Critics of these alternative theories say they are a form of
conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which
conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-198>
[211]</SUP> Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if [the argument] gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.
Michael Shermer, writing in
Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as
creationism,
Holocaust denial and the various
crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-199>
[212]</SUP>
There are also behavioristic objections to these conspiracy theories, arguing that the conspiracy theorists behave in an irrational or unscholarly way.<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-progressive_0>
[213]</SUP> One objection is that the conspiracy theorists tend to connect unrelated information. Another is that they will often expand the conspiracy to include those who debunk their original theories, such as Popular Mechanics.<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-progressive_1>
[213]</SUP> There is also the tendency of the conspiracy theorists to quote only other conspiracy theorists and provide little if any expert verification of any of their claims.<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-200>
[214]</SUP>
Scientific American,<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-SciAm_0>
[215]</SUP>
Popular Mechanics,<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-201>
[216]</SUP> and
The Skeptic's Dictionary<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-202>
[217]</SUP> have published articles that challenge and discredit various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists have jumped on the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by "senior researcher" Ben Chertoff, who they claim is cousin of
Michael Chertoff - current head of Homeland Security.<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-203>
[218]</SUP> However, no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-204>
[219]</SUP> Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled
Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-205>
[220]</SUP>
Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."<SUP class=reference id=wp-_ref-206>
[221]</SUP>
