Only a few paragraphs in and he's using the classic disinfo technique of discrediting by association.
The Pentagon was not hit by an airliner but by a guided missile.
Various ruses, including faked mobile phone calls and fraudulent claims of such calls were used to disguise the true nature of the crime.
He almost gives himself some excuse with "different people in the Truth movement might agree or disagree with various parts of it." but at the end of that same paragraph, he re-iterates the supposedly mysterious disappearance of Flight 77.
But the explosives had to be sufficiently inert not to be triggered either by the impacts of the planes or by the thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel, an especially tricky proposition since no precedent existed for the crashing of a large civil airliner into a 1,000ft skyscraper.
Whether or not there was precedent is hardly the issue. Explosives such as C-4 and Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (better known as RDX), for example, requires the simultaneous applications of heat AND pressure to detonate, making the crash of an airliner relatively insignificant. More importantly though, they didn't necessarily have to have not exploded. They could have simply gone off but been disguised by the mass of aerosolized jet fuel.
Although another theory, favoured by the makers of [the internet documentary series] Loose Change, is that Flight 93 didn't crash and wasn't shot down, but, like Flight 77, was made to disappear.
Not only is this classic discrediting by association that we've seen throughout the essay, but it's also blatantly deceitful. The makers of Loose Change have since reverted to the shoot-down theory.
Another was more complex: the passengers of Flight 77 and possibly Flight 93 were either murdered in a secret location and their bodies disposed of beyond any chance of discovery, or else they were relocated, lost for ever to their families and friends, somewhere they could never be found. This would have been slightly easier if, as the millionaire 9/ll Truth activist Jimmy Walter has claimed, they were all “working for the governmentâ€.
References Jimmy Walter, a well-known advocate of "TV Fakery". Now anyone who sees his name attributed to 9/11 Truth will find through a simple Google search various theories that are highly discrediting. Also appeals to a sense of Pathos towards the reader. Making us seem insensitive towards the victims and their families by saying they were all in on it. I doubt, as I read further in the essay, that David will note how victims' families have been calling for a new investigation.
Although the ingenious A.K. Dewdney
First Loose Change, then Jimmy Walter, now A.K. Dewdney. Does anyone see a pattern here?
Hundreds, if not thousands, would have to have been directly involved in different aspects of the conspiracy.
No, they would not have.
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenar...
On the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the New Statesman carried an interview with David Shayler and his partner Annie Machon, the former employees of MI5.
Let's play a game. We'll predict how many credible 9/11 researchers he names for the rest of the article, and whoever gets closest wins.
I have my bets on 0.
“‘Oh f*** it, I'm just going to say this', (Shayler) tells her. ‘Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/ll.' But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. ‘The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,' he says. ‘Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center.' He must notice that my jaw has dropped. ‘I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe.'â€
WHOO! What a relief! I was worried that the Jimmy Walter reference would be what would alert people to No-planes-at-WTC theories. Thankfully, David chose to mention them himself. How very kind.
I am choosing not to address the 7/7 section, as that is a field I'm less familiar in. I will, however, make a few final notes.
*No mention of PNAC, the documented history of the hijackers, or any other non-disputable evidence. Only vague references to the war games, which were not elaborated on.
*No mention of legitimate researchers, or qualified ones for that matter. I.e; no mention of AE911, STJ911, and other such organizations or individuals
*No mention of the recent report of Active Thermitic Material published by Neils Harrit and numerous other authors.
*Very evenly spaced out between legitimate theories and hoax theories.
*No mention of the evidence used to support the legitimate theories. Simply says how the story [supposedly] goes, often in an exaggerated or deceitful fashion to make said theories seem as ridiculous and loony as the hoax ones.
*A clever trick is employed where he, early on in the essay, says how not everyone believes in certain aspects of the story he described, and then near the end of his essay talks of people who believe no planes were involved in the World Trade Center attacks. This may easily deceive the reader into thinking that the people who "don't agree with all aspects" into thinking that said disagreements are kooky nutcase theories just like the no-planes one.
I'd say this is one of the worse hit pieces I've read in a while.