Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
296 of 442 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Facts Prove 911 was NOT an "inside job", September 1, 2006
It is absolutely amazing the kind of reviews people will dare to give. As one prior reviewer astutely noticed, many "reviews" were done by people with an agenda to sell who obviously did not read the book. In fact, even before the book was published you had 911 conspiracy folks writing negative assertions about the book before it was even published. This tells you the mindset of such people and the prejudice they have. There is simply no way you can be objective by trying to trash something before you've even read it. But such is the folly of some. And let me say that I am particularly disappointed with Ed Haas, who appears to be just using this forum to promote his conspiracy agenda instead of reviewing the book honestly.
As someone who came to this issue trying to objectively ascertain what the truth is regarding 911, and as a former native New Yorker for over 30 years, I will now try to render an honest review of this book as one who has actually read it and also has verified many of its points from my own research. I will also point out some of the facts which prove that most of the negative reviewers did NOT read the book.
First, let's dispense with the most obvious nonsense arguments. It is a fallacy of logic to argue that because the book was done by folks at Popular Mechanics (PM), which is owned by Hearst Communications, that this automatically dismisses the evidence from the many independent scientists, engineers, physicists, and other experts. This is known as the genetic "consider the source" fallacy. Such reasoning is flawed and is just a way of avoiding the facts presented by PM.
Second, it has not been conclusively proven that the Ben Chertoff who used to be the head of the magazine's research department at PM is in any way related to Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security. Now, according to Ben's mom, Michael MIGHT be a distant cousin (p. 102). Yet conspiracy theorists unwisely take a MIGHT and turn it into a conclusive fact. Nonsense. If that is the case, then I can argue that the Bush administration is using Bush's baked beans to poison us all in a worldwide conspiracy to dominate the world...LOL. And do I even need to point out that people having the same last name does not necessarily mean they must be related. That fallacy is called the non sequitur. But let's move on.
One argument has been made that the people at PM are not scientists and engineers. Fair enough. But that's a red herring designed to divert our attention from the facts. They CONSULTED many scientists and engineers and reported what THEY said. That is the point. But since we are on the topic of "scientists and engineers," perhaps we are to believe that David Ray Griffin, who doesn't have the first degree in relevant scientific or engineering fields, is a credible source of information about what happened on 911? Mr. Griffin has been shown to be an author with an agenda who cannot see that he has been duped by the likes of French author Thierry Meyssan, who "...never visited the United States for his research" (p.59). So the work of Griffin is highly suspect and lacks real credibility.
It is easy for some reviewers to talk big talk about PM committing "straw man fallacies" while committing their own fallacies, but the facts are otherwise. This book is excellent in its presentation of the facts and documentation. The only problem I had is that it didn't use the standard numerical reference techniques most scholarly books use. I would have also liked it if they made it easier to contact the many experts consulted by providing contact information such as email addresses. That way, it would be easier to verify that these experts really said what it is claimed they said.
However, I have found in my research that if you really want to contact someone, all you need is some basic information and you can usually follow-up and make contact. Other than that, the book does a great job of answering (with credible sources from those expert in the relevant fields) most of the major wild 911 "inside job" conspiracy theories.
The book is divided up into 4 major sections: The Planes, The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and Flight 93, with an afterward by James Meiggs, editor-in-chief of PM, 3 appendices (Appendix A: Experts Consulted, Appendix B: World Trade Center Report, Appendix C: Pentagon Building Report), notes and an index. I will now highlight points from each major section:
The Planes:
The book nicely puts the issue in a conspiracy "claim" vs. "fact" format, which makes things easier to follow. Some claim that the 19 "amateur" hijackers with box cutters taking over planes and flying them and hitting "75 percent" of their targets raises a lot of questions. Perhaps. But you don't need to be an expert flyer to crash a big plane into a big building. That's common sense. But "Debunking 911 myths" points out that "The hijacker pilots...may not have been have been highly skilled, but they were not complete amateurs" (p. 4).
Some have tried to argue that there was a "missile" or "pod" underneath the planes that hit the Towers. However, this assumption was based on an inaccurate interpretation of bad photography. "Debunking" consulted Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. His findings? "After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a `pod'...In fact, Greeley confirms the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear" (pp. 9, 10). So, conspiracy theorists have mistaken lighting angles and pixel distortion on digital images for some kind of "pod" or missile.
Another false claim debunked by "Debunking" is the idea that there was a "stand down" order given to the military so that the hijacked planes could reach their targets. "Debunking" catalogs all the confusion on 911 and shows that even though the hijackers had turned off the transponders, fighter planes were ordered to battle stations. But with over 4,000 planes in the air, and an inadequate ATC system, it is not hard to see why intercepts were delayed (pp.14-19). It was also pointed out the NORAD's more sophisticated radar focused outside the continental US for threats, not inward. No need for wild conspiracy theories.
The World Trade Center:
One claim is that the Towers were not brought down by the combination of large planes full of jet fuel slamming into them and the subsequent damage, but they collapsed due to intentially placed bombs or controlled demolition charges.
However, "Debunking" provides evidence from credible independent sources that this was not the case (pp. 28-58). I have personally watched video of authentic controlled demolitions and the Towers and building 7 do NOT precisely match them. In real demo, the puffs of smoke from the charges going off, sometimes called "squibs," always come first and then the building comes down. With WTCs 1,2, 7 the "squibs" show up only AFTER the building begins to collapse. But conspiracy theorists ignore that little fact to their detriment.
Conspiracy theorists are fond of making mention of the work of professor Steven Jones of BYU. It is claimed that he found something in a sample of the WTC rubble which indicates to him that explosives were used. However, the credibility of Mr. Jones is in question on many counts.
First, his own colleagues at BYU, who are civil engineers while he is NOT, do not find his work credible. Second, "Debunking" consulted metallurgy professors (specialists in metals analysis) who "...found flaws with the evidence Jones uses to support his arguments...Alan Pense, professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University, said: `The photographs shown to support melting steel are, to me, either unconvincing ...or show materials that appear to be other than steel'" (p. 41).
Third, what really caught my eye was this info regarding the "thermite" allegedly found by Mr. Jones. "Richard Furehan, professor of metallurgical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, says that Jones does not provide adequate evidence to show that thermite reactions did take place...even if they did, that would not necessarily indicate the presence of explosives. THE THERMITE REACTION COULD HAVE OCCURRED WITH ALUMINUM METAL AND ANY OXIDE THAT HAPPENS TO BE NEAR IT (p. 42, emphasis added.). So, a thermite reaction can take place in other ways. Interesting that we don't hear that from the conspiracy folks.
And finally, "Debunking" provides more information from various experts showing that Mr. Jones' work is "naïve and unscientific" (as Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT personally told me in a private email), but space won't permit me to go into further detail.
When it comes to building 7, most conspiracy theorists always mention the words of Larry Silverstein on a nationally televised show using the words "pull it." These words are interpreted to mean that Silverstein was admitting he told a "fire commander" (note not a demolition specialist) to "pull it" (misread to mean demolish building 7). However, "Debunking" points out from 4 different demolition experts that "pull it" is "not slang for controlled demolition" (p. 57). Even after Silverstein clarified his words, saying that his concern was to "pull" the squadron of firefighters from the building, conspiracy theorists still cling to their misinterpretation and misapplication of Silverstein's words. What's more, with all the fuss over the collapse of Towers 1, 2 and building 7, people forget that other buildings and structures...
Read more ›
|
|
|
53 of 80 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
If you've already made up your mind that 911 was an inside job don't bother reading this, September 13, 2006
I have carefully read with, I hope, an open mind, the various theories about the causes of 911. Carefully watched the videos from the what is called the 911 truth movement. I definitally start from knowing my government lies to me and is, to boot, incompetent. These other reports of explanations of 911 did indeed raise unanswered questions but fell short of convincing me that there was an inside job.
I had found some holes in the various conspiracy theories -- but this book revealed to me and documented something ELSE: (a) That there was in the truth movement significant amounts of what I call "cherry picking" the evidence (reporting on what supports their position and ignoring what contradicts it.)
This book also (b) documented, by doing their journalistic homework and actually tracking down witnesses (who had been quoted by the conspiracy theorists in support of their ideas)something I did NOT know: That witnesses had been quoted out of context, misquoted, and their words used to state exactly the opposite of what the witness, when interviewed by Popular Mechanics, actually meant and saw.
This book does, to me, a convincing job of showing that many of the "unexplained things" (such as why the planes were not intercepted)are not as far fetched as the conspiracy theorists would have me believe. Well, there's far too much detail to list here. After all it's a whole book.
If you REALLY want what I call an objective view and are open minded, and can accept the reality that there are details about 911 or any catastrophic event that may never be explained, you might like this book and value it.
But DON'T expect it to convince anyone who is an avid advocate of "our government did it" or any similar belief.
Why? Because the very nature of believing there is a SECRET and POWERFUL group that did this makes it absolutely impossible to ever prove there isn't one.
Here's why:
Bring up the fact that some item of evidence that SHOULD exist if there was a conspiracy doesn't exist, then the reply is "of course not, it's SECRET."
Bring up any evidence that it was done by middle easterners in commercial airliners with box cutters and that can be dismissed as fake evidence (after all, a POWERFUL group of conspirators can fake any evidence, right?)
Bring forth any witnesses that offer testimony that contradicts the secret-conspiracy theory and they can be dismissed as either "under pressure from authorities" or "part of the conspiracy" or "just mistaken."
Do a good enough job of questioning the credibility of the conspiracy theory and _your_ motives will be questioned and the suggestion made that you might even be part of the conspiracy.
Bring forth any technological expert that testifies to anything that supports the conventional view or contradicts the conspiracy view and they can be dismissed as either incompetent, paid off, or part of the conspiracy.
This does not mean I deny there are unexplained facts, conflicting witness reports, nor that I or the authors of this book rule out that some people inside and outside the administration were and are (a) making statements that aren't true, (b) some may even be deliberately lying to cover up things (after all ALL people tend to want to cover up their incompetence and this administration is well known to be particularly poor at being able to admit errors.)
I am also well aware that the administration intended to attack Iraq long before 911 and it apparently used 911 as an excuse to do so. That doesn't mean they created 911. I just think Bin Ladin played right into their hands -- and Bush in-turn right into Bin Ladin's hands (Bush's behavior since 911 has been a recruiting Bonanza for all radical Islamic groups.)
Particularly after reading this book, I would say institutional and personal incompetence and negligence exist in such unimaginable depth and spread in government and elsewhere -- that THIS is one of the sticking points that trips up many of the conspiracy theorists that leads them to conclude malice is at work in the US government:
These analysts see things that it seems could only be explained either by malice or by incredible levels of incompetence and negligence -- levels that to these folks (who themselves are sometimes themselves rather competent and responsible) is simply unimaginable. I suspect this is their one of their blind spots. Thus they are forced to conclude malice and complicity is at work.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
And this similar quote attributed to Goethe, the German philosopher:
"Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less frequent occurrence."
From the age of those quotes, coming from two very different sources, each with their own credibility, it would appear to me that there has been for centuries a long standing human tendency to see the results of stupidity and neglect and attribute those results to malice.
|
|
|
17 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Scum in the pipeline, March 6, 2009
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...
Read more ›
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by David Ray Griffin
by Professor Robert Alan Goldberg
by National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
