Nuke...a clearinghouse?...try pilotsfor911truth, or architectsandengineersfro911truth, or patriotsquestion911, or bushstole04.com....
..TM7
What you meant to say to my question about peer reviewed work to support alternate explanations for 9/11 or portions of it is “no, there isn’t”.
And at that point the whole “expert” discussion comes off the rails. The 9/11 truther movement loves to hold these “experts” up as their best evidence that something is amiss, after all, if an engineer or air transport expert sees something suspect then something must be wrong about the government version.
Of course the professional world realizes most of all that professionals make their case by producing academic works that are peer reviewed by professional journals, institutions or associations. They make their case, present their evidence and then allow peers that are experts in the area to validate or at least confirm as plausible their results.
Are the air traffic control issues you posted factual, who knows? It’s a one way analysis posted on an internet site, there isn’t any independent review to confirm the findings. A properly researched and presented paper to the major aviation journals and professional associations would be appropriate.
The “expert” conspiracy theory issue is an interesting one, an illustrative case is the “faked” Apollo moon landing conspiracy. That conspiracy gained allot of momentum back in the 1960s because of the supposed “experts” saying that NASA had faked it. As you dug into those “expert” claims you see allot of the same patterns as the 9/11 truther movement:
- “Experts” making claims outside their areas of academic study; physicists claiming things in aeronautical engineering, engineers claiming things about photography, etc.
- Similar failure to produce academic works to support their claims
- When and if proof ever comes to light to support the established story they alter their conspiracy claim to work around that proof.
The Apollo conspiracy community (still going strong after all these decades) was recently seriously challenged when orbiting lunar satellites starting producing detailed photos that show the Apollo landing sights, in enough detail to clearly show once and for all (or so we thought) that the landings were real. The Apollo truthers, thus faced with final proof that they were wrong, shifted their theory. They now claim that NASA did land on the moon, but that they used robots instead of men.
