What do you think?
Rate this book
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
A decade after the World Trade Center disaster, rampant speculation abounds on what actually happened. Wild talk flourishes on the Internet, TV, and radio. Was the Pentagon really struck by a missile? Was the untimely death of Barry Jennings, who witnessed the collapse of Tower 7 and thought he heard “explosions,” actually an assassination ? Not everyone is convinced the truth is out there. Once again, in this updated edition of the critically acclaimed Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics counters the conspiracy theorists with a dose of hard, cold facts.
The magazine consulted more than 300 experts in fields like air traffic control, aviation, civil engineering, fire fighting, and metallurgy, and then rigorously, meticulously, and scientifically analyzed the 25 most persistent 9/11 conspiracy theories. Each one was conclusively refuted with facts, not politics and rumors, including five new myths involving the collapse of 7 World Trade Center and four longstanding conjectures now considered in the context of new research.
276 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2006
75 people are currently reading
731 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
December 20, 2008
A friend of mine is a big 9/11 conspiracy theory guy. I have heard of this book from a special on some anniversary of 9/11 that I saw so I thought I would check out this book. No matter which side you land(the government story or conspiracy theorists or not sure what to believe), this book will not really help you get a deeper understanding of what happened. Popular Mechanics picks a few select conspiracy theories and tries to debunk them. Unfortunately, they do not really back up their debunking with facts but make disparaging remarks about the conspiracy folks instead. Poorly researched or poorly written, it is hard to tell.
April 16, 2012
It turns out that 9/11 conspiracy theories look a lot less plausible when subjected to fact checking. The looniest of the theories never really made sense, but given the convenience of 9/11 in enabling the massive power grab by the Bush administration, and its use as a pretext for the long-desired invasion of Iraq (long desired by Cheney and the neo-cons, that is), there was some appeal to the idea that the Bush administration possibly had prior knowledge of the coming attacks. Even that is a bit of a stretch: it would imply better foresight and planning than was ever evident in that administration.
This book pretty effectively takes apart each of the claims of 9/11 conspiracists, showing how the theories are often based on made up facts, facts taken out of context, and pure conjecture. One common theme in 9/11 conspiracy theories is that if the 'official' explanation of an event is not absolutely airtight, then we should conclude that the only alternative is a massive conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of federal employees. A sort of 'god of the gaps' argument, in other words.
The authors of this book seem a bit mystified that so many people have expressed belief, or at least have not entirely rejected, the conspiracy theories. I have my own theory about that: when your government routinely lies to you, keeps its decision making secret, tells you that the decisions it makes are based on information that you don't have (and you later discover that that, too, was a lie), and does its utmost to punish those who seek to publicize the truth - given all that, you are likely to suspect that anything the government tells you is a lie. If Cheney had said the sun rises in the east, I would have been inclined to get up at dawn just to verify for myself.
This book pretty effectively takes apart each of the claims of 9/11 conspiracists, showing how the theories are often based on made up facts, facts taken out of context, and pure conjecture. One common theme in 9/11 conspiracy theories is that if the 'official' explanation of an event is not absolutely airtight, then we should conclude that the only alternative is a massive conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of federal employees. A sort of 'god of the gaps' argument, in other words.
The authors of this book seem a bit mystified that so many people have expressed belief, or at least have not entirely rejected, the conspiracy theories. I have my own theory about that: when your government routinely lies to you, keeps its decision making secret, tells you that the decisions it makes are based on information that you don't have (and you later discover that that, too, was a lie), and does its utmost to punish those who seek to publicize the truth - given all that, you are likely to suspect that anything the government tells you is a lie. If Cheney had said the sun rises in the east, I would have been inclined to get up at dawn just to verify for myself.
July 28, 2011
I was going through a phase where I was obsessing over 9/11 because of movie I saw, and one of my close friends is a believer in conspiracy theories. It wasn't until I was arguing against her that I realized that most of what I believed (just like most of what she believed) was based on hearsay. So, I decided to do my own research, that way, I'd know what I really believe, and have evidence to believe it. So, I bought this book for the non-conspiracy side, and watched lots of conspiracy support documentaries for the other side. This book has thoroughly convinced me that conspiracy theorists are wrong, even more than I was already convinced. "Popular Mechanics" used common language to explain the complicated engineering and scientific arguments included in the book. I didn't feel like I was missing anything. Also, the pictures and the book's arrangement was very helpful for understanding. The only downside? Now I'm obsessed with conspiracy theories in general. Titanic/Olympic switch anyone?
July 30, 2011
This was a very easy read, logically laid out. The authors began each section with an outline of the myth, then went about spelling out the truth scientifically. What lends credibility to their arguments is that they were not afraid to say "we don't know entirely" when the data was inconclusive, such as the fall of tower 7. Generally, they come up with sensible, well-documented rebuttals to most if not all of the various 9/11 myths. With the information available in this Popular Mechanics book, the excellent Nova special on the architectural aspects of the fall of the towers, and simply watching the minute by minute live news footage of 9/11 available on the web, it's hard to believe people can still buy into wild conspiracy theories. This book is not exhaustive by any means, but it is an excellent primer into the theories that are out there and the actual scientific truth that explains the events of that horrible day.
September 26, 2018
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts by Popular Mechanics
“Debunking 9/11 Myths” is an excellent brief book that debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories with the use of sound investigative practices. Popular Mechanics provides readers with a useful reference that addresses the most common conspiracy theory claims. This insightful 192-page book includes the following five chapters: 1. The Planes, 2. World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2, 3. World Trade Center Building 7, 4. The Pentagon, and 5. Flight 93.
Positives:
1. Well researched and well written.
2. A much needed reference to combat the 9/11 conspirators.
3. Logically laid out. The authors made the right decision in addressing the most common conspiracy claims. They start with the claim and proceed to debunk with facts.
4. Lays out the main conclusion upfront and proceeds to meticulously debunk unfounded claims. “Our investigation found no evidence in support of the conspiracy claims—but many cases in which facts cited by the theorists had been deliberately twisted.”
5. Setting the record straight on what skills were needed to crash the planes. “The terrorists were not highly skilled pilots, but on September 11 they did not have to perform what flight-training professionals consider to be the three most difficult aspects of flying: taking off, flying through inclement weather, and landing.”
6. Another plane claim debunked. “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.”
7. Sound conclusions based on EVIDENCE not speculations. “In the five years since 9/11, they have been the subject of lengthy investigations and engineering school symposiums, together involving hundreds of experts from academia and private industry, as well as the government. The conclusions reached by these experts have been consistent: A combination of physical damage from the airplane crashes and prolonged exposure to the resulting fires ultimately destroyed the structural integrity of all three buildings.”
8. The reality behind the collapse of the towers. “At the time of impact, the planes were each carrying around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Jet fuel burns at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Celsius (2,012 to 2,190 degrees Fahrenheit), significantly less than the 1,510 degrees Celsius (2,750 degrees Fahrenheit) typically required to melt steel. However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.”
9. The power of reputable peer reviews. “In the decade since September 11, 2001, there have been no fewer than 50 scientific, peer-reviewed journal articles and international symposia presentations about the collapse of the Twin Towers. The findings of professors, engineers, federal employees, and private contractors, which appear in publications as varied as the Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, and Welding Journal, all agree: The towers fell as a result of fires that weakened steel beams and columns near the points of the plane impacts.”
10. World Trade Center Building 7 gets investigated. “The entire building shell above collapsed as a single unit. “What you’re seeing is an interior collapse, then (it moves) to the outside,” Sunder says. “What you’re getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it’s not.”
11. Correcting the word twisting of conspirators. “Silverstein released a statement on September 5, 2005, saying his comments were misinterpreted. He said he was referring to his desire to pull a squadron of firefighters from the building. The statement read in part: “Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.” Firefighters contacted by Popular Mechanics confirm that “pull” is a common firefighting term for removing personnel from a dangerous structure.”
12. Did a missile or a plane attack the Pentagon? “Hundreds of morning commuters saw the plane as it made its low-level approach—dozens of them told reporters that they recognized it not only as a passenger jet but also as an American Airlines plane.”
13. A look at the Pentagon’s structure. “A number of windows near the impact area did indeed survive the initial concussion and ensuing explosion, because that’s exactly what they were designed to do—the windows in that section of the Pentagon are blast-resistant.”
14. What the conspiracy theorists see versus what actually happened. “But conspiracy theorists see a more sinister tale: They assert that Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile fired by an F-16 or a mysterious white plane.”
15. Just the facts. “Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells Popular Mechanics that no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheet metal, however, did land in the lake.”
16. An excellent Afterword that explains the key techniques used by conspiracy theorists. “The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.”
17. Photos and appendices.
Negatives:
1. A timeline would have been helpful.
2. The book was screaming for maps and diagrams to help readers visualize the chain of events.
3. List of the victims would have added value.
In summary, the authors did a good job of addressing the most common conspiracy theories. The book could have used a timeline and better supplemental information but what’s hear is useful and is laid out logically. I recommend it.
Further suggestions: “102 Minutes” by Jim Dwyer, “Hotel 9/11” by Joyce Ng, “From the Inside Out” by Erik O. Ronningen, “Let’s Roll” by Lisa Beamer, and “The 9/11 Commission Report” by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.
“Debunking 9/11 Myths” is an excellent brief book that debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories with the use of sound investigative practices. Popular Mechanics provides readers with a useful reference that addresses the most common conspiracy theory claims. This insightful 192-page book includes the following five chapters: 1. The Planes, 2. World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2, 3. World Trade Center Building 7, 4. The Pentagon, and 5. Flight 93.
Positives:
1. Well researched and well written.
2. A much needed reference to combat the 9/11 conspirators.
3. Logically laid out. The authors made the right decision in addressing the most common conspiracy claims. They start with the claim and proceed to debunk with facts.
4. Lays out the main conclusion upfront and proceeds to meticulously debunk unfounded claims. “Our investigation found no evidence in support of the conspiracy claims—but many cases in which facts cited by the theorists had been deliberately twisted.”
5. Setting the record straight on what skills were needed to crash the planes. “The terrorists were not highly skilled pilots, but on September 11 they did not have to perform what flight-training professionals consider to be the three most difficult aspects of flying: taking off, flying through inclement weather, and landing.”
6. Another plane claim debunked. “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.”
7. Sound conclusions based on EVIDENCE not speculations. “In the five years since 9/11, they have been the subject of lengthy investigations and engineering school symposiums, together involving hundreds of experts from academia and private industry, as well as the government. The conclusions reached by these experts have been consistent: A combination of physical damage from the airplane crashes and prolonged exposure to the resulting fires ultimately destroyed the structural integrity of all three buildings.”
8. The reality behind the collapse of the towers. “At the time of impact, the planes were each carrying around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Jet fuel burns at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Celsius (2,012 to 2,190 degrees Fahrenheit), significantly less than the 1,510 degrees Celsius (2,750 degrees Fahrenheit) typically required to melt steel. However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.”
9. The power of reputable peer reviews. “In the decade since September 11, 2001, there have been no fewer than 50 scientific, peer-reviewed journal articles and international symposia presentations about the collapse of the Twin Towers. The findings of professors, engineers, federal employees, and private contractors, which appear in publications as varied as the Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, and Welding Journal, all agree: The towers fell as a result of fires that weakened steel beams and columns near the points of the plane impacts.”
10. World Trade Center Building 7 gets investigated. “The entire building shell above collapsed as a single unit. “What you’re seeing is an interior collapse, then (it moves) to the outside,” Sunder says. “What you’re getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it’s not.”
11. Correcting the word twisting of conspirators. “Silverstein released a statement on September 5, 2005, saying his comments were misinterpreted. He said he was referring to his desire to pull a squadron of firefighters from the building. The statement read in part: “Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.” Firefighters contacted by Popular Mechanics confirm that “pull” is a common firefighting term for removing personnel from a dangerous structure.”
12. Did a missile or a plane attack the Pentagon? “Hundreds of morning commuters saw the plane as it made its low-level approach—dozens of them told reporters that they recognized it not only as a passenger jet but also as an American Airlines plane.”
13. A look at the Pentagon’s structure. “A number of windows near the impact area did indeed survive the initial concussion and ensuing explosion, because that’s exactly what they were designed to do—the windows in that section of the Pentagon are blast-resistant.”
14. What the conspiracy theorists see versus what actually happened. “But conspiracy theorists see a more sinister tale: They assert that Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile fired by an F-16 or a mysterious white plane.”
15. Just the facts. “Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells Popular Mechanics that no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheet metal, however, did land in the lake.”
16. An excellent Afterword that explains the key techniques used by conspiracy theorists. “The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.”
17. Photos and appendices.
Negatives:
1. A timeline would have been helpful.
2. The book was screaming for maps and diagrams to help readers visualize the chain of events.
3. List of the victims would have added value.
In summary, the authors did a good job of addressing the most common conspiracy theories. The book could have used a timeline and better supplemental information but what’s hear is useful and is laid out logically. I recommend it.
Further suggestions: “102 Minutes” by Jim Dwyer, “Hotel 9/11” by Joyce Ng, “From the Inside Out” by Erik O. Ronningen, “Let’s Roll” by Lisa Beamer, and “The 9/11 Commission Report” by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.
February 11, 2018
I know about the conspiracy theories, OK? But this book lays out very clearly to me why none of them are true, and inspired me to actually read the commission report (which I have done, review later).
Popular Mechanics took a lot of grief for it, including in the sense of people "griefing" them. But they lay out the reasons that the government is right, showing the engineering and physics of what really happened on that day.
It's comforting sometimes to believe in conspiracies. But Occam's Razor says the most likely explanation is usually a correct one, and Popular Mechanics shows how there don't need to be bombs to have modern, open space paper-heavy office buildings fall when they're hit by huge modern jets laden with fuel. They explain how modern airplanes work, and that the takeoff and landings are the hardest part - the parts the hijackers didn't need to worry about, since they didn't care about either.
(And by the way, this is backed up by pilots I know and any really good episode of Air Disasters, for goodness' sake. To willingly fly a plane into something, you just have to be already in the air, have some familiarity with instrument layout in that plane and how to fly once in the air, and a big enough target.)
They explain just fine what happened to the Pentagon, to WTC7, and to the Twin Towers. For example, I keep wondering why it's not obvious to people that steel doesn't have to melt to soften. Put a cup full of chocolate pieces from a candy bar on your laptop and wait - they won't melt except perhaps at the bottom, but they will soften enough to bend them. To lose building integrity, you just need steel to soften. This book explains clearly how and why the fire got intense enough to soften the steel, and once it started to go the entire building lost its integrity. This isn't rocket science, folks.
Similarly, they explain why there wasn't a cartoon-like airplane-shaped hole in the Pentagon. The wings just aren't that strong. They'll get ripped off and disintegrate, and that's exactly what the investigators found. I don't know why this doesn't make sense to people. Try pushing a balsawood plane through a few sheets of paper stapled together and you get the same thing, except the force you exert isn't enough to disintegrate the wings when they come off.
Understand that I told people before the 2000 election that we'd be at war within ten months - missed by just a bit. I am primed to believe the worst of our government! But while I believe that there were people who leaped to take advantage of this event, I don't think there were bombs. I don't think the planes were secretly flown to some Air Force base somewhere and the people on board taken off and then killed or whatever. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity - and I do believe that government was stupid. But I don't need to believe in the conspiracy theories. The facts are enough by themselves.
Want facts? Read this. Five of five stars.
Popular Mechanics took a lot of grief for it, including in the sense of people "griefing" them. But they lay out the reasons that the government is right, showing the engineering and physics of what really happened on that day.
It's comforting sometimes to believe in conspiracies. But Occam's Razor says the most likely explanation is usually a correct one, and Popular Mechanics shows how there don't need to be bombs to have modern, open space paper-heavy office buildings fall when they're hit by huge modern jets laden with fuel. They explain how modern airplanes work, and that the takeoff and landings are the hardest part - the parts the hijackers didn't need to worry about, since they didn't care about either.
(And by the way, this is backed up by pilots I know and any really good episode of Air Disasters, for goodness' sake. To willingly fly a plane into something, you just have to be already in the air, have some familiarity with instrument layout in that plane and how to fly once in the air, and a big enough target.)
They explain just fine what happened to the Pentagon, to WTC7, and to the Twin Towers. For example, I keep wondering why it's not obvious to people that steel doesn't have to melt to soften. Put a cup full of chocolate pieces from a candy bar on your laptop and wait - they won't melt except perhaps at the bottom, but they will soften enough to bend them. To lose building integrity, you just need steel to soften. This book explains clearly how and why the fire got intense enough to soften the steel, and once it started to go the entire building lost its integrity. This isn't rocket science, folks.
Similarly, they explain why there wasn't a cartoon-like airplane-shaped hole in the Pentagon. The wings just aren't that strong. They'll get ripped off and disintegrate, and that's exactly what the investigators found. I don't know why this doesn't make sense to people. Try pushing a balsawood plane through a few sheets of paper stapled together and you get the same thing, except the force you exert isn't enough to disintegrate the wings when they come off.
Understand that I told people before the 2000 election that we'd be at war within ten months - missed by just a bit. I am primed to believe the worst of our government! But while I believe that there were people who leaped to take advantage of this event, I don't think there were bombs. I don't think the planes were secretly flown to some Air Force base somewhere and the people on board taken off and then killed or whatever. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity - and I do believe that government was stupid. But I don't need to believe in the conspiracy theories. The facts are enough by themselves.
Want facts? Read this. Five of five stars.
December 6, 2014
If you plan on reading this book to dispel any doubt about any conspiracies regarding 9/11, don't bother. While explaining certain scenarios with some good detail, you almost want to believe every "fact" about all 4 planes that day. While there is little doubt that 2 planes went into the Twin Towers, I wasn't moved or swayed by the explanations of Flight 93, or the mystery surrounding the Pentagon. I was looking for more concrete evidence on things other than "that guy said he saw that". It felt empty.
May 1, 2014
I loved this book, plain and simple. It was an easy straight to the point read that did not drift from the point it was trying to make. The point being that conspiracy theorists with regard to 9/11 are coming from a perspective based on unsubstantiated facts and theories. This is a must read, especially if you are looking for something that truly dives into the facts of what happened and why it happened.
July 21, 2017
Imagine you have a chocolate bar you've kept in the freezer. It's hard and more likely to break than bend. It's definitely not melted.
Now imagine you keep that bar on your desk in a normal room temperature room. It won't be as hard, but it's still more likely to break than bend. It's not melted.
Now imagine you have the bar in a 87F degree room. It's still not melted. But it's much softer and you might be able to get it to bend before it breaks.
Of course, if you hold it in your hand for long enough, it will melt. But you don't have to get it melted to get it to the point where the structure of the chocolate is compromised. That, my friends, is exactly what happened to the steel in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. Like the candy bar, steel will bend at a lower temperature than it melts. But even bendy steel can bring down a building.
This shouldn't be rocket science. It shouldn't take a team of engineers from Popular Mechanics and the most prestigious universities to say "Hey, steel bends. If enough steel beams sag, the floor they support will fall. Fire retardant can be scraped off. Offices have paper and paper burns, didja know? Aluminum melts at lower than steel. Oh, and construction methods of both skyscrapers and planes are different now than they were in the 1930s. If you compromise enough beams in a building, it's coming down." And yet, that's exactly what it did take.
This is a sad but very important book to read if you want to know the truth of what happened to WTC 1, 2, and 7 and the Pentagon, and what happened to Flight 93. I wish I hadn't had to read it. I wish that many people could take the simple analogy of a chocolate bar in a warm room and understand how that applies. I wish that four men hadn't passed just enough flying to be able to take a plane in the air and point it at a target.
And yet.
Five of five stars.
Now imagine you keep that bar on your desk in a normal room temperature room. It won't be as hard, but it's still more likely to break than bend. It's not melted.
Now imagine you have the bar in a 87F degree room. It's still not melted. But it's much softer and you might be able to get it to bend before it breaks.
Of course, if you hold it in your hand for long enough, it will melt. But you don't have to get it melted to get it to the point where the structure of the chocolate is compromised. That, my friends, is exactly what happened to the steel in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. Like the candy bar, steel will bend at a lower temperature than it melts. But even bendy steel can bring down a building.
This shouldn't be rocket science. It shouldn't take a team of engineers from Popular Mechanics and the most prestigious universities to say "Hey, steel bends. If enough steel beams sag, the floor they support will fall. Fire retardant can be scraped off. Offices have paper and paper burns, didja know? Aluminum melts at lower than steel. Oh, and construction methods of both skyscrapers and planes are different now than they were in the 1930s. If you compromise enough beams in a building, it's coming down." And yet, that's exactly what it did take.
This is a sad but very important book to read if you want to know the truth of what happened to WTC 1, 2, and 7 and the Pentagon, and what happened to Flight 93. I wish I hadn't had to read it. I wish that many people could take the simple analogy of a chocolate bar in a warm room and understand how that applies. I wish that four men hadn't passed just enough flying to be able to take a plane in the air and point it at a target.
And yet.
Five of five stars.
October 1, 2017
Popular Mechanics takes on the 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorists with an in-depth investigation into their claims in Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. Expanding on their 2005 article which looked at and answered a series of questions Truthers claimed where being ignored by the mainstream media, Popular Mechanics takes on a host of new claims conspiracy theorist have come up with; such cell phones not working at United 93’s altitude, bombs being attached to the planes that hit the World Trade Center, the 16-foot hole in the Pentagon being too small for a commercial airliner to make, and Tower 1 and 2 collapsing by controlled demolition. With detailed analysis and interviews with top level experts, these theories are looked into and debunked. On the face of it the conspiracy theories about 9/11 are perplexing and peaks one’s curiosity, but the truth, the scientific explanations, are even more fascinating. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts is an extraordinarily compelling exposé into both the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the 9/11 conspiracy movement itself.
November 29, 2017
The subtitle makes me wonder how many people even think about the words they use and whether they have any meaning. For decades, the term "conspiracy theory" has been an easy way to dismiss any criticism of any official story. But unless you believe they were all lone nuts operating independently and simultaneously, the 19 Arab hijackers, plus KSM, OBL, Zacarias Moussaoui, Saudi/Pakistani financiers and whomever else, all adds up to...a criminal conspiracy. The official story is itself, by definition, a conspiracy theory. Even worse, huge sections of the 9/11 Commission Report depend on "confessions" and hearsay obtained through repeated torture, which are obviously not worth much.
April 7, 2018
One of my favorite parts of this book was reading all the online reviews from people who seem to think that Popular Mechanics magazine was established as a mouthpiece for the Rothschilds, the Gettys, and Colonel Sanders with his wee beady eyes...
December 31, 2015
Just one long magazine article, poorly researched with no referencing and a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I bought the book expecting thoroughly researched facts and was disappointed.
April 4, 2018
Excellent discussion of a horrific event!
September 17, 2018
Short, concise, well documented and well written.
March 10, 2019
9/11 Truthers are dead wrong.
January 15, 2018
Comprehensive rebuttal of all the major 'conspiracies' and provides rational explanations for the events on 9/11. Focuses on the day itself rather than the lead up. 'The Looming Tower' by Lawrence Wright and 'Masterminds of Terror' by Yosri Fouda are recommended for a good break down of what led to the 9/11 attacks.
It covers WTC 1 & 2, WTC 7, Flight 93, Pentagon/77, Nano-thermite, Controlled demolition, Tower free-fall, seismic spikes, auxiliary pods on aircraft, the white jet, F16 response time, Indian Lake, 1945 Empire State Building comparison, NORAD capability pre 9/11 etc etc.
In fairness whilst this is comprehensive and goes into a lot of detail (inc extensive excerpts from the NIST report in the appendix), you wont convince any hard core 'twoofer' with the information here. Disrupting and dismantling a deeply held worldview is not easily done and many will never concede in this area no matter how much you appeal to reason. To quote a good piece from the book:
"Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not."
As a side note, this is a review for the 2011 revised edition.
It covers WTC 1 & 2, WTC 7, Flight 93, Pentagon/77, Nano-thermite, Controlled demolition, Tower free-fall, seismic spikes, auxiliary pods on aircraft, the white jet, F16 response time, Indian Lake, 1945 Empire State Building comparison, NORAD capability pre 9/11 etc etc.
In fairness whilst this is comprehensive and goes into a lot of detail (inc extensive excerpts from the NIST report in the appendix), you wont convince any hard core 'twoofer' with the information here. Disrupting and dismantling a deeply held worldview is not easily done and many will never concede in this area no matter how much you appeal to reason. To quote a good piece from the book:
"Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not."
As a side note, this is a review for the 2011 revised edition.
July 6, 2019
This book highlights the buffoonery (not a word?) that is the world of those who see a conspiracy in everything that happens. Mail late? Conspiracy! Yadda yadda yadda. It's pretty ridiculous. It is like the meme, somewhat re-written: I don't understand, therefore, conspiracy.
Here's the thing, though: disagree with the conspiracy zanies and they will accuse you of complicity (if you are either famous or influential enough) or being "sheeple." There is never an actual discussion of ideas, only ad hominem attacks on those who come to a different conclusion. There is a major, major issue with every conspiracy...people. People do not keep secrets. Vincent Bugliosi in his excellent "Reclaiming History" wrote (and I think he was quoting somebody else) that "I agree that three people can keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead."
Popular Mechanics, the writers of this book, do a good job of examining the history and evidence and then effectively debunk the best-known conspiracies regarding 9/11. Much of it is plain common sense. Did you know that the Pentagon was a military installation? Hmmm...perhaps it would be a hardened bunker...but no, we can't have that.
Here's the thing, though: disagree with the conspiracy zanies and they will accuse you of complicity (if you are either famous or influential enough) or being "sheeple." There is never an actual discussion of ideas, only ad hominem attacks on those who come to a different conclusion. There is a major, major issue with every conspiracy...people. People do not keep secrets. Vincent Bugliosi in his excellent "Reclaiming History" wrote (and I think he was quoting somebody else) that "I agree that three people can keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead."
Popular Mechanics, the writers of this book, do a good job of examining the history and evidence and then effectively debunk the best-known conspiracies regarding 9/11. Much of it is plain common sense. Did you know that the Pentagon was a military installation? Hmmm...perhaps it would be a hardened bunker...but no, we can't have that.
December 6, 2022
Clear. Detailed. Very readable. Nobody who tells you that the video proves there were charges set at each floor is going to read this. If you go through it, though, first of all will enjoy it and become knowledgeable about the mechanics of a horrible event, and second of all you may learn some isolated small facts that you could possibly throw into a discussion with a "charges set" friend, if you judge that your friend might possibly allow a fact in and consider it. For instance much is said by our "charges set" friends about the fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt metal. That's certainly true. However, the heat buildup from igniting all the fuel at once in a fairly confined space and then subjecting metal to that over time does soften it past its ability to withstand the weight above it. That's all that's necessary.
Thank goodness for Popular Mechanics.
Thank goodness for Popular Mechanics.
May 26, 2017
This work was a much-needed summation of the known facts about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Having the foreword by John McCain was a poor choice, when you're trying to convince people who think there's a gov't conspiracy, maybe not use a politician as spokesperson?
I have friends who're 9/11 conspiracy buffs, and it's always just struck me as too far fetched. It was already a conspiracy. 19 men conspired to commit history's greatest terrorist act. Occam's razor says that what you see is what you get, it's complicated enough. The sheer number of people who would have to be in on it from the US Gov't side reaches into the thousands. Could thousands of people keep a secret of this size?
I have friends who're 9/11 conspiracy buffs, and it's always just struck me as too far fetched. It was already a conspiracy. 19 men conspired to commit history's greatest terrorist act. Occam's razor says that what you see is what you get, it's complicated enough. The sheer number of people who would have to be in on it from the US Gov't side reaches into the thousands. Could thousands of people keep a secret of this size?
October 13, 2021
Truth versus Fantasy
An encyclopedia of answers, responding to virtually every popular conspiracy theory. One place to look for photo and links to websites, of all sorts, and copies of final reports.
An intelligent, reasoned, researched series of answers to those who know nothing, make up something and in the process hurt many.
From someone who lived 1 block West and worked 1 block East, walking through the Towers every day, this was my neighborhood, and but for the grace of God I wasn't there that day.Glad to read a well presented explanation of reality than hurtful fantasy.
An encyclopedia of answers, responding to virtually every popular conspiracy theory. One place to look for photo and links to websites, of all sorts, and copies of final reports.
An intelligent, reasoned, researched series of answers to those who know nothing, make up something and in the process hurt many.
From someone who lived 1 block West and worked 1 block East, walking through the Towers every day, this was my neighborhood, and but for the grace of God I wasn't there that day.Glad to read a well presented explanation of reality than hurtful fantasy.
December 6, 2018
If you have read about (or seen on YouTube) any of the conspiracy theories regarding the event of 9/11--you ought to read this book. I've looked at a bunch of the so-called conspiracy theories and found this book a very strong, logical, scientific, and factual accounting of the events of 9/11. It does make one laugh at the ridiculous ends that some people will go to in order to fill in "gaps" in early reporting--and then lengths they will go to even in the face of contrary facts. I think some call them kooks. Deluded. Gullible.
July 23, 2024
It is important to understand how in the midst of tragedy and trauma, conspiracy theories can run rampant. These editors do a great job in debunking the theories that people have created out of these terrorist attacks. From explosives being used to being down the rain towers to United 93 being shot down by a missile. These authors debunk and condemn totally in showing the reality and real story of 9/11, despite what conspiracy theories say.
May 17, 2021
Informative book on various myths regarding 9/11. Concerned more than I knew about. A reader needs to know the basics before reading. In conjunction with the Naudet brothers' documentary, you get a fairly complete picture of what happened in New York that day.
Kindle reading for it kinda sucks just because sometimes it remembers the last place you skipped to and not your spot.
Kindle reading for it kinda sucks just because sometimes it remembers the last place you skipped to and not your spot.
August 11, 2018
Finally a book, that debunks those absurd conspiracy theories perpetrated by non-intelligent people a.k.a "9/11 truthers".
P.S: I gave it 3 stars cause of the fact, that there is a forward by a politician.
P.S: I gave it 3 stars cause of the fact, that there is a forward by a politician.
April 1, 2021
Concise yet detailed, and I really appreciated the section on tactics of the conspiracists. It also makes clear that huge conspiracy proponents include infowars and Alex Jones who we all know are extremely reliable and unbiased news sources.
September 17, 2021
An excellent, factually-based book that very nicely describes and then demolishes conspiracy-based diatribes and hypotheses about 9/11. Any reasonable person who reads this book seeking to learn the truth about what actually happened on 9/11 will do so.
June 9, 2023
Lost me a bit when it started to lump anyone with a slightly leftist viewpoint in with conspiracy theorists, but not sure what I expected with a foreword written by John McCain and littered with quotes from conservatives.
January 23, 2017
Definitely not my favorite style of writing, but was prompted to read because of a Game Night discussion about 9/11.
June 29, 2019
Very good book!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews