Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.

Buy Used
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: This item is in good condition. May include some wear on edges, corners, pages, and could have creases on the cover. SHIPS FROM AN AMAZON WAREHOUSE!! FREE 2-DAY SHIPPING FOR PRIME MEMBERS!!
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts Paperback – August 15, 2006

3.1 out of 5 stars 187 customer reviews

See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
New from Used from
"Please retry"
$5.95 $0.01

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


“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

Looking for the Audiobook Edition?
Tell us that you'd like this title to be produced as an audiobook, and we'll alert our colleagues at Audible.com. If you are the author or rights holder, let Audible help you produce the audiobook: Learn more at ACX.com.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 192 pages
  • Publisher: Hearst (August 15, 2006)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 158816635X
  • ISBN-13: 978-1588166357
  • Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 5.6 x 0.6 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces
  • Average Customer Review: 3.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (187 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #757,519 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Top Customer Reviews

Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
This is an excellent book that follows up on the articles in Popular Mechanics in the aftermath of 9/11. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/)

It's sad that the "9/11 Truther" movement "lives on," despite having been destroyed by the science its adherents insisted would support their claims...that the U.S. government and NOT jihadists was responsible for the destruction on 9/11.

Initially the "Truther" movement seemed to have sprung from what was called BDS, or "Bush Derangement Syndrome," but it seems to have taken on a post-GW life of its own. Sadly, this "new life" STILL seems geared to blaming America and exonerating the jihadists (Atta & his crew).

Its most strident adherents seem to revel in the visceral reactions they get from survivors and family members of victims, which kind of puts many of them in the same camp as Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church folks. Interestingly enough, the Westboro clan is also fond of quoting science that DOESN'T agree with, or support their views....science they don't seem to understand.

The "Truthers" seem to be seeking out a few aberrations and purporting to use them as,"proof" of a highly suspect supposition.

That's antithetical to science, it is the opposite of skepticism. To accept even an accepted idea, or "general consensus" as "definite," is NON-Skeptical and NOT at all open-minded, but to base a conviction on unsupported supposition is even less rational.
Read more ›
Comment 5 of 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
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.
Read more ›
5 Comments 63 of 96 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
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.
Read more ›
142 Comments 413 of 632 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Most Recent Customer Reviews

Want to discover more products? Check out this page to see more: applied statistics