On the other side of the equation, here is a small list of experts that have come out against the "Official" version
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Appeals to authority do not carry weight. The PQ911 group has been shown to not only forward already refuted claims, but has misrepresented the views of many of the supposed "members" (people who probably have no idea that Alan Miller has listed them on his websites).
Here's one example of a listed "Patriot" who makes a pair of falsified claims:
Richard Curtis, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at a variety of Seattle area colleges.
Listed on PQ911 for the following:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/270284_connellyrebut16.html
Writing about a speech by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, P-I columnist Joel Connelly claimed: "Each of us needs to understand why we are doing what we are doing." ("Sept. 11 show the flaws with protocol," May 8)
Indeed! The problem is that the "why" we have been told appears to be a complete fiction.
It turns out those oral histories reveal details about what was happening in the World Trade Center buildings that are completely inconsistent with the tale told by the commission. Dozens of firefighters and medics reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosives going off in the buildings that collapsed. Why were there explosives, very powerful explosives by all accounts, going off in the buildings? More disturbing, why was the pattern of those explosives identical in some important ways with the pattern used in a planned implosion (or controlled demolition of a building)?
Full blown truther mantra article...worth a read and laugh.
He apparently made a speech, not accessible from the PQ911 site (link broken, goes to google search), that had the following quote...
"... there is no evidence to support the commonly held belief that 19 Arab religious fanatics were responsible for the attack of 9/11. And further, the evidence we do have strongly supports the alternative theory that the attacks were actually an inside job. ... The government and our media have endlessly repeated a Big Lie about 9/11. The official version of this lie was published in a book called The 9/11 Commission Report."
And he is a member of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth".
This fellow seems 100% 9/11 truth believer.
TAM
Discussions of the "explosions" located here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
Discussions of the evidence regarding the hijackers here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism,alqaedainfo
http://911myths.com/html/hijackers.html
That person is recycling old myths. Many others on that site retail myths and fallacies. The fact that they're "experts" (experts in what should be the next question you readers should ask Steve here) doesn't rescue them from that problem. See the following thread, and Ref's paper discussing the PQ911 group in more detail:
Thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94638
Ref's paper (note: Work is in .pdf format):
http://911guide.googlepages.com/PatriotsQuestion911Addressed-Enginee.pdf
Also: There are some people listed who are not myth peddling, but who I'm willing to bet would be surprised to find themselves being lumped in with 9/11 deniers. Mary Schiavo is one of them; I've specifically pointed her out back in 2008:
Why does Mary Schiavo's name keep popping up? She's never made any claims about the NIST investigation, and in fact has only voiced criticisms about the issues with airline security and individual elements of the investigation regarding the timeline analysis of the airplane hijackings, the last of which was eventually answered. T.A.M. wrote up an analysis of her entry on the PQ911 site here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3305226#post3305226.
I've never seen her call for any new investigation. To her, the whole problem with 9/11 is one of airline security (a legitimate criticism, I might add). Her stance is at most LIHOI, and given that her criticism involves lax security, it's pretty obvious she agrees with the narrative of radical Islamic hijackers committing 9/11. Yet, her name always comes up whenever a fantasist insists on listing people that supposedly agree with their stances. I don't get it.
In Schiavo's case, not only has she never stated any disbelief in the dominant narrative of 9/11, but her criticism and activism clearly,
unequivocally shows that she believes hijackers were the root cause of the event. I've not seen any place she's questioned the engineering behind the towers collapse, nor has she seemed to ever question the identity of the hijackers. In short, she does indeed question 9/11, but in a manner far,
far removed from the way conspiracy peddlers do. If you want an example of a genuine critic, look to her. But at the same time, if you want to use her to validate the rest of the PQ911 list, think very carefully: As I said, her criticisms
strengthen the hijackings narrative. Which in turn negates many of the claims of stolen Arab identities, such as the one Dr. Richard Curtis made (above).
The ultimate point here is that listing the Patriots Question 9/11 list is an exercise in fallacious argument. It's not who they are, it's what they say. Mary Schiavo says many harsh things that make sense, but do not contribute to any conspiratorial thesis. Richard Curtis makes claims that do point at conspiracies, but have long been disproven. It is an empty act to present the PQ911 list as some sort of authoritative argument against any aspect of 9/11, let alone the NIST report, which not everyone on the list even addresses, and which the rest misrepresent or resort to fallacies in order to attack.
