i would say this is dishonest journalism.. ill give you some examples:
The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the 'evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.
here the author associates those that beleive in a 9/11 conspiracy to those that deny the Holocaust.. this type of association is absurd and intentionally meant to vilify those that beleive in 9/11 conspiracies, not by way of disproving or arguing a point, but meerly by associating it with those that dont beleive in the holocost.
his words 'a handful of unexplained anomalies .. lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking' just as equally applies to the overly exagerated need for national security, removal of our rights, and unbeleivable spending budgets for military purposes.. just yesterday tom ridge admitted his warning levels were in general over-exagerrated.. this same sentence applies to the 'offficial story' of 9/11 as well since the majority of evidence found about the highjackers are 'unexplained anomalies', like how devout muslims went to strip clubs and drank highly leaving business cards, how a passport flew from out of a highjackers pocket, through the walls of a plane, through the fireball, and ended up being found unburned while the largest peice of office debris found was nothing larger than half the size of a telephone number pad.. those 'unexplained anomalies' are treated as fact while other 'unexplained anomalies' are lies beleived by those who should be compared to those that deny the holocaust.
i would assume his 'crank theories of physics' should apply only to those that question the freefall speed of collapse and its relationship to galileo's law of falling bodies, not the official story of the 'pancake collapse' which is based upon a floor falling onto another causing it to fall, etc. which is impossible to have occurred if the fall was at freefall speeds.
and spreading the inferno throughout each building
this comment is not only a bold faced lie, but an attempt to avoid the fact that the lower 70+ floors of the buildings were mostly undamaged and unaffected by the fires, this can be seen in any video or photographic evidence from 9/11.. by avoiding the fact that the majority of the buildings were unaffected by the fire the author further ignores the massive amounts of resistance and structural integrity which would have again related to the freefall collapse speeds as mentioned above..
Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?"
the author further underminds his knowledge of the subject by being completely unaware of Sibel Edmonds as well as the 50+ other whistleblowers who are begging to be able to tell their stories of corruption and dealings related to Gold Oil and Drugs, which he directly mentions in the first paragraph..
www.justacitizen.com
in general this article does little more than attack specific conspiracy theories and then continue on to serve as a mouthpeice for the pancake-theory.. obviously this author is not qualified to understand and verify the physical evidence himself, so he does little to make is arguement other than to spout off what his government has to say.. perhaps he should balance his viewpoint with the opinion of Jeff King, an MIT graduate, and beleiver in the theories of demolition, you can view his segment of the recent free DVD from reopen911.org here:
http://www.reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov
