Slate Backs Up Conspiracy Theorists, Cites American Free Press
What a lame article by "The Explainer":
Do other professions marshal their own expertise to poke holes in the official story? Absolutely. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth point to the physics of the towers' collapse—its "free fall" pace, the "lateral ejection" of steel, the "mid-air pulverization of concrete"—as evidence that they could not have fallen exclusively because of the planes' impact. Pilots for 9/11 Truth have their own set of theories that focus on the planes' black boxes and flight paths, arguing, for example, that the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 would have had to perform an extremely difficult aerial maneuver to hit the Pentagon where they did.
The article regurgitates some of the usual idiocy from the troofers. The DeMasi claim of discovering the black boxes is spewed. Hilariously, the writer mentions that DeMasi's account is backed up by another first responder. And can you guess who he links to in order to prove this? Yep, that oft-cited source for 9-11 Troof and anti-Semites alike, the American Free Press.
His other sources:
Explainer thanks Mike Berger of 911Truth.org, Mark Fenster of University of Florida, Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Barrie Zwicker.
Fenster wrote a book arguing that conspiracy theorists are not paranoid nutbars (while not embracing conspiracy theories either). The other three are certified kooks.