Conspiracy theories about Sept. 11, 2001 continue to spread. Now, in a meticulous, scientific and groundbreaking new book, Popular Mechanics puts these rumors to rest. The magazine’s editors analyze the 20 most persistent claims underlying 9/11 conspiracy theories—and conclusively disprove each one. The result is a triumph of hard fact over conspiratorial fantasy.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
Expanding on an article published in Popular Mechanics in March 2005, the staff of the highly regarded magazine painstakingly deconstructs many of the myths surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Drawing on interviews with engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses, and investigators, this book addresses only those questions raised by conspiracy theorists, mostly that somehow the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and puts forth no theory of its own. Each section announces a theory, discloses the major proponents behind the theory, and deconstructs the theories specifically surrounding the World Trade Center (the fires could not have melted the steel in the structure), the Pentagon (the holes in the building were too small to have been made by a Boeing 757), and United Flight 93 (that it was actually shot down by an air force plane). The afterword details how Popular Mechanicsitself was accused of being part of the conspiracy to support the administration. Although it isn't likely to stop conspiracy theorists, this book offers sound information for readers to ponder. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Review
“There is no time to waste. You must purchase Debunking 9/11 Myths.” —Rocky Mountain News
“Certainly one of the most original—and potentially controversial—titles on the topic.” —Publishers Weekly
“Do you have a friend who emails you the most recent documentary ‘proving’ that a missile impacted the Pentagon or that timed explosions brought down WTC-7? Buy him a copy of this book. He’ll thank you later.”—Weekly Standard
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
397 of 605 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
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 "naďve 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 either fully or partially collapsed that day (such as the St. Read more ›
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 "naďve 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 either fully or partially collapsed that day (such as the St. Read more ›
37 of 59 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I notice that most of the negative reviewers tip the fact they haven't even read the book.
They say that this book only deals with "straw man" arguments. It's not true. All of the claims completely debunked here can be found on one or another of the biggest and best conspiracy websites -- and they're all still there months after the debunking.
If you're already familiar with this material from the Popular Mechanics website, you will not find much more argument here, but you will get the complete documentation and some handy excerpts from the 9/11 report.
They say that this book only deals with "straw man" arguments. It's not true. All of the claims completely debunked here can be found on one or another of the biggest and best conspiracy websites -- and they're all still there months after the debunking.
If you're already familiar with this material from the Popular Mechanics website, you will not find much more argument here, but you will get the complete documentation and some handy excerpts from the 9/11 report.
52 of 83 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I agree with another reviwer who states "Ridiculous That This Is Even Necessary," but all voices must be heard especially when it comes to writing history. Besides, we all have a right to freedom of speech and I doubt any of us would oppose that. With that said, on to my review...
I believe it is most important in maintaining some type of academic standard. On the other side of the coin, just because someone has a PhD, it does not mean they represent this standard. In an era where anyone can pick up a video camera and produce an amatuer, although professional looking piece of cinema, it becomes easier and easier for just about anyone to draw conclusions and distribute information throughout the internet and other media venues. It is also irresponsible of us to pass off organizations such as Popular Mechanics as having biased government ties as rationalization for critiquing a work such as this. Leave those conclusions with corporations like GE, GM, FOX, Disney, and Viacom. If you want to learn more about the political economy of the mass media, I would recommend some of Chomsky's work.
Not all of what the opposition states is incorrect. As a student of International Politics, it is obvious to those in academia that Bush and the administration did, in fact, use 9/11 to push their Iraq agenda. Look no further than the Downing Street Memoes to find pre-9/11 evidence of a plan to invade Iraq. There are also significant correlations between the government's use of fear-mongering through terrorism and the types of anti-communist dialogue that was used to rationalize wars in both Vietnam and Korea in decades past. I will not dispute any of this, however, we must draw a line between legitimate research that was done using empirical data from that which is simply an amatuer conclusion, (A=B; B=C; therefore A must equal C). These relationships may work easily in mathematics, but in few other places will the truth be that black-and-white.
This little book does a great job of using legitimate sources and multiple sources for arguing each conspiracy theory that is popularly raised in films such as 'Loose Change'. There are four chapters, "The Planes," "The World Trade Center," "The Pentagon," and "Flight 93". My only objection is the 'super patriotic' foreword written by John McCain. For those simply looking for evidence that refutes popular conspiracy theories, I would recommend passing over the foreword altogether.
I must raise one other point that is not mentioned in this book or most other media outlets. Keeping in mind that we live in a world where information travels so easily, for such an enormous plan such as a government-led 9/11, such a vast number of people would have to be involved that it would be impossible to keep such a conspiracy away from the general public. Americans often tend to think of the government as a separate entity from the people, and this is harmful on many levels. When you label organizations such as Popular Mechanics as having biased government ties related to a coverup, those are an additional hundred or so people that must be involved.
I welcome any kind of debate that it rasied, but as a responsible society, we must maintain standards, research our sources, and use the scientific method in our research, otherwise, we will be a society of theories instead of truths.
I believe it is most important in maintaining some type of academic standard. On the other side of the coin, just because someone has a PhD, it does not mean they represent this standard. In an era where anyone can pick up a video camera and produce an amatuer, although professional looking piece of cinema, it becomes easier and easier for just about anyone to draw conclusions and distribute information throughout the internet and other media venues. It is also irresponsible of us to pass off organizations such as Popular Mechanics as having biased government ties as rationalization for critiquing a work such as this. Leave those conclusions with corporations like GE, GM, FOX, Disney, and Viacom. If you want to learn more about the political economy of the mass media, I would recommend some of Chomsky's work.
Not all of what the opposition states is incorrect. As a student of International Politics, it is obvious to those in academia that Bush and the administration did, in fact, use 9/11 to push their Iraq agenda. Look no further than the Downing Street Memoes to find pre-9/11 evidence of a plan to invade Iraq. There are also significant correlations between the government's use of fear-mongering through terrorism and the types of anti-communist dialogue that was used to rationalize wars in both Vietnam and Korea in decades past. I will not dispute any of this, however, we must draw a line between legitimate research that was done using empirical data from that which is simply an amatuer conclusion, (A=B; B=C; therefore A must equal C). These relationships may work easily in mathematics, but in few other places will the truth be that black-and-white.
This little book does a great job of using legitimate sources and multiple sources for arguing each conspiracy theory that is popularly raised in films such as 'Loose Change'. There are four chapters, "The Planes," "The World Trade Center," "The Pentagon," and "Flight 93". My only objection is the 'super patriotic' foreword written by John McCain. For those simply looking for evidence that refutes popular conspiracy theories, I would recommend passing over the foreword altogether.
I must raise one other point that is not mentioned in this book or most other media outlets. Keeping in mind that we live in a world where information travels so easily, for such an enormous plan such as a government-led 9/11, such a vast number of people would have to be involved that it would be impossible to keep such a conspiracy away from the general public. Americans often tend to think of the government as a separate entity from the people, and this is harmful on many levels. When you label organizations such as Popular Mechanics as having biased government ties related to a coverup, those are an additional hundred or so people that must be involved.
I welcome any kind of debate that it rasied, but as a responsible society, we must maintain standards, research our sources, and use the scientific method in our research, otherwise, we will be a society of theories instead of truths.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars
Pure Bunk!
Bunk! Full of lies! Read this book AND look at all the info that PROVES it was a so called inside job.
Published 24 days ago by James Connor
1.0 out of 5 stars
Read this book if you value comfort over truth
Some reviewers of this book have criticized its negative reviews by saying that many negative reviewers have not even read the book. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Matthew Orr
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very well done, but won't convince any who believe the conspiracy
If you want to understand WHY, where, and exactly how, the various insiders-did-it theories have gone off track, which particular things the conspiracy theorist report as facts are... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Alex
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Sceptics Review
Since the attack on the United States by 19 terrorists in September 2001, a cottage industry of conspiracy has spawned and grown. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Geoff Cowan
1.0 out of 5 stars
Propaganda
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from... Read more
Published 4 months ago by Mephistopheles 93
4.0 out of 5 stars
An Excellent Report
Overall, I'd highly recommend Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. Read more
Published 7 months ago by Russell Johnson
1.0 out of 5 stars
Why this book can't stand up to facts...
"Facts" are not facts just you say so!
I note how many government Koolaide drinking conservatives have jumped on this book's bandwagon with their panties all in a bunch... Read more
I note how many government Koolaide drinking conservatives have jumped on this book's bandwagon with their panties all in a bunch... Read more
Published 8 months ago by Carmella Soprano
1.0 out of 5 stars
Debunking this book.
Weak. This book simply does not stand up to the FACTS. A clear parody of the blusterous 9/11 Commission report although Thomas Kean and Bob Kerrey would be very proud.
Published 8 months ago by Seattle Lover
1.0 out of 5 stars
Garbage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
This book would have to go as one the of the greatest comedy books ever written. It should be read tho, as it shows how the american government, along with the clown who wrote this... Read more
Published 12 months ago by D. Watson
1.0 out of 5 stars
THIS BOOK IS ACTUALLY WHOLE RUBBISH AND FULL OF LIES
........ITALIAN PRESIDENT SAYS 9-11 WAS A INSIDE JOB.......... It's common knowledge, he reveals, CIA, Mossad behind terror attacks
[... Read more
[... Read more
Published 14 months ago by Enrico Napolitano
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
So You'd Like to...
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > History > Americas > United States > 21st Century
- Books > History > Modern (16th-21st Centuries) > 21st Century
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Political Science
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Terrorism
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Communication & Media Studies
