For nine months now, I've been publishing
Rowe is part of the team that made an 80-minute documentary called
Some interesting facts about the claims of the 9/11 "truth movement"
Not a single civil engineer (structural, construction or otherwise), fire engineer, forensic engineer, demolition expert, architect (with experience with steel framed buildings), materials scientist/mechanical engineer (with a background in building materials or methods) or construction contractor from anywhere in the world publicly supports them.
Of the approximately 20,000 who were in the WTC between the time of the 1st crash and the 2nd collapse only 4 (about 0.02%) publicly supports them. Three of them only spoke up after getting involved in a lawsuit, one of those (Rodriguez) contradicted earlier statements he had made. The 4th an EMT said she saw an airplane explode of NJ that morning.
The Zogby polls show the LOWER one's educational level the MORE likely they are to believe them.
But the sparring on
One AlterNet reader wrote:
I repeat: "Loose Change" is great work, if just for asking the questions.
There's so obviously more to 9-11 than meets the eye, that just stirring the official take is in itself useful. Whatever the truth is, demanding more reason and sanity of the US gov't, and as a side-effect exposing the blatant way 9-11 has been exploited for other gains, cannot be anything but healthy.
No surprise that a contrarian 9/11 story stirs the pot (or that a good conspiracy theory proves to be a terrific driver of Web traffic), especially in the weeks leading up to the fifth anniversary. Though Rowe stands by the film's premise, he does concede that some of the research the filmmakers relied on may be less than rock-solid. So is it a dubious act (journalistically or otherwise) to publish his views? Or a broadminded and reasonable move to provide an outlet for an unpopular opinion?
Read the piece for yourself and then join the discussion here.