Debunking 9/11 Myths
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Debunking 9/11 Myths (Hearst, August 15, 2006, ISBN 158816635X) is a book based on the March 2005 Popular Mechanics article 9/11: Debunking The Myths [1] responding to various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Debunking 9/11 Myths was written by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, and published in August 2006. Popular Mechanics interviewed over 300 experts for the book.[2]
Contents |
[edit] Coverage
It has been referred to by mainstream news sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle [3], Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor [4], The Chicago Tribune [5], BBC [6], The Courier-Mail [7]
It has been heavily referenced to by the Counter Misinformation Team in their "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories" [8]
It has been referred to in Information Clearing House [9], 9/11 Citizens Watch[10], Rense [11], Scholars for 9/11 Truth [12], Guerrilla News Network [13], What Really Happened [14], Free Republic [15]
[edit] Criticism
Journalist Paul Craig Roberts stated, "The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings "pancaked" at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. Whether the false reporting by Popular Mechanics and television are due to incompetence or to complicity in a government cover-up, I do not know."[9] This is false. Popular Mechanics claims the building fell at less than free fall speed. Free fall speed would have been eight seconds, PM states that it fell at around 12-15 seconds.
[edit] Conspiracy claims
The book addresses 20 popular 9/11 conspiracy theory claims, such as "No steel-framed high-rise had ever collapsed before because of fire?". Debunking 9/11 Myths points out that the World Trade Center buildings were hit by Boeing 767 aircraft travelling at over 500 miles per hour, slicing through numerous support columns, shifting load onto the remaining columns. The subsequent fire reached temperatures sufficient for these steel columns to lose their structural strength, allow the floors to sag, and eventually collapse. The authors also point out that the impact of the aircraft caused fireproofing insulation to be knocked off the remaining columns, thus making them more vulnerable to the heat. [16]
[edit] References
- ^ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
- ^ Curiel, Jonathan. "The Conspiracy to Rewrite 9/11", San Francisco Chronicle, 2006, September 3.
- ^ [1]
- ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207406,00.html
- ^ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0608280199aug28,1,6552279.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4990686.stm
- ^ http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20341165-5003406,00.html
- ^ http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355
- ^ a b [2] on Information Clearing House
- ^ http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=928
- ^ [3] [4]
- ^ http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
- ^ http://www.gnn.tv/threads/19083/Charles_Goyette_eats_Popular_Mechanics_9_11_myth_expert_for_breakfast
- ^ http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_911.html
- ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684582/posts
- ^ Carroll, Vincent. "On Point: 9/11 theories burst", Rocky Mountain News, 2006, August 29.
[edit] External links
- Odeo podcast with Popular Mechanics executive editor David Dunbar, contributing editor Brad Reagan and editor-in-chief James Meigs
- Debunking the 9/11 Myths
- The book's afterward, written by Popular Mechanics editor-in-chief James Meigs
- Popular Mechanics Debunked by Jon Gold
- Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 by Peter Meyer
- Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth by Jim Hoffman
- Grassroots InfoMedia debunks Popular Mechanics
