Negative review of Jonathan Kay`s new book Among the Truthers

Excellent critique of Kay`s book Among the Truthers.

Published in the Winnipeg Free Press, a large Canadian newspaper:

The Review Concludes:

"On several pages, Kay acknowledges that the official Warren commission version of a "magic bullet" does not stand up to analysis and that a later report -- endorsed by the U.S. House of Representatives -- used new evidence to determine there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

But before and after those pages, Kay dismisses many of the 9/11 Truthers because they also believe in the JFK conspiracy, without acknowledging that he has been forced to agree there was one.

Nor does the fact that a "conspiracist" was right about one conspiracy earn him the right to respectful treatment by Kay when discussing other allegations of conspiracy.

Twenty years from now, there may be some compelling new evidence that proves Kay right on 9/11; or he may be proven a fool, a tool or a dupe.

All this book proves is that he is better at dismissing his sources by calling them names than he is in probing their statements for truth."

Another clown

"On several pages, Kay acknowledges that the official Warren commission version of a "magic bullet" does not stand up to analysis and that a later report -- endorsed by the U.S. House of Representatives -- used new evidence to determine there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy."

This clown barely warrants rebuttal. Has he/she even introduced anything new to the equation?


Kay is all about ridicule since HE KNOWS he can't fight us on the facts and physics.

As I said elsewhere, we should just put some 9/11 truth literature in his books when we come across them and not spend another minute on this clown.

I hope that you and yours are well.


Good idea...

"...we should just put some 9/11 truth literature in his books when we come across them...."

Anthony Hall

Professor Anthony Hall wrote a fine piece published in the Salem News just gutting Kay's spurious 'arguments':


Losing the argument often results in the "ad hominem" response..

Yes, I read Professor Hall's lengthy and excellent article from top to bottom. In it, the good professor hacks through Kay's untenable position like the proverbial knife through butter, or more aptly, like nanothermite through steel.

There is a consistent and yawning difference between those at the forefront of 9/11 truth seeking and questioning, and those who wish (or are paid) to preserve the official gibberish: It is the latter, who, in the lack of a coherent argument employing scientifically proven sets of facts, are forced into ad hominem attacks, or shouting louder than the next person, using the supine corporate media to carry their lies. When confronted by the legion of material which runs counter to their position, they repeatedly run out of space to maneuver, and with nowhere to go, they react like cornered rats.

God is in the details?

It seems it's never a bad time to insert a plug for the bug guy upstairs.

The idiom "God (is) in the

The idiom "God (is) in the detail (s)" expresses the idea that whatever one does should be done thoroughly; i.e. details are important.

As I note in the post, in 2008 Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog advised Kay to not sweat the details.

It's more than just an idiom

...but that's beside the point. I'm not starting an argument about a non-issue, but it does make for interesting linguistic discussion.

George Bush and Obama can rest easy at night with clear conscience that their words and actions are in keeping with the values of their faith.

... and yet others with the same faith in the "God of the little things" can oppose them on grounds of their personal beliefs.

It's like the story of two rival football teams each praying to the same deity for victory. So don't get me wrong.... God is in the details wether his name is Allah or Yahweh or Jesus, even if you only mean to say it as an idiom without implying any deeper meaning.

Here I reclaim the idiom to have a more profound meaning because I think it goes beyond simply doing one's own work thoroughly. It's rather about how one's concept of God and one's ideas about him are used to justify one's actions and thereby yields the details of your work.

I changed my title.

This more recent variant of the adage can be taken literally and figuratively and still remain completely on topic. It's more befitting of a post about a book entitled Among the Truthers too. So thanks for the linguistics discussion!

The Truth is in the Details, Jon

Which Government Op Is Paying This Person?

Which Government Operative is paying this person to write this book? Most of the reviews on Amazon are negative. I still stand by my opinion that use of the word "truthers" is not a positive thing, as exemplified by how it has been used to sell this book.

Early life and career

Jonathan Kay was born and raised in Montreal. His mother is the socially conservative newspaper columnist Barbara Kay. He attended Selwyn House School and Marianopolis College before obtaining a BSc and a MSc[12] in metallurgical engineering from McGill University and a law degree from Yale Law School. He is a member of the New York bar. After practicing as a tax lawyer in New York City, Kay moved to Toronto, where, in 1998, he became a founding member of the National Post editorial board. Kay describes himself as an avid tennis enthusiast, and sometimes has incorporated his passion for the sport into his journalism.[13]

Apart from his editorial work, Kay has also written two non-fiction books. In 2007, Kay co-authored The Volunteer, a biography of Mossad secret agent Michael Ross. In May, 2011, HarperCollins published Kay's second book, Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground.[14] The book reflects Kay's interest in the psychology of conspiracy theorists, a subject he often has explored in his National Post columns[15].
[edit] Reactions to Kay's writings

Kay often endorses views regarded as conservative, particularly on the subjects of Israel[16], political correctness[17] and policy toward North American Aboriginals[18]. However, he also has dissented from conservatives on a variety of issues. In recent years, for example, he has written articles raising awareness about income inequality,[19] and questioning the conduct of the Iraq War.[20] In 2010, Kay argued that conservatives are wrong to continue challenging the majority scientific view on global warming.[21] In response, Financial Post columnist Terence Corcoran, a noted climate-change skeptic, argued that Kay's support of the anthropogenic climate change theory was based on unproven environmentalist dogmas.[22]

Because Kay's writing generally is dismissive of the claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement, he often has been criticized[23] by its advocates. Progressive e-media The Canadian Charger and, in particular, have accused Kay of attacking academic freedom because, in his writing, he criticizes the public funding of academic research that is based on 9/11 Truth conspiracy theories.[24][25]

Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground generally received positive reviews in major media outlets, such as The New York Times[26], The Wall Street Journal[27] and The Economist[28]. But it received uniformly negative reactions from members of the 9/11 Truth Movement.[29]

I tell it like this to people in bars or anywhere...

...sort of like telling a joke - except I'm telling a conundrum that no one can figure out:

1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.

2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.

3. For the moment, let's assume that the structural strength of the Towers is ZERO - all the tiny particles of steel, glass, concrete, etc. are just magically hanging in place ...but let's also assume that they do possess normal MASS, and that no material begins to fall until it is impacted from above - just as observed in the actual Tower collapses.

4. It takes energy to push a huge stationary mass of material out of the way or set it into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.

5. Using mathematics or computer programs, it is fairly simple to calculate how many extra seconds, over and above freefall time, can be attributed to overcoming the static inertia of a WTC Tower's mass. That extra fall time is about 5 seconds.

6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of about 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's Laws, while ignoring and effects of structural strength.

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time will be required to overcome the immense strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.

8. However, we are already certain that the total collapse time can be no less than around 14 seconds due to Newton 's Laws alone. Yet, overcoming the steel infrastructure's strength can only INCREASE the total collapse time still further - by many, many more seconds if collapse even takes place at all. Yet the towers fell through themselves as if they had hardly any structural strength at all.

9. Do you believe that the steel infrastructure's strength was no stronger than the surrounding air. No? Well, there you go: a gravitationally-driven collapse is absurd.

10. Even if you assume a collapse time of 20 seconds, this is like saying that the towers' strength fell apart easily, like wet toilet paper; hardly any resistance at all. Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second, or even 5 -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework... How much energy does it take to do that? A whole shitload! But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength. Because the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds, it seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911.


It's the same argument as we've all heard and understood before, but it's told in a way that people are able to grasp quickly.

I just told it to some visiting Arab students tonight. They were impressed with the logic of it.

No one that I've told it to has been able to rebut it credibly. I tell it to people like I'm telling them a puzzle.

I really like this approach

I really like this approach

Thank you Anthony Hall

... for a comprehensive critique. Provided a lot of detail while contributing to the bigger picture as well.