Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Yowza! That is actually the title of a real book. Not that anyone should be surprised.

I was roaming Barnes and Nobles, seeing if any new scifi was out, and if they had Dick Morris’ newest book, when I ran across this bit of Truther insanity. My only surprise was that it wasn’t endorsed as by the Paultard.

Get this, off the back cover

By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11. Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become “a mainstream political phenomenon.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it.

In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times , Vanity Fair , and Time magazine. He also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications—which one might have expected to be supportive.

Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly leveled against critics of the official theory—that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith—actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory.

This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement’s central claim—that 9/11 was an inside job—remains the only explanation that fits the facts.

Got that? The official position is a "conspiracy theory," and it has to be an inside job.

What does it say about our society that nutjobs like this can not only get a book like this published, but that it would be in a major book store. It is sitting at 3500 on Amazon’s list. Not huge, but, jeez, this means insane people are actually buying it. I’ll believe Popular Mechanics over this kind of insane shit any day.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”

  1. darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 says:

    …they took all of the 9-11 footage off of our televisions – except for the History Channel – in order to not enrage the American public towards aggressions against the islamomaniac wack jobs in OUR society! Thank-you Blackbeard for showing the photo of the chef that leaped out of the WTC North Tower Windows of the World restaurant after Mohammad Atta flew AA Flt 11 into Tower #1 at 08:46 am on 9-11-01!
    – The 2,996 souls of 9-11… 1,000 of which that have yet to found and identified! WE WILL NEVER FORGET !!

  2. bill hicks says:

    Tell me, if the debris from the North Tower fell on WTC 7 caused it to “collapse”, then why did the collapse start at the bottom of the building?

    And why were squibs, or as you people like to refer to them, “puffs of smoke”, observed going UP the building, before the rest of the building even began to move?

    If external damage in addition to random fires caused this “collapse”, how did this produce a symmetrical failure in addition to a pyroclastic flow and molten metal?

    And if this is the goal of a small number of demolition companies in the world, how did random damage and fires produce the exact results that a controlled demolition would?

Bad Behavior has blocked 10747 access attempts in the last 7 days.