Meigs and Mr. Jones
09.18.2006 05:07 | DISPATCHES
In March 2005 Popular Mechanics magazine ran an article titled "9/11: Debunking The Myths." But it was too sketchy to be of much use in pulling the rug out from under the 9/11 Truth Movement.
It's since produced a book titled "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" and its editor, James Meigs, and executive editor, David Dunbar, appeared on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now." They were pitted against Dylan Avery, the writer and director of "Loose Change," the 9/11 Truth movie that's become an Internet sensation, and his researcher, Jason Bermas.
Judging by the transcript, the Popular Mechanics team, coming off as the soul of reason, whipped the pants off the young "Loose Change" guys, who were out of their depth with editor/writers. However sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth Movement, one couldn't help thinking Meigs and Avery made some good points and their book was worth looking into.
Then, a couple of days later, a piece by Meigs appeared on the oped page of Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, the newspaper that, among other things, never met an Israeli military offensive it didn't like. Titled "Conspiracy Cranks: Creating crazed '9/11 truth'," Meigs nipped whatever credibility he and his staff were building up (with this progressive anyway) in the bud.
Still, it might be worthwhile reading the Popular Mechanics book, if only to see its explanation for the utter perfection and inexplicable speed with which not one, but three towers went down.
Meanwhile, the anti-9/11-Truth-Movement movement likes to aver that the administration is too incompetent to pull off a fraud on this scale. In fact, perfection can be incompetent too. In other words, if controlled demolition were used, whoever was charged with engineering it did too good job. If he hadn't yielded to vanity and made a showpiece of demolishing the three towers, he might have averted suspicion and the propagation of the controlled demolition theory, which has become the centerpiece of the 9/ll Truth Movement.
Then there's the case of Steven Jones, the Brigham Young cold fusion professor whose academic paper on controlled demolition moved the whole 9/11 Truth Movement up another level. As reported in Utah's Deseret News:
"Jones contends measurements he took of a sample of the molten metal found under all three buildings show it is not aluminum from the planes nor structural steel.
"'I can be proven wrong,' Jones said. 'I accept that. But whoever does it will have to explain this molten metal to me, and especially all the barium found. That's nasty stuff that's not going to be used in a building.'"
Despite his rationality, Brigham Young was unable to abide the tentative conclusions he began to draw, perhaps because, to Jones's astonishment, they drew accusations of anti-Semitism. The university, in turn, placed him on paid leave.
Meanwhile, many progressives run from and heap abuse on the 9/11 Truth Movement, lest their precious credibility be tainted by contact with "conspiracy theorists." But whatever the truth, who looks more like a fool -- those who accept the conclusions of the government after all it's pulled off since Bush & Co. have been in office or those who yield to the natural, healthy instinct to question them?