Was Popular Mechanics Fair?

This is something that Stew and John Michael brought up in the interview with Michael Woolsey that I linked to the other day, and it's a common enough claim that I thought it would be worth talking about.

I'm going to suggest a rating system for the claims that Popular Mechanics debunked. I will grade the claims on a 1-10 scale on how common they are in the Truth Movement back then or today. 1-2 points means barely mentioned, 3-4 means mentioned by some, 5-6 means fairly commonly mentioned, 7-8 means very commonly mentioned, and 9-10 means virtual 100% agreement within the 9-11 "Truthers".

There is a problem, of course; if the claims were common in the past and yet have since been dropped, the argument of course is that Popular Mechanics did such a good job of debunking that claim that even the packrat Truthers have abandoned. So I will look to see if the claim appeared in Loose Change, or in DRG's 115 things he thought the 9-11 Commission got wrong.

Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

This is the pod theory, and of course right away we get into the problem that I noted at the top, which is that the theory is dead now, but it is very hard to argue that it was dead in 2005, when the piece came out. Indeed, the original version of Loose Change opened with the Pod theory, and while it's tempting to congratulate Dylan for dropping it from the second edition, the fact is that in one of the Loose Change Vanity videos, Dylan announced that they dropped it because they didn't have room, not because they changed their mind on the issue. It was also featured in Dave Von Kleist's In Plane Site. But Griffin does not mention it. So on current relevance I'd give it a 1, but on past relevance I'd put it at no less than a 5.

Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

The stand down order is a staple of the conspiracy theorists. David Ray Griffin pushes it to this day, as does everyone who mentions Norm Mineta. Dylan Avery acknowledged that there was no stand-down order a couple years ago, but he's very much in the minority on this issue, even among the LIHOP crowd. I have to give this one a 9 on current relevance and 10 on the past.

Claim: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

This is not something that is commonly mentioned anymore but it did appear in Loose Change both I and II. Griffin does not mention it in his list. I'll knock it down to 2 currently with a 6 at the time.

Claim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

If this one isn't a 10 both now and then, I don't know what is. This claim is made in LC I and II, and by Griffin:

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow

Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

This is an extremely common claim. Willie Rodriguez made his claim about an explosion in the basement in Loose Change II, and would have done the same in LCFC if Dylan had given him enough money. DRG does not mention it in his list of 115 things wrong, but I believe that was put together before W-Rod went Troofer. I'd put the explosions in the basement at 9 today, maybe 7 before.

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

Fire can't melt steel? Wasn't that Rosie's claim? Clearly this is very common in the movement; Loose Change I and II both made that claim as did Griffin in a slightly different form:

. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

I'd give that one a 9 then and a 9 today. Certainly Gage talks about how fire can't melt steel all the time.

Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

The infamous squibs. Cited by Dylan in both Loose Change I and II. Not cited by DRG in his list of 115 omissions and distortions, but something I hear quite often. I'd give it a 7 both now and then.

Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

I don't think this made it into Loose Change, or into DRG's manifesto. I certainly have heard it but it's not all that common; I'd give it a 3 now and then. If you argue that this is about the "missing jolt" of Tony Szamboti, then clearly it's more relevant than I am saying.

Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

WTC 7 as controlled demolition is about as common as they come, but there are some who still say the movement is not about controlled demolition, so I'm going to be generous and say this one's an 8 now and then.

Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

These claims were made in both Loose Change I and II, and also on Griffin's list:

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

However, I'm again going to be generous to the "Truthers" and say that this theory was an 8 before, and is now down to a 5. I don't think there's any doubt that "no-plane at the Pentagon" is becoming less popular.

Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece — even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

This fits in with the prior one, although I'd knock it down to 7 before and 4 now; just a little bit less commonly brought up than the size of the entry and exit holes.

Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

In Loose Change I and II, and also mentioned by Griffin:

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

The amusing thing is that Loose Change Final Cut did a 180 on this issue noting many pieces of debris. LCFC was supposedly fact-checked by David Ray Griffin. And yet Griffin still claims that not a lot of airplane debris was found at the Pentagon. Again, since the no-planes at the Pentagon theory seem to be disappearing rapidly except for Griffin even though they were popular at one point, I'll give this a 7 then and a 4 now.

Claim: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever — alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

The shoot-down of Flight 93 is such a common conspiracy theory that even people who aren't "Truthers" tell me that they secretly suspect it. The white plane is very commonly mentioned, although not always as the shooter. I'll score this as 8 then and 9 now (since Loose Change Final Cut went towards the shoot-down theory rather than the Cleveland Airport Mystery. Grifter, of course endorses shoot down:

7. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

Claim: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

Mentioned in at least one of the Loose Change films, but not in DRG's 115 points. I still hear it but I wouldn't say it's common; give it a 3 and a 3.

Claim: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it — winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."

The debris at Indian Lake also appeared in at least one Loose Change movie, but is not mentioned by DRG. I'd give this a 3 and a 3.

Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

Grand-Pre doesn't get mentioned much anymore although I saw the Gibney claim earlier today somewhere. I'd give it a 3 and a 2.

Overall, I'd say that Popular Mechanics did a pretty good job. Most of the theories they discussed are quite common in the movement, and the less common ones were mostly at the end. Are there common theories in the movement that were not discussed? Sure, thermite and thermate, which were not common at the time; Jones published the first version of his paper in late 2005.

But here's a deal for Stew and John-Michael; if you think that the theories that were discussed are much less popular in the movement than I've indicated, please, let us know in the comments or on your own blog. We would be very happy to tell the next person who claims that there was a stand-down order than nobody responsible in the movement believes this. So please, feel free to tell us which theories are laughable and a diversion from the "Truth".

David Ray Griffin: High Priest

In case any of you are wondering why we refer to David Ray Griffin as the "high priest" of the 9/11 conspiracy movement, read this e-mail I got on a list I belong to, promoting an interview with him:

So you implement one of the most stupendous black-ops of all time. Considering the multitude of variables, you've put together a fairly convincing cover story that fixes blame on Islamic terrorists. Using the full weight of the political establishment you bulldoze away public discussion of the truth. A complaisant [sic] press repeats your lies in a ciclo infinito forte. Though a few malcontents won't buy it, they're marginalized. Then along comes your worst nightmare: a distinguished theologian whose cross-disciplinary specialization involves highly sophisticated reasoning that requires familiarity with logic, science, and the scientific method — a man with no personal vested interest whatsoever (and no way to falsely hang one on him), who digs in tenaciously to ask the right questions, and who becomes a true patriotic hero to many. In short order, despite the media blackout, a very large percentage of the public becomes skeptical. Such is the story of Dr. David Ray Griffin (PDF), a leader of the 911 Truth movement and author most recently of Debunking 9/11 Debunking. We all owe David an enormous debt of gratitude for his insights, energy, and determination. It was a real privilege to talk with him, and I'm sure his balanced views will continue to gain public support. Total runtime here of an hour and thirteen minutes. Listen carefully and please redistribute widely.

I think they are ready to beatify him, before they inevitably throw him under the bus.

David Ray Griffin Goes Woo

I continued listening to the previous interview. It gets even weirder when Griffin addresses the issue of how explosives were planted in the World Trade Center:

Well first of all building 7 was owned by Silverstein. Who uh, has been paid uh, is making 500 million and is going for 2 billion for the World Trade Center as a whole, umh on the assumption uh that this was the result of a terrorist attack. So uh, there is no mystery about how building 7 could have been wired. Furthermore maybe it was even wired for demolition when it was built. And uh, that is how it is done sometimes because they anticipate, maybe someday we are going to have to bring this down and it is cheaper maybe just to build the wiring in now and all you have to do later is add the explosives. So uhm, that’s possible.

Yeah, could someone please explain to me what part of building codes addresses pre-wiring for explosives? And since when were $100 million skyscrapers designed to be disposable? He continues from there:

So uhm, the twin towers, maybe that was the case. Another possible explanation comes from the fact that uh, a company that was involved with security for the World Trade Center has as its Chief Executive Officer Wirt Walker III who is a cousin of George Bush and another principle in the company was Marvin Bush, George’s brother. So there were ways.

Of course Wirt Walker is only a Bush cousin in the same sense that Michael and Ben Chertoff are releated, not in fact, but purely in the minds of delusional conspiracy theorist. These guys don't even share a last name.

I demand to know whether David and Merv Griffin are related! We must eliminate the corrupt talk show host influence in the 9/11 truth movement...

Debunking David Ray Griffin (Again)

I am going to have to stop listening to these David Ray Griffin interviews. I could only make it about 16 minutes into this interview before wanting to smash my head against the monitor.

George Kenney: David’s analysis is an important litmus test for intellectual honesty. I am not saying he is right about everything or that one must agree with him, but intellectual rigor and neutral methodology are clearly on his side.

You have got to be kidding me. This is the guy who wrote "These reports of having seen a missile or a small military plane [at the Pentagon] must, accordingly, be given more weight."in his book, when he didn't even list a single report that fit that description. Intellectual rigor indeed.

Here Griffin explains why he writes such crap:

Griffin: Process theology and philosophy is inclusive, and deals with the interconnection of various disciplines that have been kept apart by too many forms of thought. One of those is science and religion. So a lot of my work has been, not in theology proper but in philosophy and religion with a heavy emphasis on philosophy of science. In fact several of my books are on science and religion, and the philosophy of science.

Kenney: So you are following Alfred North Whitehead I guess?

Griffin: Yes, his philosophy made the interconnection of science and religion the most important issue. And so that was uh, and important part of my background. And secondly, this form of thought stresses the interconnection of religion and politic. So I had also done quite a bit of thinking about political matters….

I would have to agree completely, this guy applies religious-like beliefs in his cause to science in ways that would make the most fervent televangelist jealous.

Now this part I couldn’t believe. Keep in mind, this is not just some guy I found on the Internet who only watched his first Youtube video yesterday. This is supposedly the most learned mind the 9/11 deniers can come up with. The guy has written 5 books on 9/11 for God’s sake, and yet he will still say crap like this:

Griffin: Likewise, when they finally confront the evidence that there was molten metal under the towers and building 7.

Kenney:For a considerable period of time after the event.

Griffin: Oh, weeks if not months. And it was still in a molten state when people were… crane operators were pulling out the beams and said it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel.

What? Did he really just say that? Let me rewind this and play that again…
"it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel. "

You have got to be kidding me. Explosives don’t melt steel, least of all not months after they are used. They do their work through pressure, not intense lasting heat. Whenever they blow up a hotel in Vegas do you see the fire department spending weeks hosing down the red hot debris afterwards before they can clean it up? No, once the dust settles you can go pick it up if you want.

And this is the best they got?

Update: Griffin later argues that the steel in the towers could not have weakened unless they were exposed to fires for several hours, because steel is a good conducter of heat, and the heat would be conducted away from the source of the fires almost instantly. He does not explain, however, how this works with his previous theory, that once steel is molten, it dissipates heat so poorly that it manages to stay in this molten state for weeks after that.

Why is David Ray Griffin Obsessed with Benjamin Chertoff

As I mentioned in the comments on a previous post, David Ray Griffin devotes two entire pages to the claim that Popular Mechanics editor Benjamin Chertoff is somehow related to Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. In a recent radio interview, he continues this insanity:

Host: Would you say that the book is a genuinely independent publication?

DRG: Well it’s questionable. One thing that makes one suspicious is the fact that they go to great lengths to try to disguise the fact that young Benjamin Chertoff is a cousin of Michael Chertoff the head of Homeland Security. Now one author, who had written about this suggested that you now, maybe this was even set up. You know, I don’t get into this type of speculation. One might infer that. And uh, they go to great lengths, and even claim that their not sure, they doubt that Ben is a cousin. This is one of the most hilarious parts of the book, because here is a guy who is on their staff and yet Meigs, the new editor, editor in chief of Popular Mechanics is claiming that his crack staff was able to, in just a few months to figure out the truth about why the airplanes were not intercepted, why the World Trade Center buildings came down, what really happened at the Pentagon, and so on. And yet they couldn’t discover whether a fellow working on their own staff was related to the Director of Homeland Security.

They even twist words. The quotation by the man who wrote that story, he called up, this was Christopher Bollyn, he called up Ben Chertoff’s mother. He was curious, is Ben related to Michael Chertoff? And she said, “Oh of course, he’s his cousin.” Well, when you read that in Popular Mechanics, it gets transmuted into “she said it’s possible he might be a distant cousin”. So there seems to be an attempt through dishonesty to disassociate the book from Benjamin Chertoff, if you look at the cover, the inside cover, you do not see his name mentioned, even though, the book for the most part is “word for word” repetition of the original article and Benjamin Chertoff has said he was the senior researcher of that article, and yet reading this book for the most part you would assume that he really didn’t have anything to do with it.

He even goes on from there, but I got tired of typing.

Why does he think this is some type of cover-up? Does he think it is the job of private employers to conduct intensive background checks of their employees to find out who they might have as distant relatives? Would this somehow tell us more about what happened on 9/11? This sounds more like some call for some type of a Willis Carto/Christopher Bollyn style racial purity law, than the science and logic that he claims to follow. This man isn't a scholar, he is a paranoid rumormonger, who bases his attacks on accusations of blood guilt, written by a known anti-Semite, who attacks people based on their ethnic heritage.

Yet More Griffin Transcribed

The United States of Amnesia continues to transcribe bits of Griffin's Debunking 9-11 Debunking.

Continuing the ploy of suggesting that all "experts" support the official account while only loony "conspiracy theorists" support the alternative theory, the PM authors, in introducing the controlled demolition claim, do not mention any of the physicists, engineers or philosophers of science who have made it.

Heheh, philosophers of science? I do believe that Uncle Fetzer fits in that category; I wonder what Griffin's many worshippers over at 9-11 Blogger will make of that passage. "Many engineers"? Whom does he have in mind; the only engineer I know of that has endorsed this crackpottery is a guy who spent his career designing oil rigs.

They then mention that the controlled demolition hypothesis is also endorsed by Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist at the Department of Labor... [and] continuing their effort to discredit their opposition, begin their next paragraph with these words: "Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views..." Although I am not quite sure how many skeptics these authors can hold in one hand, "a handful" suggests merely a few, perhaps a dozen. However, the website "Professors Question 9/11" has well over a hundred names, and they, moreover, constitute only a fraction of the active members of the 9/11 truth movement having academic credentials.

Of course, Reynolds is one of the nuttiest of the nutbars, one who even wrote that fruitcake Spooked911 was one of the few researchers doing good work on 9-11. Like this work and this.

Of course, as that statement indicates, it is necessary for those who challenge the official conspiracy theory to be able to appeal to experts in fields relevant to the question of why the buildings collapsed, and one of those fields is physics. The 9/11 truth movement includes several people with advanced degrees in physics, one of whom, Steven Jones, is among the leading critics of the official theory. The movement also includes chemists, engineers, computer scientists, mathematicians, architects, pilots, former military officers, politicians, and people with expertise in political science and military intelligence, all of which are relevant to the question at hand. [see the Patriots Question 9/11 website]

Physics is only tangentially related to structural engineering which is the real relevant field to discussing the question of why the buildings collapsed and there are thousands of engineers on the side of the "official conspiracy theory" and only that oil rig guy on the side of the 9-11 kooks.

Moreover, if my 9/11 books are nutty, as Cockburn suggests, then people who endorse them must also be nuts. The list of nuts would hence include economist Michel Chossudovsky, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, British Minister of Parliament Michael Meacher, former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts, journalists Wayne Madsen and Barrie Zwicker, Institute for Policy Studies co-founder Marcus Raskin, former diplomat Peter Dale Scott, international law professors Richard Falk Burns Weston, social philosopher John McMurtry, theologians John B. Cobb, Harvey Cox, Carter Heyward, Catherine Keller, and Rosemary Reuther, ethicists Joseph C. Hough and Douglas Sturm, writer A.L. Kennedy, media critic and professor of culture Mark Crispin Miller, attorney Garry Spence, historians Richard Horsley and Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of the country's leading preachers and civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists.

Yeah, I'd say they're all nuts, David. And I can tell because they endorsed your cruddy books. What's your point? Are we supposed to be impressed with their credentials? That may work with somebody looking at the book in Borders, but it cuts no ice here.

Another DRG Preview

Other than the excerpt Pat posted below I haven't read any of David Ray Griffin's new attack on debunkers, but if this is any indication of the quality of his analysis, I am not expecting anything great:

Griffin notes, “The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC 7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically-baseless hypothesis devoid of historical precedent.” And though Pentagon flight 77 was supposedly “… vaporized… this claim was wildly incompatible with the assertion that the bodies of the plane’s occupants were later identified by their DNA.” The plane’s hitting the Pentagon was “… like taking a Coke can and smashing it against the wall. The back and the front become one… but smashing a Coke can does not reduce its weight. So why has no one reported finding a 100,000-pound piece of steel and aluminum in the wreckage?”