American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center [Hardcover]

Langewiesche received access at the Trade Center after faxing an inquiry to Kenneth Holden, one of two Department of Design and Construction officials Langewiesche would later turn into the main characters of his book. Holden, according to Atlantic, "was an avid reader of The Atlantic Monthly and a fan of Langewiesche's writing in particular (he had bought and read Langewiesche's books)."

Langewiesche was on the site, as he said, "without anything identifying me as a member of the press. I was given the same credentials as any engineer with full access to every part of the site, as well as full access to the meetings and to the files."

Some people have applauded American Ground because of Langewiesche's untold stories from the "private world," inside the perimeter lines, including one particular story which states that certain firemen were looting the Trade Center shops before the towers fell.

Langewiesche's unconventional and unsteady reporting methods have resulted in many questions and challenges to the veracity of American Ground; As a journalist, I work as part of a group investigating Langewiesche's methods and the results of his work on American Ground.

Regarding probably the most controversial scene describing the looting of blue jeans, at his interview on tour at the South Street Seaport Museum in NYC, Langewiesche said he was 'writing about construction workers reactions, not what actually happened,' and that as for the facts of what did or did not happen, he is 'entirely unsure.'

Why is he entirely unsure? Because he wasn't there. But when you read the passage, it sure sounds like he was there, even if he is "entirely unsure," if what he wrote was fact or rumor. The book is filled with ambiguity about sourcing (an earlier edition of the story, a published, uncorrected proof of the book names the field superintendent and attributes the quote to him instead of a group of construction workers). The jeans story reveals the sort of problems found throughout the book.

According to New York Newsday, Nov. 19, 2002 'Langewiesche, in a telephone interview before the 20-minute protest, defended his work, saying it accurately reflected the emotions of rescue workers at the time.'

The emotions? Not the facts? He conceded that he had not checked out many of the stories he heard while he working on the book. 'I am not a truth squad as far as 9/11 goes,' he said. 'I am a reporter. I was interested about what people really believed. My readers understand that and have understood it for years.''

And some reviewers have defended Langewiesche, saying that this particular story is only a few paragraphs, and that it's unfair to judge him on just those pages.

This is a spurious argument; what Langewiesche alleges is a criminal charge. Is it really better not to make a fuss and to not bring the book into the spotlight again?

Wrong. Rumors of venality presented as fact do not belong in a book that is being sold as an American History textbook, in addition to being required summer reading in other scholarly institutions, a book written by a man who is being lauded like Journalism's golden boy. Neither does plagiarism belong in such a book, especially since most of these academic institutions which use his text require originality from their own students.

Specific charges of plagiarism in American Ground have remained unanswered by The Atlantic Monthly. Take the story of Betty Ong, for instance. American Ground has made serious allegations about the last moments of not only firefighters, but also Ms. Ong, who was a flight attendant aboard American Flight 11. "In terrified tones, gasping for air, Ong reported the hijacking," Langewiesche wrote, quite a contrast from the absolute calm heard when the tapes with her voice on them were played before the Sept. 11 Commission recently. And without speaking to the Ongs or Craig Marquis, who was quoted in American Ground, where did Langewiesche get this incorrect information? From a Wall Street Journal article, which was never sourced in the book.

Those who have protested Langewiesche's specific factual errors in "American Ground" have been characterized as people who are "upset by plain talk," the kind of people who just want a good, heroic picture to be painted of the firemen, no matter what the facts. This is misleading. The people who protested did so against specific allegations for which there was no proof. Of course there was looting. Take the case of Johnny Dunham. As WNBC reported, "While posing as a firefighter, Dunham -- who was really an unemployed security guard -- took a handful of Tourneau watches and cash. He pleaded guilty to the charges. Another impostor, Roland Abarrategui, was convicted of stealing from another store when the jury saw pictures he'd had real police take of him in an NYPD shirt." People suspected the rescue workers because you had to show credentials to get into these places - and these two looters, at least, dressed up in stolen emergency personnel gear. WNBC goes on, in the same article, to say "So far, no city employee has been charged with committing any crimes while working at ground zero."

People will believe what they want to. It's hard to do so when confronted by the facts. But for some people, it must be harder still to admit that you're wrong and make corrections. And blindly cheering for whatever "heroes," the television media throws at you is just as bad as cheering for whatever "anti-heroes," that the magazine and book publishers counters with.