In The Mammoth Book of Conspiracies author Jon E. Lewis does what most books of this sort try to do, which is present a point-counter-point overview of conspiracy topics. Lewis does present some goods points and sources regarding 9/11 truth material, but favors the non-conspiracy view based on incorrect information so I thought I'd respond to a few things.
1. "NIST's findings are supported by a whole range of independent researchers."
Actually, as I point out in an article I wrote for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
Even if the flawed argument of ‘strength in numbers’ is to be seriously considered, the comparison should actually be between the AE911Truth petition signers and those who have publicly supported the official story - after studying the evidence for controlled demolition. The latter group only consists of the several dozen engineers that created the NIST WTC reports, along with a handful of various professionals who have openly advocated NIST’s claims and dismissed those of AE911Truth. This total pales in comparison to the 2,340 architects and engineers who are currently calling for an independent investigation of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.
2. "What the controlled-demolition hypothesis fails to take into account is the aviation fuel carried by the planes"
As noted in an article I co-authored with Adam Taylor:
PM [Popular Mechanics] ... quotes WTC assistant structural engineer Leslie Robertson as stating that the Towers were only designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, but did not take into consideration the fires that would be produced by the jet fuel. After 9/11, Robertson stated, “I don’t know if we considered the fire damage that would cause” (pg. 31).
However, someone evidently did consider that problem, and that someone was John Skilling, the original WTC lead engineer. When interviewed in 1993, Skilling told the Seattle Times that:
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side... Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”Although PM mentions John Skilling briefly in their book, they make no mention of this statement. Apparently, PM felt no ne ed to quote the lead WTC engineer on his views about the structural stability of the Towers.
911myths .com, Debunking911.com, and RKOwens4 do not even acknowledge Skilling’s existence, much less mention this statement.
It’ s important to point out here that the paper Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC, also by Adam T aylor , proves the following conclusion. If you think not, you let us know.
When we recognize how much fuel actually remained in the buildings, we can instantly see how ludicrous it is to compare the Towers to these other steel structures [that have collapsed due to fires] . How can it possibly be justifiable to compare the Towers, which each had only about 3000 gallons of jet fuel remain on the fire floors, to structures like the Mumbai High Platform, which likely had over 1,000,000 gallons of oil to fuel the fires, or the Interstate 580, which had 8600 gallons of gasoline fueling the fires below it? Likewise, the heat from these fires has been greatly disputed. As we have already seen, NIST has no evidence of high temperatures in either building. Their estimates of 482 ºF as the highest temperature the steel in the buildings reached is consistent with estimates of the maximum temperatures reached by the jet fuel fires.3. "Demolition experts have also weighed on on NIST's side."
By my count there are eleven people with demolition expertise questioning 9/11 vs two who are speaking out in support of the official 9/11 story.
http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/ae911truth-debates-explosive-expert.html
One of the individuals speaking out in support of the official story also happens to be in charge of the demolition company who got the contract to clean up ground zero and one of his former employees is among the demolition experts who supports the 9/11 truth movement.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.html#loizeaux
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/08/responding-to-joey-knobles.html
4. "The weight of evidence is that al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda alone, xarried out the 9/11 attacks."
To the contrary, the NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.
Related:
Quotes on Conspiracy Theories