Customer Review

407 of 624 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Facts Prove 911 was NOT an "inside job", September 1, 2006
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (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 "naÔve 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. Nicholas Church, the North Bridge - wonder if Silverstein owns those too, or if demolition charges were placed in those too).

And yes, despite false claims to the contrary, "Debunking" did address in detail the Empire State Building and the B-25 that crashed into it and listed the vital differences between that incident and the collapse of the Towers (pp. 29-32).

The Pentagon:

One conspiracy theory about the Pentagon, circulated mainly by a French writer who never visited the United States, is that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Some say it was a missile (although no credible witnesses say they saw one) and other say it was a "Global Hawk" (a smaller, unmanned plane, although no one saw that either and no GH parts were found).

Pentagon Video - Some people argue that if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then the security camera should clearly show it. Yet "Debunking" points out that the Philips LTC 1261 camera filmed at one frame per second, while the plane was traveling at about 780 feet per second. Now, anyone who knows anything about photography can understand what that means; you will not get a clear image of a plane (p. 61).

Small Debris - Although most conspiracy theorists claim that the debris of the Pentagon was too little to be from flight 77, they also do not investigate the fact that most airplane crashes do NOT leave great remains. "Debunking" gives several examples of this fact. So this does not prove flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Intact Windows - Now the idea that regular windows could remain intact after a commercial jet hits a building would seem rather incredible, but not when you know all the facts. "Debunking" explains that the Pentagon windows were blast resistant and weighed "1,600" pounds each (p. 71). Wow! My first reaction was `What the heck kind of window weighs that much?' It seems they wanted them to withstand a powerful missile or bomb. But these were not household windows, and therefore any conspiracy argument from intact windows after the plane crash appear to be based on ignorance.

Flight 93:

"Debunking" deals a death blow to the main conspiracy theories surrounding this flight. Instead of the flight crashing due to the heroics of the brave passengers, the flight is said to have either been shot down by an F16 or a mysterious white jet. But the facts show that the Army Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre lied on the Alex Jones show about knowing the pilot who allegedly shot down flight 93. Mr. Grand-Pre also lied about contacting General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time (pp. 77-80).

"Debunking" also proves, from a credible source, that the white jet that was seen around the wreckage of flight 93 was not a military plane but "a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corporation" (p. 82).

Cell phones - Conspiracy theorists are fond of saying that all those calls were somehow faked because cell phones can't work above 8,000 feet. However, "Debunking" proves from cell phone company sources that this is not true: "While not exactly reliable, cell-phone calls from airplanes were possible in 2001...because cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet...says Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at the CTIA - The Wireless Association" (pp. 83,84).

When it comes to the small amount of wreckage found at the flight 93 crash site, "Debunking" also documents, from experts in air crash analysis, the fact that most plane crashes routinely leave little wreckage (pp. 86-90). The problem, then, is that while conspiracy believers ask many questions, they seem to rarely find credible answers from proper authorities.

So despite what you hear from some fake reviewers of the book, the book does address most of the wild conspiracy claims they tried to say the book did not address (which shows they didn't read the book).

In conclusion, it seems to me that the fake reviews by people with an agenda to push shows the dishonesty and disingenuousness of those in the 911 conspiracy movement. The facts show from this book, and other sources available online, that if the "official story" has holes in it the size of a "hundred pound block of Swiss cheese" (as one reviewer opined), then that goes hundreds of times more for these wild "inside job" theories which have no credible, factual support.

I applaud the people at PM for doing a fine job of putting together a masterful work disproving these nonsensical theories that ultimately dishonor the memory of the lives we lost on 911 and their surviving families. Remember, Remember, the FACTS about the 11th of September...because the Master Himself said it best: "and you shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Tracked by 7 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 142 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 29, 2006 1:23:26 AM PDT
This comment was very helpful for me in furthering my understanding of the current concsiousness of America. Logic is a very slippery beast and this reviewer should heed caution in the future so as not to summon forth weapons of argument that he is not willing to keep a very close eye on. For they will strike deep and completely, without hesitation or sentiment.

On the whole, this review completely misses the point of the plea for truth about 9/11. I refuse to use your label "conspiracy theories" because it is simply that, a label. It is an easy way to disregard and belittle questions and thoughts that are not being answered by the official version of the truth. What I want, what a lot of Americans want is understanding.

If there is nothing to hide, then why the secrecy surrounding the evidence? Where are the black boxes? Since when do engines vaporize on impact? If the video is no good, then why not show us? Why did the firemen report multiple detonation blasts? Why were these the first three skyscrapers to fully collapse from fire? Especially after only burning for under an hour? What was under the blue tarp at the Pentagon? The reviewer seems to know at least that it wasn't a Global Hawk...interesting information no doubt. But why would somebody who has seen under the tarp be reading this book? Why is everyone ignoring the basic questions? Should we even talk about the gold?

The abundance of theories is a result a questions being answered with half-a__ed replies. Nobody is willing to step up and throw these questions at our administration on a public platform. Actually, I'm sure people are willing, but the people who own the "credible" platforms are not. An overwhelming attachment to logic is the driving force behind the 9/11 theories.

There is a big difference in disproving and providing alternate versions. The truth is in the questions.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 3, 2006 1:08:39 PM PDT
Pergolesi says:
Thompson is employing a cheap rhetorical ploy, trying to suggest a conspiracy without actually having to name it, who did it, or how, or why. That's why he doesn't like the term 'conspiracy theory.' He hasn't got a theory.

"Why won't they answer those questions? They must be hiding something!"

Well, most all of those questions have been answered, and many of them in this book. If Thompson doens't read the book, that's his problem. In fact, parts of the engines were found after the crashes and show in photos. That's explained in the book. Of course Thompson and his fellow "truthers" will say those engine parts were planted and the photos were faked, and of course all those hundreds of witnesses, media people and investagators were intimidated or bought goes on and on. Hey, maybe the flying saucers did it. Why not? Why won't they answer questions about the UFOs? Suppse the entire government may have been taken over by aliens from other planets?

Or as Thompson says, "There is a big difference in disproving and providing alternate versions. The truth is in the questions."

Posted on Oct 4, 2006 1:16:47 PM PDT
M. G. Meyers says:
Mr. Pergolesi, your comments are based upon theory and you use your theory to place the facts into it. You follow the detail fo the 9/11 Commission report, which is a regurgitation fo the NIST investigation, whose only hypothesis regarding the WTC buildings (after some reworking) was to prove a moment of collapse. What you do not do is start with facts to then produce a theory.

What is really happening in the 9/11 Truth movement includes some good people who do not wish to base themselves primarily upon a conclusion, or hypothesis, or summary overview on what exactly happened that day, rather, who wish to independently go forth and gather facts and continue to work that process until it becomes possible to produce good hypothesis'. Pergolesi, you have put yourself on public display here quite enough to indicate the passion of your conclusions.

For further information for those who are interesting in seeing what data this book has not covered, or that has covered in an incomplete manner, I have a few links herein to follow up upon. The PM book can be used as a companion to argue the case of the 9/11 Commission as well as it likes, but in my opinion, it really doesn't address what it needs to to put the matter to rest. Conversely, there are many absurd contentions that it does help to put to rest, and for that I'm thankful.

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel...
From the Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society...

Physicist Jim Hoffman's work regarding the energy required to produce the North Tower's dust cloud...

Physicist and architect Dave Heller adds further support...

75 page PDF by Steven Jones as used for his presentation at the Idaho State University physics department, Sept. 1, 2006.

That PDF in Jones presentation has quite a wealth of information in it. Where was PM when Jones gained the unanimous support of 61 other scientists at BYU in his first presentation on the physics surrounding building 7? In my opinion, Jones and his students and colleagues are doing a great job.

Here's the "simple proof" page, showing regard for the speed of the collapse of the towers in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. For those who don't know it, a massive, welded structural steel core doesn't just fall without converting momentum in the process. Someone has to provide a great deal more energy to explain this.

(That overall site I also find quite in-depth and excellent. Certainly more extensive than this book!)

For a good list of peer-reviewed, open-access articles on the topic, check out the Journal of 911 Studies.

Call this an argument as you like, but I will continue to contend that PM hasn't really gotten into debunking those physical phenomena surrounding the WTC collapses that continue to baffle the scientific community. In fact, NIST is still struggling with trying to figure out what happened to building 7 that afternoon. My story hasn't changed for the past 18 months. The physics revolving around the WTC collapses produces compelling data that is only (to date) supported by the hypothesis where controlled implosion demolition adds the necesssary energy to produce what we saw that day. PM's work is a bit roundabout and certainly doesn't address what I consider to be the most important, outstanding evidence. Alas, I am thankful for it's less relevant contributions in assisting to weed out some of the more vague and far-reaching theories.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2006 12:55:46 AM PDT
The problem here is the blind dependence on people like Steven Jones, whose work was never truly peer-reviewed, and who is NOT a structural or civil engineer. Ask yourself this. Why is it that the so-called "scholars" for 911 truth is not mostly populated with structural and civil engineers? Why do they have more philosophers, economics and psychology majors than competent engineers? An economics major like Morgan Reynolds has no business trying to explain the dynamics of how the Towers and Building 7 came down. He is not qualified.

And what is Steven Jones' specialty? Cold Fusion physics. This isn't even an established, practical science, and yet people like M.G. Meyers seem all to willing to blindly follow him and these others who are not really qualified to speak on many issues related to 911 destruction. Steven Jones' own BYU civil engineering department doesn't support him. Wonder why? LOL. Could it be because he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about?

And I just love how people try to argue that the Towers and Building 7 just had to come down by "controlled demolition," with no real proof of this claim, and most importantly, without ANY support from the very industry that constantly does controlled demolitions. Why is THAT? When you guys start answering and paying attention to THOSE pertinent questions, then perhaps you won't continue to fall for such sophistic 911 rhetoric superficially supported by scientific claims.

The book does do an excellent job of addressing and answering most of the major conspiracy claims. Sure there are many other claims out there, but most of those are not even worth addressing because they are so outlandish that you'd have to believe in a flat earth also to believe such theories. When people really stop and think, and really do some serious research from credible sources, then and only then will these theories disappear into the pit of deceptive oblivion where they belong.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2006 8:36:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2006 1:30:29 PM PST
M. G. Meyers says:
Thanks for your reply, Mr Daniels. There was a fellow by the name of Van Romero contracted by the DoD for the study of terrorist acts such as slamming planes into buildings who felt upon first viewing these collapses that they resembled controlled demolitions.

And then, there is demolitions expert Danny Jowenko who, after seeing the wtc7 collapse video for the first time says he's quite sure that's what it was...

And then there is a pair of structural engineers, Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider, both professor emeritus in their discipline, who chime right in, saying, "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives"...

I have seen what the engineering community has done, time and again, in response to raising interesting points about the engineering and the physics of 9/11. Time and again, I typically receive blase responses. The psychology of this is not insignificant. It takes time and work to actually get these people to sit down and roll up their shirtsleeves. And even then - even after presenting compelling data, they still have a tendency to drift away from it. Considering internally planted explosives makes people imagine huge networks of conspirators and their heads reel. The psychology is the most significant aspect of this thing.

But now, watch how Michael Shermer of Scientific American, makes precisely the same error in logic as does this book by PM...

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

From article:

And he goes on...
"For example, according to, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F."

And then he twists's case just like PM! Notice how while we do have plenty of evidence to show pooling molten metal in the rubble, along with strong evidence of boiling iron for months afterwards, the counterargument is twisted into saying that the steel does not need to melt in order for the building to collapse. I didn't see Mr. Shermer explain the heat required to liquify the steel. Did you?

Time and again, this is what happens. People don't actually look deeply into it these things with an open mind and open eyes. As far as what you suggest, you will also find that most of the structural engineering and demolition community doesn't even know that building 7 went down that day.

When you attack Steven Jones, you attack a better man, imo. If you would look at the contents of the 75-page document, you would see material that stands for itself. What you might also want to note is that we're referring to the presentation material for his lecture at the ISU physics dept (silly!) Show it to anyone, and ask for it to be refuted, if you dare. I think it makes quite an excellent point about how the source you cite from this book, prof. Richard Furehan, appears to have glossed over the topic of thermite reactions without really thinking it through. Happens all the time. Really rolling up the shirtsleeves and looking seriously into these things is what Shermer at Scientifc American appears to also have not done, as I have attempted to explain to you.

I don't doubt that you may have your beliefs about what did and did not happen that day, or perhaps that you may have to struggle with what all is implied by what may or may not have happened that day. It's all hundred thousand foot level grandiose and abstract reasoning, and typical of just not rolling up one's shirtsleeves and going into it.

For more evidence of liquified steel, check out this esteemed fellow's work, measuring the nano-particles produced for months after the collapses of the WTC, indicating boiling iron...

Professor emeritus Thomas Cahill...;read=88436

Spend a little time at, which is a larger source of information than this book. There are essays to be found there, by qualified physicists as well. Check for more papers here...
and here...

And here's a real fun response to Shermer's article at

p.s. Actually, Prof. Jones work is peer reviewed. Just read the bottom of the page at What you may also find is that there isn't anything peer reviewed in this book.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2006 7:20:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2006 7:29:22 PM PST
Mr Meyers. You seem to be mired in the 911 conspiracy theory. I've been to 911research and the so-called scholars for 911 truth sites. I've seen just about all the arguments. Your case is weak at best and pure dishonest deception at worst. You mention like 2 or 3 people in the relevant fields, while the vast majority of demolition experts and civil engineers disagree with your 2 or 3.

Romero has said from the beginning that he was misunderstood and misused by conspiracy folks. And the bottom line for me is very simple: everything that "looks" like something isn't necessarily what it looks like. Ever looked at sugar and salt? Ever heard of "fools gold"? So let's not play that game about what things look like. Sure, WTC 7 and even the Towers "looked" like controlled demolitions. But were they really? NO!

And there is no credible evidence to prove that they were. And with all the destruction that was created by the collapse of the Towers, it doesn't make sense for anyone to argue that that was "controlled." That was uncontrolled destruction, as over 19 other buidings and structures collapsed or partially collapsed that day. There was nothing controlled about that. Controlled demolitions are designed precisely to stop that kind of destruction, and yet you want us to believe that the terrorist attack was not really a terrorist attack but some alleged inside job and controlled demolition. No thanks. I can't buy that nonsense. You're not looking clearly at the facts and details.

And as far as Steven Jones is concerned, who, once again, is NOT speaking within his field when talking about civil engineering issues, his own civil engineering department doesn't find him credible. Take a look:

My point about Mr. Jones has nothing to do with me but what his own peers at his own university, who are more qualified than he is on the subject, say about his work.

And I don't see how a metals specialist "glossed over" anything. He made the simple and true point that thermite reactions can be produced in OTHER ways besides what Mr. Jones states. That is not a gloss it is a fact. And it just happens to be a fact that directly refutes Mr. Jones' claims.

Now a fire burns under a pile of rubble, and folks expect that the fire will go down without burning other things or perhaps burning hot enough to melt things. Now how is that? How many pools of melted steel or any other element have you seen at a controlled demolition?? Let me answer that for you: none. Why? Because demolitions don't melt steel - they cut through it and quickly. Demolitions don't leave melted steel or iron behind, and I've looked at several real controlled demolitions since this whole controversy started. But you guys ignore that little fact conveniently.

You try to say that Steve Jones' work is "peer reviewed" but it seems to me you don't even understand what that means. It is not "peer review" for a bunch of people who don't know your field of study review your work. Look again at the very list you suggested. Some of the people on it are hard to trace, but at least 4 of them are NOT academic peers to Mr. Jones. Lon Waters is in software computing, not physics or civil engineering. Diana Ralph is in social work of all things. Richard McGinn is into linguistics and languages. And Marcus Ford is into "humanities." This, sir, is NOT peer review. It is a deceptive attempt to CLAIM peer review. Pay attention and don't be deceived by this kind of nonsense. All those names come from the so-called scholars for 911 truth list, and they are NOT peers to Mr. Jones. Now you have to honestly admit that and realize what's going on. It's called deception. You like to talk about rolling up shirtsleeves but it seems you can't even do that yourself when it comes to a simple issue like the nature of true peer review. What does that tell me about the other areas of your research?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2006 2:08:49 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2006 10:07:27 AM PST
M. G. Meyers says:
How about the long list of highly qualified engineers who all supported the pancake theory, which has now been done away with? I don't suppose you have much to say about the devastating EPA fiasco where so many qualified personnel following 9/11, where they turned their backs on the toxic clouds those collapses produced. Or will you say that that is just another conspiracy theory? How about the official statements to the effect of saying that they cannot explain the preponderence of dust or the speed of the collapses? Again, these are highly qualified people.

"I don't believe fires caused the initiation of the collapses"
Interview with Structural Engineer Charles Pegelow
"Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1"
(and "Reply to Dr. Greening", same topic)
Mechanical Engineer Gordon Ross
"A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory"
Professor of Mechanical Engineering Judy Wood, PhD
Find link here:
"This is controlled demolition... A team of experts did this"
Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko
Same report by Danish demolitions expert Bent Lund (Danish)
"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts"
Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction
"WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives"
JŲrg Schneider, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction
"Why Did Iron Boil in the Rubble of the World Trade Center?"
Professor emeritus Thomas Cahill;read=88436
"The North Tower's Dust Cloud"
Jim Hoffman (physics)

Other names from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Member List:
Full Members:
Doyle Winterton, BES degree. Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering
Grant Williams, Commercial construction with emphasis on seismic and structural engineering
Jean-Pierre Petit, Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering
Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Leonard Olds, Professional metallurgist, Colorado School of Mines
Frank Legge, Ph.D., Chemistry, Solar Track Pty Ltd.
Jack Keller, Civil Engineering, Irrigation Engineering, Agricultural Engineering
Andrew Johnson, Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering
Greg Jenkins, PhD., Physics
Bruce R. Henry, Mathematics
Bill Hammel, Ph.D. Physics at U. Wisconsin
David Griscom, Physics of optical materials, Materials science and engineering, Author/co-author of nearly 200 publications
Derrick P. Grimmer, Physics, Alternative energy
Ted Elden, Architect
Steven Jones, Ph.D., Physicist
Kenneth Kuttler, Mathematics, BYU

Associate Members:
Frank Carmen, Physics PhD (BYU)
Patrick Gallagher, Mechanical Engineer
Eric Hermanson, Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering
Nick Hull, Particle Physics
Spero Larres, Physics and Mathematics
Michael Maguire, Mechanical engineering, Aeronatutical engineering
Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk, Physics and math
Ted Muga, Structural engineering
Leonard Olds, Professional metallurgist
RC Oliver, Jr., Chief Engineer
Kevin Ryan, Former Site Manager for EHL, a division of UL
Tom Spellman, Civil engineering, architecture
Ken Wrenn, Civil Engineer
Wayne Young, BS Civil Engineering

You'll also notice a couple BYU fellows in the above Scholars for 9/11 Truth list.

Van Romero's initial article is quite direct. More than a week later, a number of changes come to pass. Van Romero's story is completely reversed. And I will quote Romero directly, to avoid any confusion... "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse ... It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points."

If you would go to page 16 of Jones presentation, you can see pics with the following text...
"BYU experiment (May 2006): orange-yellow-hot steel cup pouring out liquid aluminum (silvery) onto pre-heated rusty steel plus gypsum and concrete: No exothermic reactions seen. (Empirical evidence against liquid-aluminum + rust reactions)"
Exothermic reactions don't just happen. Just look at the experiments! Get ahold of Furehan and ask him to take a look at this. In fact, the entire 75-page paper has alot of hands-on work being done in it. I still say that many of these consultants on the topic are hanging around at the 100,000 foot level and not really rolling up their shirtsleeves.

I have consulted with a local engineer, and we'll get back to it, but from the conversation so far, it would require pressure to melt the steel without having the necessary temperatures. I don't mind considering the temperatures a debatable issue. I do, however, appreciate the fact that Jones has secured samples from two different sites from pieces of the WTC, and in his presentation, shows a variety of elements indicating superthermite. All very interesting things to consider, if we could just do something about the fact that NIST has avoided peforming a couple of simple tasks....
Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
"...The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.""
"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

The line of inquiry I am most interested in is something I haven't seen PM touch, and if you want to see it, you can check my web page, at

Looks like you've got your opinion, and I've got mine. Good luck!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2006 7:01:56 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2006 7:04:45 PM PST
M.G. Meyers...Yes, I have my opinion and you have yours, but logic dictates that one of us has more facts than the other. And I do not agree that the pancake theory has been done away with. Some pancaking had to have occurred for the building to even fall in the first place with that kind of damage and load transferance. You threw up red herrings and didn't address the issues I raised. I am well aware of the so-called scholars list. I am also aware of the fact that it has changed. When it first came out, it barely had 2 civil or structural engineers on it. Now, all of a sudden, it seems they want to pretend that they have qualified people.

Well, if you did your homework, you would know that Judy Wood is not a civil engineer. I contacted the school she used to work at, and her specialty is DENTAL engineering. I have been in personal email contact with R.C. Oliver, and although he is listed as a "Chief Engineer," he is not a civil engineer. It is a work title that was given to him that has NOTHING to do with civil or structural engineering. Didn't know that, huh?

You see, this is deception. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. If you don't care about this deception, then I do know what to tell you. You don't care about the truth. You only care about anything that will superficially support your conspiracy belief. So yes, we have contrary opinions, but one of us is wrong. And I don't think you or anyone else can prove that I am the one.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2006 10:29:52 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2006 12:34:09 AM PST
M. G. Meyers says:
If you don't agree regarding the pancaking theory, then you do not agree with NIST, who has abandoned it. You call me full of red herrings, but if this venue were large enough, I'd show you a hundred different ways in which the official story either omits or distorts the facts. Here's the NIST quote...
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system-that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns-consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

I was not aware of how Judy Wood may have falsely presented herself, but I'll also say this, I certainly did not anticipate "Chief Engineer" to be a civil or structural engineer! BTW: I notified ST911 right away about Judy Wood. Did you?

And no more than that do I apply your "tent theory", but continue to proceed with what I do know. There's a worthy list of people in my previous post with lots of worthy things to say. In fact, I find what Judy Wood has to say to make a point worthy of rebuttal. Even FEMA stated they couldn't explain the collapse times. Also, the official theories have changed in attempts to explain what happened. In fact, the WTC7 collapse was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report and at this time NIST has not yet produced their report on it. Based upon your behavior here, I don't doubt that your knowing precedes your data. If you'd check my web page, which I can see you haven't, then you'd see I'd rather chase after the truth however the chips may fall, but unfortunately it's a sticky business when getting tangled up with those such as yourself who know... before they know. Know what I mean?

When my questions are answered, I'll be doing just fine. As far as I am concerned, you never are. Your blanketed approach to, for example, rendering the entire truth movement an act of deception is testimony to your religious conviction on the matter. That's not logic at all.

And don't even think of casting your blanket over the good works done by so many people on this topic. There are very real outstanding issues - far more in number than those revolving around the WTC - that are worthy of independent investigation.

For example, NIST has not investigated any other hypothesis but the planes and the ensuing fires - period! Did you know that? Well, since that hypothesis appears to be the foundational root of your entire universe, I don't suppose you consider such an approach unreasonable. And have you contacted Furehan yet regarding spontaneous creation of exothermic reactions? I haven't seen you mention it.

Religious debate is for the birds. There's really nothing I have more to provide on the topic here beyond what I've offered already. Having to "win" is a clear indication of your failure to meet the most basic credo of scientific mindedness; agnosticism. While I work with working hypothesis', you are apparently trapped inside of your conclusion.

Let me conclude with points I have tried to bring forward since the beginning. First off, a lot of participation has been too cursory in nature and lacking in a critical eye, or what I have referred to as "not rolling up the shirtsleeves", i.e. lacking in real motivation to explore various hypothesis. And that rolls right into point #2, which is the profound psychological implications of considering additional energies beyond the planes and ensuing fires. I've crossed alot of minds that don't even appear psychologically capable of considering it. I find these points repeatedly supported and categorically compelling because of that.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2006 9:59:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2006 11:37:23 AM PST
Well, all I have to say is that so far as I have studied the issues and the arguments from the "inside job" side of things, for the most part I find more deception and distortion than on the "official story" side. I don't "know before I know" but I only know as I have studied. That is all I claim. I know that if you're going to explain how a building collapsed, then you'd better know something about civil engineering or at least get information from those who do. The so-called 911 truth movement barely has any credible engineers on its side.

Books and websites and other truly peer-reviewed papers have been written refuting just about every point made by those you refer to. So I am not "trapped" in my conclusion. I am simply unconvinced because your side has no solid case for an "inside job." Your side is so busy cherry picking at every little anomoly, that you fail to ever honestly deal with the many anomolies in your own theories. If there is any major flaw in your camp's view, it is that. And until you take that beam out of your eyes, you will never be able to see clearly to remove a speck from our eyes.

And this has nothing to do with "religious conviction." It has everything to do with being able to discern truth from error. I cast no "blanket" as you call it. I see deception everywhere, from fake peer-review articles to people claiming to have authority on civil engineering when they don't to having a listing as "Chief Engineer" without any qualification as to what kind of engineer (giving off perhaps the false impression of having relevant engineering authority).

So no, this has to do with what I have seen and investigated in detail. And once again, Steve Jones is out of his field. That should matter to you. Thomas Eagar of MIT calls his work "naive and unscientific." That should matter to you. Steve Jones' own civil engineering department at BYU does not find him credible. That should matter to you. His work has yet to be truly peer reviewed. That should matter to you. The vast majority of civil and structural engineers do not agree with "inside job" conspiratorial claims. That should mean something to you. The vast majority of those listed on the "scholars for 911 truth" website are not authorities in the relevant fields to tell us how the Towers and building 7 came down. That should matter to you. What the heck does an economist like Morgan Reynolds or a philosophy major like Jim Fetzer know about civil or structural engineering? Look up the ad verecundiam fallacy. That should matter as well.

That is a part of rolling up shirtsleeves when it comes to discerning truth that needs to be done as well. I am still investigating various views and theories, but so far I see no credible evidence or sound reasoning for some "inside job."
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15 Next ›

Review Details