I'm not even 6 pages into the beginning of the book, and twice they've discussed Alex Jones and twice they've only talked about his Charlie Sheen interview, never mind all the experts that have come on The Alex Jones show, or Stanley Hilton, the man suing the Administration on behalf on 9/11 families. No, let's attack Charlie Sheen, an actor. Thank you, Charlie Sheen for the sacrifice of your career because you have now become the official scapegoat that all the 9/11 Truth skeptics get to point and laugh at to make the rest of us look ridiculous.

Also, the book has already twice referred to Iran President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, letter to George W. Bush in May 2006, claiming that the American government was involved in organizing the attack. Are we truthers now being compared to him? I'm sure that comparison has absolutely NOTHING to do with the impending strike on Iran. Oops, there I go being paranoid again.

Also, it discusses the hijacker's training, especially focusing on our friend, Hani Hanjour, the man who pulled off the incredible 330 degree loop-de-loop, descending 7,000 feet in 2 1/2 minutes to crash American 77 into the Pentagon after tearing 5 light posts completely out of the ground. Not once does it mention the 9/14/01 MSNBC or CNN news reports of the hijackers training at secure military bases. Guess they missed those two. If you don’t believe me, go to my website at www.myspace.com/911thebiglie and go to my videos, bring up ALL my videos, there are 20 or so, and click on the CNN report about hijackers training at U.S. military bases. You can also search the web for the MSNBC report that talked about them training at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. Thank Alex Jones for bringing that one to light.

Counterpunch is currently discussing a lot about conspiracy theories. Consider the following article "The American mind: When Historical Analysis is Reduced to Whim" by Hani Shukrallah. He develops three classical and purely semantic arguments to refute what he considers the most credible conspiracy theory he encountered to date. I suppose he discusses the arguments developped by the "Scholars for 9/11 truth". I propose the following refutations of these classic counter-arguments. Can you give me some feedback or impressions please ?

The first may be discounted as sheer pigheadedness. As soon as I learned of the attack on the World Trade Center twin towers, my first guess, accompanied by intense dread (I could already see the war of civilizations being launched), was that it was Bin Laden and Co. who'd done it. [...] Later developments, needless to say, seemed to amply confirm my initial guess. Your first argument is based on reminds of a post-traumatic stress.

In the wake of 9/11, you did accept as the truth the first "plausible" explanation of what might have caused this horrible event. Due to the strength of this initial stress, removing this based on faith explanation from your head is very hard, even with rational arguments such that: the official account cannot be true because such and such points are either self contradictory or contradictory with physics or beyond common sense. And indeed, you agree that this first argument is discountable as irrational, even tough you put it as a first item, which in itself reveals that this "faith based" argument is very important to you. You may conceal there is a fight between your guts and your head here.

Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself
Middle school grammar, contradictory arguments befit proponents of the official conspiracy theory

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 22 2006

A website which purports to disprove claims that there was government complicity in 9/11 and that the twin towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives is riddled with errors, middle school grammar and arguments that both defy common sense and contradict one another.

Since the 9/11 truth movement's success in attracting an increasing crescendo of positive media attention, a backlash of websites and videos have sprung up that attempt to reinvigorate faith in the official conspiracy theory of the government fairy tale - a yarn that has about as much basis in reality as Humpty Dumpty.

The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it."

The website is littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.

As writers we all make the occasional typo but when an entire website is cluttered with jerky and difficult statements it betrays a certain lack of intelligence on the part of the author.

For example, the term "conspiracy theorist," in the singular is used throughout the website in phrases such as, "In every major event there are coincidences, false, poor record keeping and unconfirmed news reports which make it to the public. Conspiracy theorist live for this."

The author seems unable to grasp the concept of the plural.

"Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorist clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?"

If a hall is filled one would presume the presence of more than one person.

Continued...

Shooting down the best of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Updated Sun. Sep. 10 2006 1:49 PM ET

Michael Stittle, CTV.ca News

The first strike was a surprise, but when the second jetliner struck the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, dozens of cameras recorded the explosion. The world's major news organizations, alerted after the first plane hit, watched carefully. But in the chaos it was difficult to make sense of the attack, or even know that an attack had occurred.

Details emerged slowly. Structural engineers and other experts started investigating how the towers fell, until conjecture became fact: fuel heated the buildings' steel support columns, weakening the beams until the floors sagged and collapsed.

Yet five years after the terrible event, some believe there is more to the story -- that the official version of events is wrong. Just days before the anniversary, Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University in Utah, was suspended on paid leave because he argued explosives brought down the towers.

Conspiracy theories, many accusing the United States government of orchestrating the attacks, grew in popularity. A documentary called Loose Change, collecting these theories and stating them as the truth, became a underground hit on Google's online video website and YouTube.com.

For those who aren't familiar with Arizona radio talk show host Charles Goyette's recent interview with Popular Mechanics' Davin Coburn, have a listen to it before listening to the follow up phone call made to Mr. Coburn by "Jeff" from PUMPITOUT.com .

Charles Goyette Interview:
9/11 Debunking the Debunkers —"The Charles Goyette Show", interview with Popular mechanics' Davin Coburn Wed Aug 23, 2006

The Goyette Interview is also available on 911podcasts.

PUMPITOUT.com calls Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics (Aug 29, 2006)
MP3 Download

Related:

3 Minute audio clip of Davin Coburn saying "'Pull It' is not a controlled demolition term" on the Charles Goyette Show. Included at the end of the audio clip is PUMPITOUT.com's phone call to Controlled Demolitions Inc. asking them "what does 'pull it' mean?"
MP3 Download

More calls at PUMPITOUT.com