Letters to the Editor of the Mt. Desert Islander weekly
concerning the October 10 showing of the film 9/11 Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out
at the Southwest Harbor (Maine) Public Library

12 October 2013

Dick Atlee, September 26, announcing the showing
(printable PDF)

The film that for weeks last fall was the most-watched video on public television's website, and has been shown to audiences all over the world, is coming to MDI on Thursday evening, October 10, at the Southwest Harbor Public Library. "9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out" offers strong confirmation of a concern expressed by over half the Americans in a recent national poll -- that there is something wrong with the picture we were all given about what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001.

In the film, dozens of experts -- structural, chemical, and fire protection engineers, physicists, explosives experts, and controlled-demolition technicians -- present the scientific evidence behind the concern that it took more than airplanes and fire to destroy the three World Trade Center towers that came down that day. These experts demonstrate the at-times glaring fraud in the official government "scientific" reports on the buildings, and explain the psychological reasons for why it can be so difficult to confront the implications of this information.

The film was produced by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of over 2000 registered architects and engineers. It previously produced the film "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" that was shown to a standing-room audience at the Southwest Harbor Library two years ago.

You may be one of the half of Americans who accept the picture of 9/11 we've been given, or one of the other half that has doubts about it. Either way, if you are concerned about what has happened since 9/11 based on that picture -- the wars-on-terror that our national leadership has acknowledged will never end, or the serious decline in the liberties we as Americans have taken for granted -- you will find this film both interesting and thought-provoking.

There will be time to talk about it afterwards for those who wish, and free DVD copies of the film will be available. Mark your calendar -- 7:00-8:30 PM, Thursday, October 10, Southwest Harbor Public Library.

Dick Atlee
Southwest Harbor

Response letter, October 3
(printable PDF of this and my response)

Everybody loves a conspiracy theory.

As a former science teacher, I welcome letter writer Dick Atlee's invitation to examine the film "9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out."

What you will find is text-book conspiracy theory characterized by a backward approach to the scientific method. Just throw out the ample evidence that does not support the conspiracy theorist's claims. Selectively use experts (some of whose statuses are suspect), and substitute answers with questions. Then ignore the overwhelmingly low probability that the hundreds if not thousands of people required to bring down the towers with explosives in coordination with airplane strikes could keep it a secret after twelve years -- every last one of them!

It is akin to believing in conspiracy theories that the moon landing was fake.

This just scratches the surface of the problems with the production's thesis. It is imperative that people learn to use the proper tools to evaluate information in the popular media so that they don't get pulled in by such slick and seductive docudrama posing as science.

If you are open-minded you may want to see this production and then examine the copious criticisms of it as a quintessential exercise in true, critical thinking.

B.H. [name withheld here for privacy reasons]
Bar Harbor

Dick Atlee's unpublished response

I was hoping that BH would come to the presentation. I was looking forward to engaging him in a discussion of his allegations of suspect experts and the need for hundreds of thousands of people and the problems of coordinating planes and explosions. Those are interesting topics for debate, though his use of the word "slick and seductive docudrama" for a non-drama series of citations of scientific evidence seemed a bit off the mark. It seemed to me that having a former science teacher (like David Chandler, one of the principal and effective thorns in the side of the government "scientific" reports) address the scientific observations in the film would have undoubtedly generated some useful discussion.

As I said at the showing, there are many attacks against the film and other work on the topic. I did my best to encourage the kind of "true, critical thinking" BH proposed, providing everyone at the showing with a handout linking to a web page with links to many such "debunking" websites.

Regrettably, BH either didn't show up, or if he did, he was remarkably silent for such an outspoken antagonist of the idea that 9/11 wasn't as we were told. Definitely a lost opportunity for all concerned.