9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h letters

Democracy Now

News that the Democracy Now! radio show was scheduling a debate on 9/11/2006 between a spokesperson for the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and the creator of Loose Change Dylan Avery prompted the following letters

STATUS: sent to Democracy Now

To Amy Goodman and the producers at DN:

I am writing to comment on your planned "debate" between Davin Coburn,
spokesperson for the Popular Mechanics book "Debunking 9/11 Myths," and
Dylan Avery, producer of the film "Loose Change".

Why did you pick Dylan Avery, a young film producer, to participate in
this so-called debate?  If DN truly wanted to have a fair and balanced
debate, wouldn't you want to get the most qualified persons on both sides
of the aisle to argue the points?  I suggest that while Dylan Avery has
made a successful 9-11 documentary, that there are much more qualified and
knowledgeable individuals which would serve to balance this interaction.
If Popular Mechanics purports to have done all the research “debunking
9-11 myths”, then shouldn't it make sense that the other side of this
debate be comprised of researchers as well?

There are many 9-11 researchers who would gladly debate Mr. Coburn.
These researchers have written books, published peer reviewed papers, and
written countless essays on the topic of 9-11 being and inside job.  Among
these are Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Steven E. Jones, and Jim Hoffman, all
of which I am sure you are well aware of.   I know these people to be both
scholarly in their original research as well as highly accessible to the

In particular, Jim Hoffman has done extensive research, both arguing
against information presented in the PM article,


and ironically, Jim has also written articles pointing out the bad
information which is contained in the film “Loose Change”.


It makes sense to me, that either of these 9-11 researchers, in particular
Jim Hoffman, would be an infinitely better choice for a fair and balanced
debate on both sides.  I urge you to consider this change to your program.

Popular Mechanics have used a technique which is known as the "straw man",
where an easily debunkable "straw man" is set up to be easily knocked
down.  It is no surprise that many of the mainstream hit pieces attacking
9-11 truth seekers focus on these fringe theories.  If DN allows this so
called debate to proceed, DN will continue down the road of the left gate
keepers that it has thus far taken and continue to loose credibility.

Very truly yours,

Michael Wolsey
Co-Founder, Colorado 911 Visibility Project
Board of Directors, 911truth.org
Host, Visibility 9-11 Podcast


STATUS: sent to Democracy Now

It is very revealing that Democracy Never would plan a debate between the Loose
with the truth film, which promotes hoaxes about 9/11 complicity, and the
Hearst Corporation (aka Popular Mechanics).

I still remember in the Fall of 2002 asking (politely) Amy Goodman to look at
the "plane into building" exercise that had just been made public (it was
conducted by the National Reconnaissance Office, which runs the spy satellites
- at the same time as actual events).

Most of Loose Change is disinformation, reminiscent of Karl Rove's providing of
fake memos to CBS (see BS?) before the 2004 pseudo-election to discredit the
Bush went AWOL story.

The "no plane hit Pentagon" claim was created by Donald Rumsfeld on October 12,
2001 and promulgated by Parade magazine.   The details are at the

Complete "No Planes on 9/11" Timeline

I challenge Democracy Now to mention the war games, the suppressed warnings,
the suppressed FBI agents (who tried to stop 9/11), the Peak Oil motivation for
wanting the attacks, and the anthrax attacks on the Democratic leadership and
media.  Perhaps you could cover this before the tenth anniversary.

Mark Robinowitz

STATUS: sent to Democracy Now

Dear Democracy Now:
I understand that Dylan Avery is scheduled to debate Popular Mechanics on your
September 11, 2006 show about whether 911 is an inside job.  Mr. Avery is the
among the least qualified persons to rebut Popular Mechanics because Dylan,
whom I believe has no college degree nor education, has embraced many of the
hoaxes put forth by the perpetrators of 911.  I have critiqued Avery's film,
"Loose Change" at length; it remains the most read critique of the film, and
I have yet to receive or hear of a competent rebuttal to its criticisms of
"Loose Change." 
Mr. Avery makes crucial claims about 911 that do not withstand scrutiny, so
having him as a guest, let alone as the sole guest, would only play into the
hands of the perpetrators of 911.  Please substitute Jim Hoffman for Dylan
Avery to rebut Popular Mechanics.
It is important to understand that Avery, Hoffman, and myself, all appreciate
that 911 in an inside job by the USG Intelligence Community/military.  The
difference between Jim Hoffman and myself on the one hand, and Avery on the
other, is that Avery has embraced certain hoaxes or "poison pills" about how
911 was accomplished that make him vulnerable to being discredited.  I believe
that Jim Hoffman and myself have been careful enough not to do so.
If you would like to speak with me by telephone, please advise and I will call
you or give you my number if you prefer.
Sincerely yours,
Michael B. Green, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Qualified Medical Examiner 1992-7/2006 (retired)
Former Assistant Professor of Philosophy @UT Austin

STATUS: sent to Democracy Now

To the Producers:
If Democracy Now is sincere in its investigation of 'conspiracy theories' it
will not pitt Dylan Avery against Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics.  Mr.
Avery's film is replete with the hoaxes which it is the delight of the
mainstream media to take pot-shots at because they're such easy targets.  Of
course, the film is not entirely BS.  But it is the admixture of truth with
disinformation that is particularly toxic to the ultimate cause of truth.
Legitimate researchers of the 'physical evidence' pointing to the involvement
of the Bush administration in 9/11 are Jim Hoffman of 911review.com and Steven
Jones of Brigham Young University.  In addition, it is imperative to interview
Mike Ruppert of www.Fromthewilderness.com, author of Crossing the Rubicon, on
the at least five war games that took place on 9/11, diverting planes away from
the East coast to Northern Canada and Alaska so that they were not available to
intercept the hijacked planes.  The war games also introduced 22 bits of chaff
onto the radar screens, stymying pilots who might have gone out on their own.
Ruppert also discusses the role of Dave Frasca of the Radical Fundamentalism
unit of the FBI and Promis software which formed the basis for Total
Information Awareness.
Mr. Avery is no doubt sincere in his beliefs and his film is certainly
engrossing.  If what Democracy Now seeks is diversion, by all means, invite Mr.
Avery.  Just make clear to your audience that you are engaging in entertainment
rather than investigative journalism.
Jenna Orkin

STATUS: sent to Democracy Now

Dear Democracy Now:

I am writing to request that you carefully consider your choice of the
best possible spokesperson for the upcoming debate with Popular
Mechanics.  The stakes for this debate are incalculably high, and the
wrong choice may prove very damaging to serious 9/11 studies.   Dylan
Avery is not the best choice, for several obvious reasons.

Mr. Avery's "Loose Change" videos, while effective in pointing out
flaws in the official account, are seriously compromised by dubious and
distracting claims regarding the Pentagon attacks. There are several
other serious flaws in Avery's work; these flaws have provided ample
material for "straw man" attacks by persons seeking to discredit
serious research.  I believe that permitting Mr. Avery to represent the
9/11 truth movement will be a disaster.  Indeed, I and other
researchers will say, without reservation:  Mr. Avery is not our

I have spent several years doing my own research into the facts about
the attacks of 9/11/2001.  Among the best investigators, without a
doubt, is Jim Hoffman of wtc7.net.   Mr. Hoffman is willing and eager
to represent the 9/11 truth movement in a debate with Popular
Mechanics.  I wholeheartedly endorse him.   I believe the only other
credible alternatives would be Dr. David Ray Griffin or Dr. Steven E.

As a blogger on the web site Democrats Abroad Japan, I have found that
fact-based information about the 9/11 truth movement often provokes
replies focusing on nonsensical aspects of 9/11 alternative narratives.
 These responses ridicule preposterous ideas about mid-air plane
switches, holographic projections, nuclear explosive devices, and all
sorts of other rubbish that no serious researcher accepts.  Again,
these nonsensical claims serve as "straw man" arguments that are easily
incinerated.   I have seen at first hand that simple, fact-based
messages about 9/11 truth can provoke responses attacking 9/11 nonsense
entirely unrelated to the original post.

The other steady response is, of course, reference to Popular
Mechanics.  Mr. Hoffman has analyzed and debunked PM's essays, with
solid logic and meticulous attention to detail.   You may verify this
yourself at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html.   There
you will see that Mr. Hoffman is obviously the best person to face
anyone representing Popular Mechanics.  He is already prepared.

I do not intend to attack Mr. Avery, or to suggest that he has
willfully provided groups such as Popular Mechanics with "straw man"
ammunition.  Hoffman himself believes that Mr. Avery has good
intentions.  Nevertheless, Mr. Avery's many well-documented "no-plane"
speculations and other falsifiable claims make him an unsuitable
spokesperson.   To put matters plainly, I think his opponent will make
Mr. Avery look pitiful and ridiculous, and that Democracy Now may look
little better.

Your choice of your 9/11 truth spokesperson may thus have serious
implications for Democracy Now.    I urge you consider that if DN sends
forth young Mr. Avery, whose work is sharply criticized by serious 9/11
researchers, your organization will be discredited, particularly if Mr.
Avery is humiliated.  The worst possible result would be charges that
DN itself was complicit in an effort to discredit serious 9/11
research.   Your choice thus has ramifications for your own credibility
with well-informed 9/11 truth advocates.   Simply stated, choosing Mr.
Avery may discredit Democracy Now not only with the general public, but
also with experts in the field of 9/11 research.  This would be the
most regrettable outcome, for everyone would lose.

In contrast, I have the utmost confidence in Mr. Hoffman, whose
spirited defense of the truth would certainly boost your reputation.
As I said earlier, I would also trust either Dr. Jones or Dr. Griffin
to hold their corner.  However, I am most familiar with Mr. Hoffman's
extensive research, and have corresponded with him for several years,
and therefore would make him my number one choice.

Your decision in this matter is of the utmost importance to democracy.
I therefore beseech you: listen carefully to those who suggest
candidates other than young Mr. Avery.   The stakes are so very high.

I will be very grateful if you can find time to reply to my
correspondence, and to let me know whether there is anything I do to
help you come to your final decision.  I would be more than glad to
answer any questions you might have.


Jonathan B. Britten
Fukuoka, JAPAN

STATUS: sent to Democracy Now

Dear Democracy Now:

I understand you will be airing an debate between a spokesperson
for the Popular Mechanics book "Debunking 9/11 Myths", and Dylan Avery,
the mid-20's maker of Loose Change -- a film that been used to discredit
the 9/11 Truth Movement repeatedly because of its uncritical promotion
of easily debunked theories, such as plane swapping.

I think that your audience would be better served if you would allow
me to contribute to the debate.  I'm the author of the most popular
critiques of the Popular Mechanics article on which their book is based:


While Dylan is well-intientiond, it is highly unlikely that he,
alone, would be able to competently represent the case attacked by
the book -- that for insider involvement in the attack.

Jim Hoffman

Senior Editor,


STATUS: sent to Democracy Now

Dear Amy Goodman and Democracy Now,

I am afraid you have done your listeners a serious disservice with the
presentation of this "exclusive" debate. What has been "excluded" in
this debate is anyone who knows what they are talking about. All four of
these individuals are sadly lacking in any real depth of understanding
of these important issues and events. The PM guys appear to be brain
dead without their "hundreds" of unnamed experts to lean on, and the LC
guys are just kids who are barely beyond the "gee whiz" stage in their
grasp of the relevant issues.

When a "debate" consists entirely of one side saying "well, my expert
says this" and the other side says "yeah, well my expert says that" it
gets tedious pretty quickly and ends up being nothing more than a
contest in polemics and posturing. Why not have a debate between the
actual experts themselves?

This is a profoundly important topic and our "democracy" deserves to
hear much higher quality of thought from both sides. Why not have the
director of the NIST investigation debate Kevin Ryan for example? Or how
about James Glanz and Eric Lipton from the New York Times debating Jim
Hoffman and Don Paul? Or maybe Frank Greening vs Steven Jones? Or
Richard Clarke vs Webster Tarpley?

Was this the best you can come up with? Or was this show intended from
the beginning to be nothing more than a 9/11 anniversary "hit" piece?

Thanks for considering these concerns,
C Thurston