Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts

by James B. Meigs, Brad Reagan, David Dunbar

Book Overview

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... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 158816635X
• ISBN13: 9781588166357
• Release Date: August 2006
• Publisher: Hearst Communications
• Length: 170 Pages
• Weight: 0.64 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 5.6" x 9.4"

Customer Reviews

Debunking 9/11 Myths

On September 11, 2001 America was under attack by Al -Qaeda terrorists. These terrorists unleashed one of the most gruesome attacks ever on American soil. Just days after this catastrophic event the first conspiracy theories started to circulate. Now eight years later there are thousands of claims and hundreds of websites that support these claims that the US government is connected to the 9-11 attacks. Not one book until Debunking 9/11 Myths has pinpointed the major claims and then gives evidence that debunks the claims. I have never before read a book like Debunking 9/11 Myths. The format of this book keeps the reader on the edge of their seat for the full 150 pages. Not once was there a dull spot in this book. This is because the book is split up into 24 different claims. Each claim is different from the rest so you never are given the same information twice. After each claim, David Dunbar the author of this book gives the reader evidence that debunks the claim. This evidence usually deals with expert analysis in a specific field of study. An example of this takes place in one of my favorite claims in the book that is called the "puff of dust " claim. This claim deals with the fact that puffs of dust were ejected from the side of the building when the World Trade Centers collapsed. One engineer claimed, "The concrete clouds shooting out of the building are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from an explosion." Dunbar takes this claim and then finds scientific proven evidence that debunks the claim. He firsts gets an expert demolitionist who says that it would take at least three months to rig up the world trade center for a large scale detonation that would bring the towers down. He then goes on and says that the floors "pancaking" effect gives off the perception of a controlled demolition and that the "puffs of dust" are natural when the buildings are going down. He says that the air has to find any way out so it probably went down the elevator shafts and then out of the building. This is just an example of how David Dunbar is able to research each specific claim by getting specialist in each field to give there opinion of what truly happened. Debunking 9/11 Myths, does not take the claims that people have never heard about to debunk but debunks the high profile claims. Everybody has heard of the claims that the South Tower was struck by a military aircraft instead of a commercial jet and that a missile struck the Pentagon instead of a Boeing 757. Dunbar goes into great detail on these claims which is one of the reasons why this is such a popular book. Not only does he go into detail but he gives picture evidence that helps you really understand the claim. An example of this is deals with Pentagon. Dunbar shows a picture right after the crash of the wreckage around the pentagon. The picture shows remnants of landing gear from the plane right next to a fire fighter. That picture alone is key to debunking the claim that a m

If you've already made up your mind that 911 was an inside job don't bother reading this

I have carefully read with, I hope, an open mind, the various theories about the causes of 911. Carefully watched the videos from the what is called the 911 truth movement. I definitally start from knowing my government lies to me and is, to boot, incompetent. These other reports of explanations of 911 did indeed raise unanswered questions but fell short of convincing me that there was an inside job. I had found some holes in the various conspiracy theories -- but this book revealed to me and documented something ELSE: (a) That there was in the truth movement significant amounts of what I call "cherry picking" the evidence (reporting on what supports their position and ignoring what contradicts it.) This book also (b) documented, by doing their journalistic homework and actually tracking down witnesses (who had been quoted by the conspiracy theorists in support of their ideas)something I did NOT know: That witnesses had been quoted out of context, misquoted, and their words used to state exactly the opposite of what the witness, when interviewed by Popular Mechanics, actually meant and saw. This book does, to me, a convincing job of showing that many of the "unexplained things" (such as why the planes were not intercepted)are not as far fetched as the conspiracy theorists would have me believe. Well, there's far too much detail to list here. After all it's a whole book. If you REALLY want what I call an objective view and are open minded, and can accept the reality that there are details about 911 or any catastrophic event that may never be explained, you might like this book and value it. But DON'T expect it to convince anyone who is an avid advocate of "our government did it" or any similar belief. Why? Because the very nature of believing there is a SECRET and POWERFUL group that did this makes it absolutely impossible to ever prove there isn't one. Here's why: Bring up the fact that some item of evidence that SHOULD exist if there was a conspiracy doesn't exist, then the reply is "of course not, it's SECRET." Bring up any evidence that it was done by middle easterners in commercial airliners with box cutters and that can be dismissed as fake evidence (after all, a POWERFUL group of conspirators can fake any evidence, right?) Bring forth any witnesses that offer testimony that contradicts the secret-conspiracy theory and they can be dismissed as either "under pressure from authorities" or "part of the conspiracy" or "just mistaken." Do a good enough job of questioning the credibility of the conspiracy theory and _your_ motives will be questioned and the suggestion made that you might even be part of the conspiracy. Bring forth any technological expert that testifies to anything that supports the conventional view or contradicts the conspiracy view and they can be dismissed as either incompetent, paid off, or part of the conspiracy. This does not mean I deny there are unexplained facts, conflicting witness reports, nor tha

What Are You Gonna Do?

What are you gonna do? People will believe what people will believe. No amount of truthful explaination will ever deter them from what they want to believe. Yeah, you disagree with them and you're a fascist, or you're a schill for the Bush Administration , or you're a simpleton who just "doesn't get it". Oh, well. No matter how many times the design of the WTC is explained, they will still rant on about "controlled explosions" (new catchphrase for the sociologists out there). They will foam at the mouth about "pancaking" and it's impossibility. They will trot out some building in Spain that burned for days or whatever and didn't collapse. Yup, OK. They will know about but have no proof like addresses or whereabouts of the hijackers who "turned up" alive. Shu-ure. Multiple witnesses who saw a plane hit the Petagon, or watched one come out of the sky in PA will be dismissed as goverments plants and toadies. Loved ones who talked to family and friends on planes are emotionally distraught because either cell phones don't work on planes (must have been the drugs I was taking when I talked to you last week from over Arizona, Ma) or actors, or voice professionals were the ones talking to them. After all, the passengers were probably landed in another location and executed. Slamming them into a building and killing them would be too complicated, as easy as it sounds. Let's not leave too many loose ends. So the suddenly "right wing" Halliburton organ of Popular Mechanics is dismissed when they calmy and rationally explain what happened on 9/11. It figures. When the fantasies that hold people's mundane existences together are shattered, look out, they may bite. If you are a rational person, this book is a fascinating insight into how these events transpired, and how a conspiracy is laughable due to those same explainations. It is an expansion of a well written article in the magazine that should have ended this conspiracy NONSENSE when it was first published. But this is America, and we have all the material goods we want, so we have to entertain ourselves somehow. But, hey, I don't want to start any conspiracy rumors.

This book is a public service

If you've looked at conspiracy web sites, watched "Loose Change", saw the C-SPAN presentation, and you are curious about the peculiarities in the events of 9/11 that these groups and individuals are turning up, then you owe it to yourself to read this book as well. It is so well written. It gives clear and complete facts and doesn't take any more of your time than it has to. It is not political. The discussion of how the twin towers and wtc 7 collapsed is excellent, as is the explanation of how the damage to the Pentagon is consistent with being hit by a passenger jet. The book deals with the issues that an engineer or physicist would be likely to address. It doesn't discuss the non-scientific accusations, such as the hijackers being alive and well or the participation of the Pentagon pilot in previous Pentagon attack exercises. But what they do cover is substantial and I thank them for it.

The Facts Prove 911 was NOT an "inside job"

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