James Meigs, appointed editorof
in May2004, trashes skeptics of theofficial story of 9/11/01 asirresponsible disgracers of thememories of victims, apart from"we as a society."
issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as
The Twin Towers' Demolition
The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against theskeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of
disgracing the memories
of the victims, andrepeatedly accuses of harassing individuals who responded to the attack. More important, it misrepresentsskeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated
that wholly embracesthe article's sixteen
, which it asserts are
at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternativescenario
. In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims asdisinformation.
The Lies Are Out There
This article has a page of Editor's Notes,
The Lies Are Out There
, written byJames Meigs, whoseprevious columns havepraised militarytechnology (such as theUAVs used in Fallujah).Meigs places outside of society anyone whoquestions the officialversion of events of 9/11/01:
We as a society accept the basic premise that agroup of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned theminto weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noblesearch for truth is now being hijacked by agrowing army of conspiracy theorists.
Meigs throws a series of insults at the
, saying they ignore the facts and engage in
elaborate, shadowy theorizing
, and concludes hisdiatribe by saying:
Those who peddle fantasies that this countryencouraged, permitted or actually carried out theattacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing thememories of the thousands who died that day.
Besides trashing the skeptics, and conflating
with its corrupt leaders, Meig's attempts tolegitimate
We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkersand the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scoresof engineers, aviation experts, military officials,eyewitnesses and members of the investigativeteams who have held the wreckage of the attacksin their own hands. We pored over photography,maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. Inevery single instance, we found that the facts used by the conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood, or deliberately falsified.
This sounds impressive, but the article provides noevidence to back up these claims. It provides nofootnotes to source its many assertions, and despitethe scores of
listed in its final section thearticle cites only a handful of them, and mostly torefute its straw-man claims.Moreover, bold unsubstantiated claims in the article-- such as
's assertion that there was only asingle interception in the decade before 9/11/01 --don't inspire confidence in
professional fact checkers
. It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as FEMA's
World Trade Center Building Performance Study
. It provides no evidence
investigated the attack -- only evidence that itinvestigated the 9/11 Truth movement in order todetermine how best to discredit it throughmisrepresentation.