Debunking 911 Conspiracies

In its recent issue,PopularMechanics Magazine offers an article ‘debunking’ the ‘911Myths.’ These alleged myths include the notion that therewas something attached to the lower fuselage of one of theplanes, that the Air Force failed to adequately respond tothe crisis, and numerous other claims, including the claimthat Building 7 was insufficiently damaged to collapse onits own, and must have been intentionally destroyed.

Much is made in the article of expert testimony that theobject on the bottom of the plane is, essentially, a digitalartifact. The fact that the US Air Force actually deploys a767 with such a pod on it is not mentioned in the article.Our own photo expert, on analysis of this image, has statedthat the one innocuous thing it could be would be an openlanding gear door.Whatever it is, the statement that it is an illusion broughton by a digital effect is not correct.

In the 911 in Plane Site DVD, it is stated that MarcBirnback, a Fox employee, stated in a telephone interviewwith Fox News, that “It definitely did not look like acommercial plane, I didn’t see any windows on the sides.” Arecording of this interview is played in the DVD.

The Popular Mechanics story attempts to reduce the impact ofthis testimony by pointing out that “he briefly saw a planefly over.” He says that, in fact, he did not see the planestrike the South Tower; he says he only “heard the explosion.”

It makes no effort to suggest that he has changed histestimony about what he saw, but seems intended to suggestthat he may not have seen one of the planes that struck thetower. The 911 Commission report does not mention any AirForce or cargo planes in the vicinity at the time the towerswere struck.

There has been extensive response to the Popular Mechanicsarticle on the internet,including one website which offers areaderpoll. In an apparent effort to get its own readers torespond to the poll, PM has placed a link to it prominentlyon its website. Despite the fact that poll activityincreased significantly after this link was created, theresults still skew heavily in favor of the notion that theUS government played a role in the 911 attack.

As Whitley Strieber has twice interviewed Dave von Kleistfor Dreamland, and we sell his911inPlaneSiteDVD in our store, we asked Mr. Strieber his opinion. Thiswas his response:

“The Popular Mechanics story failed to mention the releaseof a previously classified911Commission Report condemning the fact that FAA failed toact on numerous reports that talked specifically about thethreat from Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda in the year priorto the attack. In addition, the fact that the military jetsthat proceeded to New York were launched late and movedslowly, far more slowly than was required by sonic boomsuppression rules that were then in effect.

“No report, not the 911 Commission Report or any other, hasmentioned that, in the early hours of Monday, September 10,the FBI searched the Copley Plaza Hotel in Boston. Later,this was found to be the hotel where some of the hijackershad stayed, and the return of the FBI to the hotel was amajor news item on Tuesday and Wednesday. But NOT the Mondayinvestigation. The fact that this search was never revealed inthe 911 Commission Report is an indication that the wholestory has not been told.”

“There are serious and extensive problems with the 911story, and now, with the release of this latest FAAinformation, the question must be asked: “Where doesincompetence end and conspiracy begin?”

To read Whitley’s May 25, 2002 discussion of the whole issueof what is wrong with the 911 story,click here.

NOTE: This news story, previously published on our old site, will have any links removed.