The Greatest Lie Ever Told Analysis

In his article; “The greatest lie ever told”, Matt Evert explains the conspiracy on how the World Trade Center fell. Explaining how the events of 9/11 could have been an “inside job”, because of the many scenarios that would lead to the collapse of a skyscraper were not present during the attacks. He explains his argument by describing 14 characteristics of the event that could have or couldn’t have led to the collapse of the World trade center. He does this by using claims and official reports released by the government, and where their story is lacking based on eyewitness accounts, lack of physical evidence, and expert opinions and analysis. I feel that Evert’s arguments are valid because he uses lots of credible sources from people like witnesses and engineers and that there is actually no physical proof that al-Qaida was even responsible for the attacks. He begins his explanation by explaining the “eight areas of evidence” (evert 141). These areas are described that he implies, is official and not the suggested outcomes that we believe about September 11th. The first area is, if Osama bin laden was responsible for …show more content…
It is explained that the suspected hijackers did train to get their commercial pilot’s license, but they only trained on smaller planes and flight simulators. There have even been claims from their instructors that neither of the suspected hijackers seemed to have the skill to fully control such a large aircraft. With one of the instructors saying “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the pentagon. He could not fly at all” (Everett 6). Which brings up many questions on how these hijackers that had very little flying skill were able to get passed airport security, hijack and fly the plane hundreds of miles, and be able to reach their target locations without any