my opinion) I think it's just "ok".

This book addresses most of the popular theories which do not stand up very long to empircal study. It really is a straightforward explanation but you can see how committed consipiracists give it a 1-star rating in the hopes of marginalizing the overall perception of the book.

There is a pathology in the way many people latch on to these kinds of theories. Questioning events and sincere curiosity is incredibly valuable but espousing theories that have been so thoroughly, completely and regularly debunked demonstrates a desire to cling to an ideology rather than accept the truth and is a sickness.

This will not change the minds of the 'Truther' crowd (that would probably take professional help). This WILL help those of you that are genuinely curious or perhaps have kids that are and you can hopefully short-circuit the negative effects of such facile and faulty thought processes.

On September 11, 2001 America was under attack by Al -Qaeda terrorists. These terrorists unleashed one of the most gruesome attacks ever on American soil. Just days after this catastrophic event the first conspiracy theories started to circulate. Now eight years later there are thousands of claims and hundreds of websites that support these claims that the US government is connected to the 9-11 attacks. Not one book until Debunking 9/11 Myths has pinpointed the major claims and then gives evidence that debunks the claims.
I have never before read a book like Debunking 9/11 Myths. The format of this book keeps the reader on the edge of their seat for the full 150 pages. Not once was there a dull spot in this book. This is because the book is split up into 24 different claims. Each claim is different from the rest so you never are given the same information twice. After each claim, David Dunbar the author of this book gives the reader evidence that debunks the claim. This evidence usually deals with expert analysis in a specific field of study. An example of this takes place in one of my favorite claims in the book that is called the "puff of dust " claim. This claim deals with the fact that puffs of dust were ejected from the side of the building when the World Trade Centers collapsed. One engineer claimed, "The concrete clouds shooting out of the building are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from an explosion." Dunbar takes this claim and then finds scientific proven evidence that debunks the claim. He firsts gets an expert demolitionist who says that it would take at least three months to rig up the world trade center for a large scale detonation that would bring the towers down. He then goes on and says that the floors "pancaking" effect gives off the perception of a controlled demolition and that the "puffs of dust" are natural when the buildings are going down. He says that the air has to find any way out so it probably went down the elevator shafts and then out of the building. This is just an example of how David Dunbar is able to research each specific claim by getting specialist in each field to give there opinion of what truly happened.
Debunking 9/11 Myths, does not take the claims that people have never heard about to debunk but debunks the high profile claims. Everybody has heard of the claims that the South Tower was struck by a military aircraft instead of a commercial jet and that a missile struck the Pentagon instead of a Boeing 757. Dunbar goes into great detail on these claims which is one of the reasons why this is such a popular book. Not only does he go into detail but he gives picture evidence that helps you really understand the claim. An example of this is deals with Pentagon. Dunbar shows a picture right after the crash of the wreckage around the pentagon. The picture shows remnants of landing gear from the plane right next to a fire fighter. That picture alone is key to debunking the claim that a missile hit the pentagon.
David Dunbar's book appeals to all types of people. It appeals to the uneducated, the educated, the young, the old, and of course the skeptics. This book is truly made for the skeptical person. The reason for this is that the author brings forth a credulous claim that he himself is skeptical about. He then shows evidence that backs up his skepticism. That is the reason why this book would appeal to skeptics.
I highly recommend that everyone read Debunking 9/11 Myths. Not only does the book discuss one of the most tragic days in American history but it teaches you about specific subjects that you would probably not know about if you did not read this book. Before this book I had no idea how to spot different types of explosions. Now I can tell the difference between a demolition explosion, missile explosion, and of course an airplane explosion.
This book brings up a sensitive subject that has a very objective view and that can be the reason why some people believe that this book is covering up for the government. If you have an open mind and want to read a book that really does have a one sided look at this issue than this is the book for you. If you are closed-minded and want to believe in different conspiracies then you would probably be best to skip this book. This book is perfect for the average everyday American. The reason for this is that the answers to the claims are very elementary. The claims are easy to follow and understand. That is another reason why this is such a popular book. If this book was written like a textbook then they would loose ninety percent of there audience. Overall go out to Barnes and Nobles and buy this book, you will be glad that you did.

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.