http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=382&Itemid=60
Sterling Allan posted a review, in which he writes:
“Her premise is that some kind of exotic technology was used to turn the buildings to dust, so that hardly any rubble was left (via a combination of Tesla’s Death Ray and Hutchison type effects). She presents a wide range of compelling evidence; and in her three hours of lecture, she also showed video footage. Her PowerPoint presentation is well formatted to highlight things in such a way that they cannot be overlooked any more. While there are some holes in her logic and contradictions, overall, I’m convinced there is something to the premise, which the controlled demolition model doesn’t satisfy.
“I’m working on a story about that, but it is not an easy subject. There are some strong points on both sides of the argument. But one thing they both agree on is that the government cover-up story is ridiculously erroneous and impossible — that the buildings came down (in free-fall speed) because they were hit by jets.
This essentially repeats errors from his presentation, but goes further and states “there are some holes in her logic and contradictions”. These “holes and contradictions” are not identified and discussed and therefore, for the casual reader of Allan’s articles, doubt and uncertainty is introduced – possibly without the reader realising this. Additionally, in coming with others, Allan mis-characterises the evidence and research of Dr Wood as “a premise”. Was this an intention of Allan’s review? Mr. Allan introduces division by referring to “sides of the argument,” but truth doesn’t have sides. Either something is true or it is not true.