9/11 conspiracy theories

A number of people have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks. Various conspiracy theories have been suggested to explain the events.

Origins

File:CNN911scrn.jpg

CNN broadcast of September 11 destruction when the second plane struck the south tower of the WTC.

In an address to the United Nations on November 10, 2001, President George W. Bush denounced the emergence of "outrageous conspiracy theories ... that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists." Since that time, a number of websites, books, and films have emerged in support of various theories, largely dependent on the Internet for promotion and distribution.

Although these theories received little attention in the major media following the attacks, by September of 2006, two major polls had indicated that half of New Yorkers believed US Leaders had foreknowledge of the attacks and "consciously failed" to act, and that one third of all Americans suspected a 9-11 government conspiracy. Consequently, just prior to the 5th anniversary of the attacks, a flurry of mainstream news articles on 9-11 conspiracy theories were released. In its coverage of the theories, Time Magazine stated, "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality." Mainstream coverage generally presents these theories as a cultural phenomenon and is often very critical of their content.

At the same time, similar efforts were made by government agencies and the Bush Administration to refute 9/11 conspiracy theories, including a formal response by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to questions about the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers,a new State Department webpage to debunk the theories, and a strategy paper reference by George Bush in a September 6th speech which declares that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

Some have argued that the origin of the conspiracy theories is the official account itself since it involves more than one person in the planning and execution of crime (see conspiracy). But for the purposes of this article it will be useful to distinguish the popular sense of the term from the legal sense. While al-Qaeda did "conspire" to carry out the attacks according to the official version, the essential element of the popular sense of "conspiracy theory", which will be used here, is the presence of a network of powerful figures, working within the US government.

Since belief in the existence of such a network predates the 9/11 attacks, it may be argued that 9/11 conspiracy theories originated before the attacks themselves. Independent journalists like Alex Jones and Michael Ruppert, for example, who were already reporting on the covert operations of government agencies against US citizens, were not disposed to blaming an independent al-Qaeda for the attacks. Indeed, Jones says he predicted both the attacks themselves and the use of Osama bin Laden as "bogeyman" in July of 2001.

Main categorizations

9/11 conspiracy theories generally start with dissatisfaction with the official explanation of 9/11. But criticism of the official story does not in and of itself constitute a conspiracy theory.

One non-conspiratorial set of criticism suggests merely that government agencies, including the military and intelligence communities, dealt incompetently with the 9/11 attacks. Such criticism may go as far as suggesting that the 9/11 Commission was a "cover-up" of those alleged incompetencies. Where claims are made that government agencies responded ineptly to prior warnings of the attacks, and that individuals responsible subsequently have attempted to gloss over these failings, no conspiracy to do so is necessarily implied.

While 9/11 conspiracy theories do often begin with similar indications that individuals within the government knew of the attacks before they happened, such theories then go further to suggest intentional activities that either facilitated or directly caused the attacks. There are two main categories of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

1. Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "let it happen on purpose" (LIHOP). That is, they knew the attacks were coming (though there is a range of opinion about how specific their knowledge was) and undertook to weaken America's defenses sufficiently to ensure a successful major terrorist attack on home soil.
2. Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "made it happen on purpose" (MIHOP). That is, they planned the attacks (and here there is a range of opinion about what the plan was) and ultimately carried it into action.

Some theories go on to identify the people who had the power to either make it or let it happen purposefully. This list of suspects also varies considerably across theories.

Government foreknowledge

File:WTC1 on fire.jpg

The World Trade Center on fire. The plume of smoke escaping the Twin Towers is seen for miles.

One theory is that individuals within the United States government and private sector knew of the impending attacks and purposefully did not act on that knowledge. Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher suggested this possibility. The theory does not necessarily suggest that individuals within the US Government actually conducted the operation, but rather that they had enough information to have prevented the attack.

Intelligence issues

Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan.

• According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers, Ashcroft responded that they do not start investigations at the top.
• Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.
• Author William Norman Grigg furthered the Schippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. (Able Danger was a SOCOM exercise.)

• The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI, but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00, 8/9/2005)
• Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks.
• FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid 2001 after an undisclosed source leaked information to the New York Times about an investigation into an incident that had occurred 13 months earlier. He was then recruited to be chief of security at the World Trade Center. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.

Possible early warning

• On September 12, 2001, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that San Franscisco Mayor Willie Brown may have gotten an early warning of the attack, because Brown had said a phone call from his airport security eight hours before the attacks advised him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. He did not cancel his flight plans until he became aware of the attacks.
• Of the call, Brown said it "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement. It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge

News accounts in the aftermath reported a suspicious pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines as well as Morgan Stanley and other unusual market activity.

• In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, said:

"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account."

However, according to the 9/11 Commission, the SEC and FBI examined each trade, the trades were innocuous, and no evidence of a connection was found:

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, that recommended these trades.

• Numerous conspiracy theorists express doubts that the Commission was actually able to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks.

World Trade Center towers

See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center

Overview

The collapse of the World Trade Center was a surprise to the engineering community. "No experienced structural engineer watching the attack," wrote Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure, "expected the WTC towers to collapse. They also noted that no skyscraper had ever before collapsed due to fire. Osama bin Laden has also said the best he had hoped for was the collapse of floors above the point of attack. The task for engineers has been to explain how the local damage caused by the airplanes was able to bring on a global progressive collapse.

While an explanation has now been "generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering," Bazant and Verdure also identify a dissenting view, which is held by "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives". Indeed, the "controlled demolition hypothesis," which was explicitly rejected by the official NIST report, plays a central, albeit not essential, role in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

Van Romero, a demolitions expert in New Mexico, at first said that the collapses looked "too methodical" to have been brought on by the impacts and subsequent fires and proposed explosives in the building to account for the images he saw on television. He later retracted his suggestion and insisted elsewhere that he had "only said that that's what it looked like." Jeff King and Jim Hoffman were early defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis and published their observations online. David Ray Griffin included it in his comprehensive survey of anomalies in the official story. It received its most notable proponent to date in early 2006, when Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, argued that a "gravity driven collapse "(i.e., one without explosives) would , according to him, defy the laws of physics and fail to account for the full range of available evidence.

There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Proponents of the hypothesis sometimes cite reports of unusual power outages, maintenance work and emergency drills in the weeks leading up to 9/11. Like any controlled demolition, the role of the explosives would have been to remove the main structural supports in order to let gravity and the weight of the building do the rest. Many today follow Steven Jones in suggesting thermite, perhaps in combination with other devices.

Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis argue that it better explains the data than the official account, as presented in the NIST report and various engineering papers. They often emphasise the speed (near freefall), symmetry and completeness of the collapses; the reported sounds of explosions going off before the collapses began; the shooting out of debris and smoke (so called "squibs") in the videos of collapses; and reports of molten metal. They also argue that the fires were not hot enough, and did not burn long enough, to significantly weaken the steel in the buildings to a point of collapse. Finally, they say that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed on that day, displaying many of the features of a controlled demolition.

The total progressive collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 have not been modelled with the intention of either refuting or proving the controlled demolition hypothesis. The NIST report provided a finite element analysis of the structural response of the building up to the point of where "collapse was inevitable" due to the "enormous" weight of the buildings above the damaged floors, but did not similuate the structural response of the lower floors, which are of primary interest to supporters of the demolition theory. Bazant and Zhou had provided some rough estimates to support this characterization, concluding that the weight was at least an "order of magnitude" over that required to occasion total collapse. This was then reaffirmed by Bazant and Verdure. Alternative calculations of the forces involved have been produced to suggest the oppositive conclusion, namely, that the structure underneath the impacts should have easily withstood the failure of the top floors, stopping the progress of the collapses, in which case the tops of the buildings would have, at most, 'fallen off' the towers, rather than straight through them. Such analyses have not found their way into any academic engineering discussions.

There is widespread agreement, however, about the significance of the controlled demolition hypothesis, even among those who don't endorse it specifically or conspiracy theories in general. The necessary explosives could only have been planted well in advance of the September 11 attacks and would have required extraordinary access to three highly secured buildings. These housed not only some of the most important financial infrastructure in the United States, but offices of government agencies. If it were to be demonstrated that the collapses were in fact demolitions, it would give much credibility to the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job".

Much of the support for the controlled demolition theory comes from interpretations of videos and photographs. Some eyewitnesses also reported seeing, hearing and feeling multiple explosions, and explosions in sequence. Many conspiracy theorists have highlighted the following as evidence for the theory that planted explosives brought down the WTC towers:

New leaseholder

Building 7 owner and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC Complex Larry Silverstein has come under scrutiny by 9/11 conspiracy theorists for at least 2 reasons, one being a statement he made in a documentary which conspiracy theorists say is suggestive of the intentional demolition of Building 7, and one being the timing of his bids and potential financial gains he was likely to make with the loss of the buildings.

Financial gains from Towers' destruction

As stated on the Larry Silverstein page:

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. . . . Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center closed on July 24 2001, just seven weeks before the buildings were destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The insurance policy also contained a clause that in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease.

Controlled-demolition theory

The NIST report did not analyze the actual pattern of the WTC's collapse; the scope of the investigations was limited to the events leading up to the collapse: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. [This report] includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." The FEMA report, some say, also did not analyze the actual pattern of the collapse. (For further information on these reports, see 'Government Inquiry' below)

Skeptics of the progressive collapse, or "pancake" theory, say that there is ample evidence that the towers collapsed due to the systematic destruction of internal supports. Jim Hoffman, a conspiracy theorist and software engineer, says that the telltale signs of controlled demolition, present in the WTC collapse, are:

• Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.
• Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free fall in a vacuum.
• Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
• Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
• Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
• Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
• Molten metal: A stream of liquid metal was videotaped flowing out of the corner of 2 WTC moments before collapse, and eyewitnesses observed and reported pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles.

Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, and Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer at Clemson University, say that without the use of explosives to destroy the buildings' internal support structure, the fall of the towers violates conservation of momentum. In addition, Dr. Jones says the angular momentum of the top of the South Tower as it began to collapse could not simply disappear, unless the center of mass of the top was somehow shattered and destroyed. In addition, he says that the collapse of the towers at near free-fall speed indicates that the central core below the impact zone had lost its structural integrity and provided almost no resistance to the falling debris. The theory is also advocated by Jones's group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

The NIST responds that they do not support the Pancake Theory either. Rather, the

"WTC towers collapsed because:

"(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and

"(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."

The NIST also concludes that the momentum of the upper level structures was so large that the lower level structures would offer little resistance and therefore the building would fall at nearly the free fall rate. The building's structure was only designed to support the static load, not the dynamic forces of collapse.

Molten metal

In the weeks and months after the collapse, there were reports of workers pulling steel beams from the burning rubbles of the WTC, dripping with molten metal. According to reports by FEMA and NIST, molten metal (visible on video) dripped out of the South Tower just before it collapsed. Having analyzed the color of the molten metal, Steven E. Jones believes the metal was at least 1000°C. Others claim the molten metal may simply be aluminum from the aircraft, which melts at about 650°C. Jones has rejected that theory, as according to him molten aluminum is a poor emitter of black body radiation and should appear silvery-gray under daylight conditions. (The metal in the video is bright yellow.) According to Jones, the presence of molten metal at 1000°C would contradict the mainstream collapse hypothesis, according to which that fires in the buildings reached temperatures high enough to weaken the steel, but not to melt it.

In addition to the molten metal, the initial FEMA investigation team found sulfur on parts on the structural steel in the towers and 7 WTC. FEMA was unable to find the source of sulfur, and the NIST report does not mention it. Conspiracy theorists including Steven Jones believe this sulfide may have been caused by the use of a thermite reaction to melt and destroy the steel within the structure. Others have suggested the sulfur originated from gypsum wallboard.

Thermite reactions can reach temperatures of up to 4500°F (2500°C), well beyond the temperature (approximately 1500°C) required to melt structural steel, and with the addition of sulfur can cause an eutectic reaction within such steel. Such a eutectic reaction was observed at WTC and according to professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. was "capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." Thermite could explain the presence of the aforementioned molten metal seen dripping out of the South Tower. Steven E. Jones believes this metal is actually molten iron, a byproduct of the thermite reaction.

The NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. According to NIST, the apparent color could have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

In response to NIST, Steven E. Jones says he conducted experiments to test NIST's "orange glow" hypothesis. He says that by using several different approaches to mixing organics into molten aluminum, he found that organic material refused to mix and, instead, floated to the top. He says when the mixture was poured, the molten aluminum remained silvery, not orange (with the exception of rougue embers). He claims the outcome of these experiments directly contradict what he describes as NIST's theory that the molten metal seen pouring from the World Trade Center consisted of aluminum alloys.

Symmetry and Squibs

1, 2, and 7 WTC also fell straight down with, according to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, remarkable symmetry. Without explosives, they say, this symmetry would violate the second law of thermodynamics. 9/11 conspiracy theorists of the collapses also point to photographs and videos of what they believe are demolition "squibs", which are tightly focused horizontal plumes of smoke and debris being ejected from the twin towers during the collapse. The official theory is that the squibs were merely the ejection of material due to the evacuation of air as the floors collapsed; the plumes, however, appear approximately 10 stories below the area of main destruction and are ejected only from the centers of the towers. These plumes appear in both towers, at regular intervals, and from multiple camera angles. Conspiracy theorists say the presence of these squibs indicate secondary explosive devices, activated just ahead of the collapsing material, removing the structural support and allowing total collapse. Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists also believe that squibs were seen in the destruction of 7 WTC, running rapidly up the Southwest corner of the building. They argue that while a possible theory is that the 7 WTC squibs simply result from the floors collapsing, the time between the events is much too rapid to be due to gravitational acceleration.

Ejected debris

Girders of weight up to 4 tons each were ejected sidewards and found 600 feet from the WTC2. A calculation of ejection speed needed for girders to land so far away is used as an argument for explosives blowing up inside.

Oral History Support for Demolition

As evidence of controlled demolition, some 9/11 conspiracy theorists point to eyewitness descriptions of the events before the collapse of the towers which appeared consistent with explosives, such as "It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions," and "You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down," etc.

In addition, William Rodriguez, a high profile survivor was located in the basement of the North tower, when he reported a large explosion on Sublevel B3, before the plane impacted. Rodriguez escaped the building, and escorted several people to safety.

His testimony was told to the 9/11 commission, but no explanation was ever given for the explosions.

Molecular and Chemical Support for Demolition

Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust and indicates that chemicals consistent with thermate are present. Other environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including a study by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue.

Pulverization

Software engineer Jim Hoffman suggests that gravity alone exerts too little energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, or to explain the pyroclastic flow-like cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions.

Lack of Collapse Precedents

Furthermore, since no steel high-rise building has suffered a total collapse as the result of fire before or since the 9-11 attack, theorists allege the collapse of 1, 2, and 7 WTC are anomalies. The WTC towers burned for less than 102 min (1 WTC) and 56 minutes (2 WTC), during which both towers were stable after the impacts. Theorists consider the following hi-rise fires to be the most similar for comparative purposes:

• 1 New York Plaza (1970) - burned for more than 6 hours, no collapse.
• First Interstate Bank (1988) - burned for 3 1/2 hours, gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower, no collapse.
• One Meridian Plaza (1991) - burned for 18 hours, gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building, no collapse; later had to be demolished.
• Torre Este de Parque Central (Venezuela) (2004) - burned for more than 17 hours, spread to over 26 floors, no collapse.
• The Madrid Windsor Tower (2005) - a partial collapse of some steel sections building while the concrete framework prevented a complete collapse.

Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists say these fires are particularly relevant to WTC7, which was not struck by planes and which suffered damage only from fires and falling debris from the collapse of 1 and 2 WTC.

The Caracas Tower, First Interstate Bank and 1 New York Plaza were constructed using the conventional steel girder system consisting of a grid of steel columns and trusses connecting the columns. The Windsor Tower, however, was constructed with concrete columns and a concrete core for the first 16 floors, steel girder and concrete core for the floors above that, and two additional concrete slabs to provide additional strength.

Steel temperatures

Conspiracy theorists have compared the heat of the fires in the twin towers and the fires' effect on steel to actual fire tests in open sided car parks carried out by steel manufacturer Corus (formerly British Steel) on unprotected steel beams. The highest recorded steel temperatures in open sided car parks when exposed to the hydrocarbon-fuelled fires was 360°C, well below the estimated 800°C temperature of the steel supports in the twin towers (which were not open sided car parks) at the time of the fires.

Several studies made by NIST also showed that temperatures were relatively low. Paint study show that neither perimeter, nor core columns were exposed to temperatures exceeding 615°C for longer than 15 minutes and mostly temperatures were below 250°C.

Independent experiments and fire models (or "standard fires") used to evaluate the integrity of structural components demonstrate that hydrocarbon fuels are capable of producing temperatures of 1100°C, and even more when a mix of flammable materials such as office furniture is present. However, these tests do not necessarily duplicate the conditions of real fires, or the behaviour of materials exposed to real fires, and are used primarily as a means of rating materials by using a standardised testing procedure.

Attempts to Debunk Conspiracy Theories

Those attempting to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories have compared the WTC collapses to the Ronan Point disaster, in which one corner of Ronan Point collapsed after a gas explosion. Although Ronan Point was found to be structurally unsound (unsafe), the building did not totally collapse. 9/11 Conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman has said that the section of the Ronan Point building that collapsed were nonstructural - the short cantilever sections were supported by the building's main structure, making any comparison with the WTC towers unsound. Hoffman states, "The problem with the progressive collapse theory is that it's very difficult to actually build something that will exhibit this behavior."

Government inquiry

Following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three year $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures. The study included in-house technical expertise and drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions for aid to include:

• Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
• Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
• National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
• American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
• Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)
• Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)

Opponents of the demolition theory cite this government report which presented evidence on how and why the buildings collapsed. The report also said that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." Though this report said there was no such evidence, professor Steven E. Jones (See individual viewpoints below), as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis.

• The FEMA and NIST reports have yet to resolve all disagreements among engineers. Although not advocating the theory that a controlled demolition occurred, New Civil Engineer published several articles regarding the collapse. One such article, Row Erupts Over Why Twin Towers Collapsed, cites one party saying "the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact". Another quote from the same article states, "World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers…Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.”
• In addition to the above articles, other theorists continue to say critical aspects of the NIST report in the engineering community. In 2005 fire engineers B. Lane and S. Lamont stated: "This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. There is no evidence in NIST's preliminary report that this is backed up by structural modeling in response to fire. It appears that only heat transfer modeling considering different levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and stiffness only. Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described as yet."
• In August of 2006, NIST produced a webpage titled Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, which addressed many of the questions pertaining to the demolition theory. 9/11 conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman responded to the FAQ with his report, A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the institute’s Trade Center report, recently addressed many of the issues 9-11 conspiracy theorists have with the study. Dr. Sunder replied, "Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”

The debris

File:Wtcdebris.jpg

A section of fuselage rests in the ruins of the World Trade Center.

In addition to the observation of the collapse, theorists draw upon the remnants of the collapse of the World Trade Center. Opponents of the official story cite the following in support of the controlled demolition theory.

The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse.

• This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives. Several observers in and around the debris field utilized phrases containing the words “molten metal” or “molten steel” to describe the devastation. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done. The following are some of the more common statements seen:
• The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers in a second hand account by James Williams who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

File:Lobby damage and cloud.jpg

The lobby of one of the towers was partially destroyed (broken windows and marble panels) and a dust cloud can be seen rising from the ground during the moments prior to or at the start of collapse.^{(definitive timing needed)}

• Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, stated in the Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."
• Obtaining a conclusive answer to these molten metal reports is difficult because of the lack of debris remaining. While NASA's satellite images of Ground Zero do show large hot spots well after 9/11, they do not provide an exact measure of temperatures within the rubble pile since this type of remote sensing captures only the temperatures on the surface of a debris pile. Independent scientific investigation into what sort of metal, if any, was liquefied has yet to be conducted.

Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft (10 m) long and large sections of steel destined for recycling were quickly sent to areas in SE Asia.

• This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence.
• The longest beam surrounding the towers was no greater than 38 feet.
• It took more than eight months to remove all of the debris from Ground Zero.
• Furthermore, Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, responded to this notion and the evaluation of evidence, "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples." NIST has numerous sections of steel from both Towers as well as 7 WTC.

The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack.

• The Chicago Tribune reported that experts believed the recorders would not be found simply because of the massive scope of the damage and debris. NTSB and FBI have both publicly stated the recorders were never recovered. The 9/11 Commission and federal authorities say that none of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes that crashed into the Twin Towers was ever found, however two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center say they helped federal agents find three of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners, raising the question of whether there was a government cover-up at Ground Zero (Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 28, 2004, [20], Counterpunch.com, Dec. 19, 2005 [21]).

Individuals questioning aspects of the collapse

The following individuals have expressed skepticism or doubt regarding the official theory:

• In a research report, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones writes, "The 'explosive demolition' hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated."
• In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention of the steel failing at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." UL is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. Kevin Ryan was subsequently fired from his job.
• Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, a major authority on explosions' effects on buildings, has said, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." Romero has since retracted his belief, later stating, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."
• Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the common account in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."
• In The New Pearl Harbor, former theology and philosophy Professor David Ray Griffin presents a litany of observations he says are consistent with controlled demolition, including sudden onset, straight down symmetry, pulverization, horizontal ejection, dust clouds, squibs, and molten metal. He says that since 2 WTC collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower, the mechanism of collapse is questionable. Additionally, he argues the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, suggesting less fuel would have burned in the central support area.
• On June 13, 2005, the Washington Times reported that former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the common account of the WTC collapse is "bogus" and suggests a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. He also questioned the involvement of commercial jets stating that "North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767."
• Jimmy Walter, who believes that 9/11 was the work of a government conspiracy and has run ads in New York requesting that the investigation into 9/11 be reopened- suggests that, "[the] aircraft were robot planes; the passengers were mainly military contractors; the aircraft were only 10 to 25 per cent full, while all other planes that day were booked out."
• Recently, actor Charlie Sheen gave an interview on GGN Radio Network's "The Alex Jones Show," in which he suggested that the federal government was covering up what "really" happened. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions," Sheen said. He also expressed disbelief over how American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and said the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like a "controlled demolition."

Structural and civil engineering research

The mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. The jet crashes and fires have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community. The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to initiate collapse.

The following are a few examples of the structural engineering research done on the collapse:

• According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle.
• Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down.
• Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, says Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting fire was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.
• Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash, because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."

• Although some say that there is a large difference between the Boeing 707, which was popular when the WTC was built, and the Boeing 767s that hit the WTC, others describe the details which show this point to be irrelevant. While the 707 weighs around 330,000 pounds including fuel, the Boeing 767 is about 20 % heavier; however the fuel capacity is about the same for both aircraft. Still, the significant differences in cruise speeds suggests that a 707 in would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
• Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center. Robertson says, “It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”
• Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.

World Trade Center: Building 6

Some theorists say that there was an explosion at WTC 6 based on a photo analysis by Jack White,, which happened near the time the plane hit WTC 2. They say an EMT, Patricia Ondrovic, was running past WTC 6 and reported hearing pops and seeing flashes 'like christmas lights' around the lobby ceiling and elsewhere. Other theorists disagree, and say significant errors were made in these analyses .

World Trade Center: Building 7

File:WTC7.jpg

Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume along the South face of 7 WTC, looking from the World Financial Plaza.

7 World Trade Center was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the WTC complex. It was not hit by any plane and collapsed at approximately 5:20 p.m. EDT on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. According to experts, no building like WTC7, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire , primarily because large fires in such structures are rare, and incidents where those fires are allowed to burn uncontrolled for many hours are so few that no statistical inferences can be drawn about the general ability of these structure to withstand extended fires.

The official report of the 9/11 Commission does not address the collapse of WTC7. NIST has several times postponed the issue date of its report on the collapse of WTC7. Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists say these examples show that an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 is quite difficult, unless controlled demolition is introduced to explain it.

9/11 conspiracy theorists have proposed the idea Building Seven collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. Support for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances, and the reports of molten & partly evaporated steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. One source describes the building as coming down in just under seven seconds , although the FEMA report concludes a collapse timeline of 37 seconds.

No conspiracy theorist has given any plausible explanation how the extensive work needed to prepare the building and place charges for demolition might have been performed without attracting the attention of the large number of people who worked in the building, nor how such demolition charges may have been protected from premature detonation caused by the large fires raging in the building on 9/11. Some theories instead suppose that the charges were placed after buildings 1 and 2 had already collapsed, either to destroy evidence or prevent the exposure of sensative material to the public.

Early tests conducted on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators from NIST stated Building Seven was not struck by an aircraft nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. The official working hypothesis is that Building 7 collapsed as the result of structural damage from the collapsing Towers in addition to prolonged fires throughout sustained by fuel stored for emergency generators. Further discussion of the intensity and severity of the fires is mentioned below. Engineers refer to this type of destruction as a "progressive collapse."

A kink or crimp near the center of the building is identical in appearance to many that have occurred when implosion professionals have made buildings collapse inwards to minimize damage of the surrounding structures.

• This observation appears to support the demolition idea which suggests that a carefully calculated fall took place.

Damage, fire, and collapse

Animation of WTC 7 Collapse

Animation of WTC 7 Collapse

According to the controlled demolition theory, among the primary questions unanswered by the official theory regarding Building Seven are the severity of both the damage and the fire. The controlled demolition theorists maintain neither were severe enough to initiate a collapse. Dr. Steven E. Jones, a proponent of the controlled demolition theory, stated on Building Seven:

"The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires."

Dr. Jones also points to concluding notes in the FEMA report on the 7 WTC collapse:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Opponents to the controlled demolition theory recognize testimony provided by firefighters and EMT personnel about the severity of the damage to 7 WTC. Firefighters used transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure and were surprised to discover that it was, in fact, moving. A collapse zone was set up at that time, and 7 WTC collapsed about an hour and a half later at 5:20 p.m..

• New York Fire Department personnel on the scene described the damage inflicted to the south face of WTC 7. Several statements were given by firefighters and other first responders emphasizing the critical condition of Building Seven.

The FEMA report provides a timeline of the collapse and photographs of the major events leading up to it. Mechanical penthouses are shown to have collapsed in succession during a 30-second window before the building itself collapsed. The east mechanical penthouse is shown to collapse first. Photographs also show a visible "kink" in the east side of the roofline as the building fell.

The release of NIST's final report on its investigation into the structural failures of Seven World Trade Center has been twice postponed and is scheduled for release sometime in early 2007 . In a New York Magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said that NIST has "had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." In draft copies of the report, NIST states that it has "seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."

Silverstein's statement to PBS

File:Wtc7-before.jpg

View from north of 7 WTC ~5:20:33 p.m. It begins to collapse(with both mechanical penthouses standing).

File:Wtc7-after.jpg

~5:21:09 p.m. A north-south "kink" or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation.

Within the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of Building Seven and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC Complex, recalled the collapse of 7 WTC:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.'... Uh... And they made that decision to pull... and then we watched the building collapse.

Debating the meaning of "Pull It"

To Pull Out Firefighters

Although the term "pull it" may be used in the demolition industry it is also a phrase commonly used in American English to refer to withdrawal of a resource in a wide variety of situations.

One of the firefighters, Richard Banaciski, details explicitly how he witnessed the damage to building 7 from the Verizon building next door (and uses the phrase "they pulled us out"). In a World Trade Center Task Force Interview, Captain Ray Goldbach mentions taking all of their units out of 7 World Trade Center:

I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...We walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. ...So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.

The official FEMA report states that "manual firefighting activities were stopped fairly early in the day" in 7 WTC due to lack of water.

To Pull the Building Down

Since one of the meanings of the word "pull" is industry jargon for planned demolition, some have drawn the conclusion that Silverstein's remark exposes his assent to demolishing the building. The term "pull" used to describe the destruction of a building can be found here, here, and here. Controlled Demolitions, Inc. president Mark Loizeaux used the word "pull" when discussing the destruction of the Kingdome in Seattle. He was specifically discussing how gravity from the roof provided the energy needed to pull the columns inward. His company was also selected to supervise the clean up of the WTC after the attacks. Workers discussing demolition of the six-story WTC6 were using this phrase as well.

Controlled demolition experts at ImplosionWorld.com state that they have never heard the term used to describe demolition of a building with use of explosives. The report states that instead, the term "pull" is used in demolition to describe the act of weakening and physically pulling down the frame of a building with cables, an assertion supported by a recent State Department publication.

Spokesperson explains "pull"

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, explained in Sept. 2005 what Mr. Silverstein said:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

According to Mr. McQuillan, when Mr. Silverstein said "pull it" he meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

Implications of controlled demolition of 7 WTC

If Mr. Silverstein's comments are somehow proven to mean that he okayed the demolition of 7 WTC then that would also imply that the building was already wired with explosive charges before the fire started. In fact, in order to properly bring down a 47 story building requires typically months of preparation and planning (e.g. where to place the demolition charges at key structural points so that the building collapses neatly into its own footprint). It is not standard operating procedure to wire a building with explosives just in case it needs to be demolished in an emergency. If 7 WTC was wired for demolition, it would have to be in preparation for some unusual catastrophic event.

Disagreements on Silverstein statement

Conspiracy theorist Jim Hoffman concludes: "The Silverstein comment has the appearance of bait, eliciting the widespread circulation of an interpretation that is easily denied if not refuted. While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for demolition based on the physical characteristics of the collapse..."

Pentagon

Security camera image showing American Airlines Flight 77 (far right) just before impact.

American Airlines Boeing 757

File:Lawn1.jpg

The pentagon, after being hit by a boeing 757 weighing just under 100 tonnes, travelling at 500 miles per hour

Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something significantly smaller than a Boeing 757 (most commonly a missile) have been raised based on photographs in which there is a lack of debris or pieces of a commercial aircraft within the immediate impact area, and a lack of damage to the building or the lawn, often in the context of larger conspiracy theories of US government culpability. Some say that no physical mechanism is known by which the impact of a 100 ton, 114 foot wide, 44 foot high Boeing 757 could have caused the observed damage to the building (such as the 54 foot wide impact zone or 27 foot diameter exit hole). Others disagree, saying the wings would cause less damage than the plane's main body, and this together with a hit at some angle are plausible explanations for the reduced impact zone and exit hole; and that the actual fuselage diameter of 12 feet four inches is a much more relevant dimension for the deepest parts of the hole than the overall 44 foot height of the 757's tail.

Those who believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 point to security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station and from the Virginia Department of Transportation that were confiscated by the federal government, as well as dramatic contradictions between the accounts of different witnesses of the attack. The security camera footage has also been requested as part of Judicial Watch's FOIA request. , in addition to the video footage released by the Department of Defense on May 16, 2006.

Hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the aircraft close up as it approached the Pentagon describe it as an American Airlines Boeing 757.

On the morning of 9/11, 50 minutes before Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, the National Reconnaissance Office, who are responsible for operating US reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles from Dulles airport. At 9:25 an order had been issued by the Federal Aviation Agency grounding all aircraft, including military and law enforcement aircraft. Conspiracy theorists suggest that this might have been done to thwart any attempts to prevent the attack on the Pentagon or identify the flying object as something other than Flight 77.

Questions about war games on the morning of 9/11

See also: United States military exercises scheduled for September 11, 2001

Some conspiracy theorists assert that government and military exercises point to a cover-up. There were a number of drills being performed on the morning of 9-11. US Rep. Cynthia McKinney, economist Michel Chossudovsky, and publisher/editor Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness are a few of the individuals who have questioned these exercises.

The following war games and training events were being conducted by USAF, NORAD, CIA, NRO, FAA and FEMA:

• Northern Vigilance: a yearly Air Force drill simulating a Russian attack, in which defense aircraft normally patrolling the Northeast are re-deployed to Canada and Alaska.
• Vigilant Guardian: a NORAD exercise posing an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide with a simulated air war and an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States.
• National Reconnaissance Office emergency response drill of a small aircraft crashing into its own headquarters.
• Tripod II, a FEMA drill simulating a biowarfare attack in New York City, was to take place on September 12th. FEMA set up a command post for this exercise at Pier 29 on September 10th.

It is theorized that with these multiple training scenarios being carried out that NORAD, FAA and other military personnel would have been confused in the event of a real attack. McKinney has twice questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about these 9/11 war games during his testimony before Congress.

The President's behavior

President Bush was promoting the passage of his education plan at Emma E. Booker Elementary School on the morning of September 11th.

Allan Wood and Paul Thompson have questioned the President's behavior after being told that the nation was under attack. They think it's likely that he would have been taken to safety at once, presuming that he too would be a possible target of a terrorist attack. He remained in the classroom for another 5 minutes.

Did George W. Bush see the first plane hit?

On December 4, 2001, at a townhall meeting in Orlando, Florida, in response to a question from a third grader, President Bush described his reaction to the initial 9-11 news as follows:

I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack.'

A month and a day later, at a townhall meeting in Ontario, California, President Bush described his experience like this:

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, 'America is under attack.'

President Bush could not have seen the first plane hit the tower live on commercial television, since no television station was covering that area when the first plane hit. Conspiracy theorists have used this fact to imply or accuse President Bush of having advanced knowledge of the attacks. One White House spokesman reportedly said that the president's comment was "just a mistaken recollection" . However, Bush never claimed to have seen the first plane hit "live". Most point to the fact that the first plane hit the first tower at about 8:46 a.m., and President Bush entered the classroom at Booker elementary at about 9:03 a.m., when the first plane crash at the WTC would have been being covered, giving Bush plenty of time to have seen reruns of the first plane crash as it was repeatedly replayed on the news.

See also the morning of September 11th.

Other points of interest

• US Representative Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing on July 23, 2005, into "what warnings the Bush administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." Panelist and former CIA official Melvin Goodman was quoted as saying "Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian and I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom." Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists testified at the hearing, including Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, Wayne Madsen and several others.
• Between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother was a principal in a company that provided security for both The World Trade Center and United Airlines. According to an article by David Ray Griffin "from 1999 to January of 2002 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO." According to its president CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down". This last statement has been used by some conspiracy theorists to say that the contract "expired" on September 11, 2001. Barbara Bush allegedly confirmed this theory in her book Reflections (ISBN 0-7432-2359-4) also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired. However, no specific quote is provided to support this allegation, and a search for the words "contract" or "expired" yields no results. Mr. Bush was also a former director and now is an advisor to the board of directors to a firm HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc that had what it called a small participation in the World Trade Center property insurance coverage and some of the surrounding buildings. Marvin Bush was on a subway under Wall Street when the attacks happened.
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a letter to President Bush said, “September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?” He also wrote, “Some believe that the hype paved the way-- and was the justification-- for an attack on Afghanistan”.
• Although it had distanced itself from their brother and former company employee, The Saudi Binladin Group's corporate website, expired on September 11, 2001, the same day as the attacks in the United States. Several websites cited in this article use this fact to suggest foreknowledge of the attacks.
• The Washington Post reported in its August 3, 2006 edition that "For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances" and that "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public" and that "Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted". Sources told the Post this was done to hide a bungled Pentagon response.

Claims that some of the supposed hijackers are still alive

Initial news reports shortly after 9/11 indicated that some of the supposed hijackers were alive, fueling speculation that others were responsible.

The BBC News reported on September 23, 2001, that some of the people named by the FBI as hijackers, killed on the crashes, were actually alive and well.

One of the supposed hijackers was Waleed al-Shehri, and he was supposedly found in Casablanca, Morocco.

• However, the al-Shehri's father says he hadn't heard from his sons in ten months prior to September 2001. An ABC News story in March 2002 repeated this, and during a report entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC on Aug 25, 2002, NBC's reporter John Hockenberry traveled to 'Asir, where he interviewed the third brother Salah who agreed that his two brothers were dead and said they had been "brainwashed".
• Furthermore, another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.

Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other supposed hijackers, were also supposedly reported to be living in the Middle East.

• A man with the same name as Abdulaziz Al Omari turned up alive in Saudi Arabia, saying that he had studied at the University of Denver and his passport was stolen there in 1995. The name, origin, birth date, and occupation were released by the FBI, but the picture was not of him. "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list", he said. "They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." This individual was not the same person as the hijacker whose identity was later confirmed by Saudi government interviews with his family, according to the 9/11 Commission Report.
• On 23 September, 2001, the BBC and The Telegraph reported that a person named Saeed al-Ghamdi was alive and well. His name, birth date, origin, and occupation were the same as those released by the FBI, but his picture was different. He says that he studied flight training in Florida flight schools from 1998 to 2001. The journalist involved with the story later admitted "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time."
• After the attacks, reports began emerging saying that al-Mihdhar was still alive. On September 19, the FDIC distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive. The Justice Department says that this was a typo.

The BBC and The Guardian have since reported that there was evidence al-Mihdhar was still alive and that some of the other hijackers identities were in doubt. This was commented on by FBI director Robert Mueller.

Motives

Theories as to why members of the US government would have allowed the attacks to occur, perpetrated the attacks, and/or obstructed the investigation generally involve one or more of the following:

• Michel Chossudovsky in an article entitled "The Criminalization of the State" suggests a simple motive in a plan for a New World Order. This particular theory takes root in a David Rockefeller Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994: We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.
• An article on whatreallyhappened.com entitled "The 9/11 Reichstag Fire" suggests that the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) may have been responsible. It cites as evidence a statement from page 51 of a document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by PNAC: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.
• The Web site OilEmpire.us proposed that 9/11 was arranged by the U.S. government in order to benefit the arms manufacturing and oil industries.
• The Web site 9-11 Review listed several other benefits of the attacks as possible motives, including Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and President Bush's surge in popularity, Halliburton's defense contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a $3.6 billion insurance payout to the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein.
• Another less publicized theory, yet very much in line with the Rockefeller quote above, is the claiming of the Holy Land.

Claims related to the Saudi royal family and other Saudi government officials

In 2004, Howard Dean, who was then the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President stated that he had heard of some people theorizing that the Saudi Royal family were behind the attacks. Though he made the comments somewhat sympathetically, he did state that this was not his personal belief. Later, he would also comment that he believed Osama bin Laden needed to be "proven guilty" in a court of law, a remark some saw as a subtle indication Dean did not presently believe bin Laden's guilt was self-evident. Such 9/11 statements were often cited as an important reason for the failure of his candidacy.

Later that filmmaker Michael Moore released the controversial documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11, in which many aspects of September 11th were discussed from a point of view skeptical of the official story. The film suggests that the business relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud led to a conflict of interest, if not an outright conspiracy which hindered both the prevention of the attack and the investigation of it.

An article in the December 7-13, 2005 issue of The Village Voice reported "The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, which was released in late 2002, included 28 pages that were blanked out, apparently concerning the possible role of Saudi government officials". Another article from the same issue discussing the 9/11 Commission reported "The Joint Inquiry traced the flow of money from the Saudi royal family and government institutions to a Saudi spy in California who had contact with the hijackers. The commission found Saudi Arabia blameless although behind closed doors the staff is said to have demanded an airing of the situation."

Claims related to Jews and Israel

While some 9/11 websites focus on the role of Israel and Jews during the 9/11 attacks, others have worked to expose websites and individuals engaging in Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial while claiming to research the 9/11/01 attacks. These conspiracy theorists state that the focus on Jews and 9/11/01 has primarily served as a magnet for mainstream press to discredit those questioning the official version of events with the label of anti-semitism.

4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on 9/11

This claim made by Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah, a sworn enemy of Israel, has been repeated by a wide variety of other sources, such as Amiri Baraka. The original Al-Manar claim, posted September 17, 2001 on the English language version of the website of Al-Manar website, was:

"With the announcement of the attacks at the World Trade Center in New York, the international media, particularly the Israeli one, hurried to take advantage of the incident and started mourning 4,000 Israelis who work at the two towers. Then suddenly, no one ever mentioned anything about those Israelis and later it became clear that they remarkably did not show up in their jobs the day the incident took place. No one talked about any Israeli being killed or wounded in the attacks."

Al-Manar further claimed that "Arab diplomatic sources revealed to the Jordanian al-Watan newspaper that those Israelis remained absent that day based on hints from the Israeli General Security apparatus, the Shabak". It is unclear whether al-Watan (a minor Jordanian newspaper with no website) made these claims or who (if anyone) the alleged "Arab diplomatic sources" were. No independent confirmation has been produced for this claim.

In some versions of the story circulated on the Internet, the title was changed to "4,000 Jewish Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack" from its original "4000 Israeli Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack", spawning a further rumor that not only Israeli but all Jewish employees stayed away. On September 12 an American Web site called "Information Times" published an article with the headline "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," which it credited to "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." According to Slate.com, "The '4,000 Jews' page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message's rapid dissemination." The rumor was also published; according to the United States Department of State "Syria's government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the "4,000 Jews" claim... its September 15th edition falsely claimed 'four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions.'"

There were a total of 5 Israeli deaths in the attack (Alona Avraham, Leon Lebor, Shay Levinhar, Daniel Lewin, Haggai Sheffi), of which 3 were in the World Trade Center and 2 were on the planes. (4 are listed as American on most lists, presumably having dual citizenship.)

Early estimates of Israeli deaths, as of the total death toll and the death toll for other countries' citizens (e.g. India) proved substantially overestimated. George W. Bush cited the figure of 130 in his speech on September 20th.

The number of Jewish victims was considerably higher, typically estimated at around 400; according to the United States Department of State

A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%. This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.

The figure "4,000" was probably taken by Al-Manar from a Jerusalem Post article of September 12 (p. 3) which said "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack." This number was obviously not (as Al-Manar claimed) restricted to employees; in fact, Tsviya Shimon, minister of administrative affairs for the Israeli consulate and mission in New York, said on September 14 "that there might have been up to 100 Israeli citizens working in the World Trade Center".

Furthermore, many Orthodox Jews left for work later than usual that day due to Selichot (additional prayers recited around the time of Rosh Hashanah).

Sharon was warned by Shabak to stay away from New York

Al-Manar the official television station of Hezbollah, also made related claims that then-prime minister Ariel Sharon was warned to stay away from New York:

Suspicions had increased further after Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot revealed that the Shabak prevented Israeli premier Ariel Sharon from traveling to New York and particularly to the city's eastern coast to participate in a festival organized by the Zionist organizations in support of Israel. Aharon Bernie, the commentator at the newspaper, brought up the issue and came up with a negative conclusion, saying "no answer". He then asked about the clue behind the Shabak's position in preventing Sharon's participation, and again without giving an answer.

Detractors say that this theory does not hold up to examination. A pro-Israel rally led by the United Jewish Communities, expected to include 50,000 people, had been planned for September 23, 2001. Ariel Sharon had been scheduled to speak there, but it was canceled on September 12. According to The Forward, Sharon was still scheduled to speak there at the time of cancellation.

There was no article in Yediot Aharonot that contains the information cited by Al-Manar, nor was there a columnist named Aharon Bernie. There is an Israeli reporter named Aharon Barnea of Israel's Channel 2 News whose wife Amalia works for Yediot Aharonot; it has been speculated that "Aharon Bernie" arose as a misspelling of this name.

Mossad connection to filming of 9/11 attacks with "puzzling behavior"

This claim formed part of the Al-Manar report mentioned above. The claim is that:

For its part, the Israeli Ha'aretz' newspaper revealed that the FBI arrested five Israelis four hours after the attack on the Twin Towers while filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building. The FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior". They are said to have been caught videotaping the disaster in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.

This claim was substantially correct. The Israeli reporter Yossi Melman had reported to that effect in Haaretz on September 17 2001, using the words "puzzling behavior" .Several mainstream Western media groups researched this. On June 21, 2002, ABC published a report that five Israelis seen filming the events of September 11 in New York and looking "happy" were subsequently arrested, claiming (on the authority of The Forward) that the "FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives" but had no advance knowledge of 9/11.

The Forward had reported the five as a possible Mossad surveillance operation conducted not against the US but against "radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism." Mossad was known to have been infiltrating Al Qaeda at the time. Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari, the five Israelis who were kept in custody in the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Sunset Park for approximately two months were eventually deported back to Israel on November 20-21, 2001. Ellner and others in the prison have complained of abuse by prison guards. After returning to Israel, the five denied laughing at the event and claimed that they had filmed its aftermath "just as many other people did", and that their arrest was a result of their neighbour's false accusations due to a personal conflict.

The claim was revived by an article in the Scotland-based Sunday Herald on Nov 2, 2003.

Israel advance warning

According to a September 16, 2001 story in The Daily Telegraph, Israel had sent two Mossad agents to Washington in August to warn both the FBI and CIA in August of an imminent large-scale attack involving a large cell of up to 200 terrorists. An unnamed senior Israeli security official was quoted as saying "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement."

Less common theories

• NewsMax.com reported that people within and outside the U.S. government believed that then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein conspired in the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City Bombing. The theory extended from the one advanced by investigative journalist Jayna Davis in her book The Third Terrorist linking Hussein to the Oklahoma City Bombing. It was discussed in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
• Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press suggested the possible involvement of the mafia.

Media reaction

File:LeMond-9-11FrontPage.png

Le Monde Diplo Norway July 2006

While discussion and coverage of these theories is mainly confined to internet chat sites, a number of mainstream news outlets around the world have covered the issue, many of them focusing on the absence of structural engineering experts among the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and the plethora of philosophers and theologians.

In the July 2006 edition of the Norwegian version of Le Monde diplomatique, the headline story asked, "11 September : An Inside Job?" and recensed the various theories discussing the official US version of 9/11, withholding any truth judgment on them.

An article in the September 11th 2006 edition of the United States newsweekly Time Magazine titled “Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away” states that the major 9/11 conspiracy theories “depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses” and the continued popularity of these theories are due to “the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting”. It concludes that “conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events like Sept. 11. Conspiracy theories form around them like scar tissue. In a curious way, they're an American form of national mourning” [22].

Public opinion

• In an August 2004 Zogby International poll, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall believe that some US leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."
• In a May 2006 Zogby International poll, 44% of Americans believe Bush exploited the Sept. 11th attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq; 42% of Americans believe the US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up certain events of 9/11; 43% of Americans are not aware that 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11; 45% of Americans believe "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success"; 45% of Americans believe the US's media are doing a negative job, "including their coverage of victim families' unanswered questions". Most of these statements can be interpreted as related to US goverment handling of the events rather than to its involvement in their doing.
• A July 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that 36% of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East. The poll found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosive brought down the Twin Towers and that 12 percent speculate that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

Criticism

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).

The German magazine Der Spiegel summarily dismissed all skeptical accounts of the 9/11 attacks 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."

Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, and The Skeptic's Dictionary published articles that challenge and discredit various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Scientific American described 9/11 conspiracy theory scholarly rigor as "[t]he 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)."[23]

See also

• Media manipulation
• Osama bin Laden tapes
• Operation Northwood
• The Lone Gunmen (pilot episode)

Videos

• Loose Change
• 911 In Plane Site

References

Books

• The 9/11 Commission Report
• The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions - David Ray Griffin
• 9/11: The Big Lie - Thierry Meyssan
• 9/11 Revealed : The Unanswered Questions - Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall
• Crossing the Rubicon - Michael Ruppert
• Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York's World Trade Center
• The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11 - James Ridgeway
• Inside 9-11 : What Really Happened - Der Spiegel Magazine
• Pentagate - Thierry Meyssan
• Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City - Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, ISBN 0943096103
• Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23805-2.
• Laurent, Eric (2004). La face cachée du 11 septembre. Plon. ISBN 2-259-20030-3.
• 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, by Webster Griffin Tarpley
• The New Pearl Harbor - David Ray Griffin
• Der Spiegel (2002). Inside 9-11: What Really Happened. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-30621-0.
• Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts - The Editors of Popular Mechanics. ISBN 1-58816-635-X

External links

Final report of the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (9-11 Commission), chaired by Thomas H. Kean

• Kean Report

Cynthia McKinney's July 2005 Congressional Briefing on 9/11

• McKinney Briefing

June 1, 2001, directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff changing rules on intercepting hijacked planes

• Joint Chiefs Directive

Conspiracy theories

Descriptions of and evidence for various conspiracy theories

Mainstream news organizations

• "Conspiracy Theories". CBC Television. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "9/11 conspiracy theorists energized Five years later, purveyors claim academic momentum". CNN.com. Retrieved 2006-07-30.

The Lantern Article By Gerrick Lewis http://www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2006/05/04/Arts/united.93.Raises.Many.Questions-1901148.shtml

Webpages

• "9-11 Research An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001 ( WTC 7 )". Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Alex Jones Infowars". Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Former Top German Minister Rejects Official Story Of 911 Attacks". www.ratical.org. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Bush: The Ignored Warning That Will Come To Haunt Him". Retrieved 2006-07-30. by Gordon Thomas
• "Hard Physical Proofs of U.S. Government Complicity". Letsroll911.org. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Information on 9/11 Wargames". oilempire.us. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "9/11 Conspiracy: Finding Truth". RINF. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Free-Falling Bodies Simple Physics Reveals The Big Lie Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check". 911blimp.com. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?". BYU.edu. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "The 911 Movement". Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "NIST and the World Trade Center". Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "911 investigations". Retrieved 2006-07-30. Document base dedicated to the September 11th 2001 attacks
• "Charlie Sheen talks about September 11th". CNN, Your Tube. Retrieved 2006-07-30. Charlie Sheen talks about September 11th
• "Question911.com". Retrieved 2006-07-30. Free DVD movie downloads discussing September 11th attack evidence
• "9/11 Mysteries The show went to Hollywood!". Retrieved 2006-07-30. Movie on 9/11 questions
• "The WTC Conspiracy". Telepolis. Retrieved 2006-07-30. Template:De icon
• "Loose Change". Retrieved 2006-07-30. Film questioning the official story
• "The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View by Ernest Partridge". The Crisis Papers, commondreams.org. Retrieved 2006-07-30. Article sympathetic to LIHOP theories but skeptical of MIHOP theories
• "Picking Up Where Partridge Leaves Off:Conspiracy theorists Address a 9/11 Skeptic by Victoria Ashley and Jim Hoffman". Retrieved 2006-08-07. Pro MIHOP rebuttle to above article
• "Physics911.net". Retrieved 2006-09-11.

Flight 93

• "How Did United Flight 93 Crash?". flight93crash.com. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Hunt the Boeing in Shanksville". Letsroll911.org. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Flight 93 Ordered Shot Down". dcdave.com. Retrieved 2006-07-30.
• "Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story". bedoper.com. Retrieved 2006-07-30.

Videos

• 911 - Steven Jones on 911 Evidence (L.A. Conference, Alex Jones, June 24th 2006)
• Pentagon Strike
• Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
• Secret of 9/11

Blogs

• "911blogger". 911Blogger.com. Retrieved 2006-07-30. Latest news and research
• "American-Freedom.org". Retrieved 2006-07-30. News, research, information, blog, links, and a vast video library

Debunking conspiracy claims

• Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Evidence against Controlled Demolition and its most widely held myths.
• Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories The Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories is a free online publication dedicated to educating the public on the events surrounding 9/11.
• Mike J Wilson's Flight 77 Case Study Computer animation with photos and videos. You can also download the 3D models used.
• U.S. Department of State "How To Identify Misinformation"
• U.S. Department of State refutes 9/11 conspiracy book.
• U.S. Department of State links to refutations of various 9/11 conspiracy theories.
• Popular Mechanics examines evidence and consults experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
• Scientific American 9/11 Article Skeptical of Conspiracy Theories by Michael Shermer
• Snopes.com answer to the rumors about the Pentagon attack Skeptical review of David Ray Griffin book, The New Pearl Harbor (and Griffin's response)
• Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the WTC Disproves Controlled Demolition Theory 9/11 Controlled Demolition Theory Debunked
• Refutes various elements. Strong focus on refuting Mike Ruppert's timeline
• David Ray Griffin and Chip Berlet debate 9/11 issues on Democracy Now!
• 911 Myths articles by UK software developer and freelance writer Mike Williams on a wide range of topics
• Jacobson, Mark (March 27,2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Flight 77 Did Hit The Pentagon - Attempted debunking from AboveTopSecret.com
• Anti-Defamation League, "Unraveling anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories"
• Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
• Op ed piece from April 28th edition of Newsday by James P. Pinkerton debunking alternative theorists while supporting Incompetence Theory [24]
• The 9/11 X-Files article from The Nation
• When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad by David Corn
• 9/11 Denial by James S. Robbins
• "The Truth About 911" - editorial cartoon mocking conspiracy theories
• "There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons" - An argument against 9-11 conspiracy theories by the popular internet humorist Maddox (writer).
• 911 Conspiracy Wars - comedic documentary by Abby Scott
• "Was 9/11 an Inside Job?" Satirical Criticism of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
• Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away, Turns out, we need grand theories to make sense of grand events, or the world just seems too random – TIME, Sunday, Sep. 3, 2006
• Setting the Record Straight, A lack of identifiable plane wreckage, among other anomalies, has helped fuel skepticism about the official explanation of Sept. 11 damage to the Pentagon, left. Here's more on that debate and a few other Internet-fueled conspiracy theories that still thrive – TIME, Sunday, Sep. 3, 2006