After thinking about it for a long time, I’ve decided to make two confessions. The first is that for a while I honestly wondered if 9-11 was an inside job. The second is that I now believe that this hypothesis is extremely unlikely.

Note how first the author tells us he's really thought about it (so we don't need to?).

Then he tells us he even leaned toward the 9/11 conspiracy story -- the Government did it theory, that is, not the Government's conspiracy theory about 19 hijackers directed from a cave in Afghanistan (to show how fair minded he his? Also, since he says this is a confession, to indicate how wacky it is to question the Government's theory).

Then, without bothering the reader with anything so tiresome as evidence, he tells us his conclusion.

Then, after an ominous warning about how dangerous the 9/11 Truth movement has become:

When we’re walking on fragile ice, we need to tread carefully. Unfortunately, the 9-11 truth movement is stomping with reckless abandon, often making unsubstantiated claims and disregarding evidence that doesn’t fit with its agenda (agenda? as in determining the truth, or what?).

And after again emphasizing how fair minded he is in considering the alternative view, he tackles just two arguments for an "inside job."

(1) The [9/11 Truth] movement often claims that the planes could have been easily intercepted by the combat-ready aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base.

(2) The movement also claims that blasts caused by controlled demolitions are the only way to explain Building 7’s collapse.

In response to (1) he states

This would be true if and only if Andrews was ready to scramble its jets. He then quotes Chip Berlet (who the heck is Chip Berlet) saying that a military unit is "combat ready" if it’s prepared to enter combat with 24 to 72 hours notice, rather than at the drop of a hat, and "there is no evidence that there were jet aircraft fueled up, warmed up, ready to go at Andrews with fighter pilots sitting in a ready room ready to take off.

O.K. But let's compare what he has to say with what Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force, Director of Advanced Space Programs, Ph.D. Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, has to say.

I'm an old interceptor pilot, I know the drill, I've done it. I know how long it takes, I know the rules... and... critics on the government story on 9/11 have said: "Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing". That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day, and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.

So who you gonna believe. Good ol' Chip, whoever he may be, or Colonel (USAF), Dr. Robert Bowman?

In response to Point 2, our author quotes Manuel Garcia in "the leftist news magazine Counterpunch":

He concludes that "The blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse."

Problem is the speed of collapse.

It defies the law of the conservation of momemtum, unless there were explosives to clear a path that would allow the top of the building to reach the ground at near free-fall speed. If you want to follow the math, there's an article here (PDF).

So who you gonna believe: Manuel Garcia of the "leftist news magazine Counterpunch" or Isaac Newton?

But our author offers a final literary flourish:

Sometimes, you can step through a looking glass into an inverted world. Other times, you just get a bloody nose and a broken mirror. Perhaps the conspiratorial world the 9-11 truth movement is gazing upon is only the shattered reflection of its own lacerated face.

Which makes one wonder, do these literary types simply not understand physical reality too well, or do they really believe that by spinning words they can create their own reality?
Canadian Spectator

Please address correspondence to .