Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:58, 2 June 2006

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page.

Template:Sep11 A number of researchers express doubt about the common account of events surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks. Some propose alternative theories and explanations, the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Others seek to prove that the government's story has too many inconsistencies to be true, and some seek to demonstrate that the U.S. government is complicit in the attacks. Assertions include the involvement of the government and private sector agents; that the government had foreknowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to prevent them; the existence of a cover-up in the investigation, and criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report. Many of these claims have been dismissed by many journalists . However, these claims are supported by scientists, military experts, government officials, computer experts, journalists, some in the intelligence community, and some family members of 9/11 victims.

Origins

Before the United States retaliation began for the attacks, books and websites surfaced promulgating alternative theories about 9-11. While alternative hypotheses are often described as conspiracy theories, there are individuals, groups and organizations who say the official story of events can likewise be referred to as a conspiracy theory.

Main categorizations

The variety of these theorists' views is widespread, and not all of them share the same opinion. The common trait they do share is the belief that at least one, if not all, of the official accounts for September 11th are wrong.

According to Nick Levis, of 9/11truth.org, the range of views on 9/11 can be categorized into four types:

*The Official Story (a.k.a. "The Official Conspiracy Theory"): The received Bushian line: Osama, nineteen freedom-haters with box cutters, etc. As White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, there was "no warning."

• The Incompetence Theory (also the Stupidity, Arrogance, "Reno Wall" Theory): Accepts the Official Story, adds failure by the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. to heed ample warnings. This line was advanced, with much ass-covering compensation, in The 9/11 Commission Report.
• LIHOP (or "Let It Happen on Purpose"): Many variations, but primarily that elements of the U.S. government and the private sector were aware of the hijackers' plans and, recognizing that 9/11 suited their policy goals, did nothing to stop it.
• MIHOP ("Made It Happen on Purpose"): The U.S. government or private forces planned and executed the attacks.

Government foreknowledge

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 there was enough information in the hands of the government that should 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. "Interview with David Schippers". Alex Jones Infowars.com. Retrieved 2006-05-02.

• 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." Ashcroft allegedly responded that they do not start investigations at the top.
• It is unclear exactly what warnings he is thought to have received from the FBI, but 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 concerning an investigation pertaining to an incident that 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.

Suggested warnings or hidden motives

• Four days before the attack, Florida Governor John Ellis Bush signed an executive order that some interpreted as allowing Bush to declare martial law while others have stated it was a routine training order. PsyOpNews.com used this act as evidence that Governor Bush knew about the attacks in advance .

• Daniel Woodring, Bush's assistant general counsel, responded to these allegations in a press release stating "While Governor Bush has taken appropriate steps to deal with this terror attack, he has not in any shape, form or fashion instituted martial law in Florida."

• 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 he had got a phone call from his airport security eight hours before the attacks which 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 trading by people with foreknowledge

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

Amateur researchers such as Jim Hoffman and Michael Ruppert have examined the activities of the stock market and certain financial transactions and believe they are suggestive of foreknowledge .

• The most notable reference concerns the option market where more than 6 times the volume of put options were purchased in the days before 9/11 on both American and United Airlines than normal.
• Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, in her statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003 noted the put options placed on United and American Airlines:

"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."

• On September 10 Amr "Anthony" Elgindy, an Egyptian-born financial analyst, tried to liquidate his children's $300,000 trust account." Although this report doesn't indicate US involvement, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen has stated that this could have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks.

However, each trade was examined and no evidence of a connection was found according to the 9/11 Commission based upon investigation by the SEC and FBI. Commission Report page 51 of this PDF

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face.

Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. 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, which recommended these trades.

These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo,Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

• Numerous researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 express doubts that the Commission was actually able to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks ,

World Trade Center towers

Some alternative theories of the collapse of the Twin Towers are that planted explosives brought down the structures. Much of the support for this claim comes from interpretations of videos and photographs. There are also several eyewitnesses who report seeing, hearing and feeling multiple explosions, and explosions in sequence. Many researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have highlighted the following as evidence for the theory that planted explosives brought down the WTC towers:

Controlled Demolition Theory

Some people say that both FEMA and NIST reports failed to analyze the actual pattern of collapse of the WTC and limited the scope of their investigations 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. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence,' although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." However, after making this statement, NIST asserts that they "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." (For further information on these reports, see 'Government Inquiry' below)

Skeptics of the progressive collapse theory believe however that there is ample evidence to at least suggest that the towers did not collapse due solely to gravity. Software engineer and amateur researcher Jim Hoffman believes that the tell-tale signs of the controlled demolition of WTC 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 what might be liquid metal was videotaped flowing out of the corner of WTC2 moments before collapse, and pools of molten metal were observed and formally reported in all three rubble piles.

Skeptics like Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University and Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer at Clemson University claim that (absent explosvies) the fall of the towers violates conservation of momentum. In addition, Dr. Jones believes that 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 believes that the rapid descent of the towers at near free fall speeds indicates that the undamaged central core below the collapse lost its structural integrity almost instantly and provided almost no resistance whatsoever to the falling debris. Official theorists have explained this near free fall collapse as either the "pancake" theory of multiple falling floors progressively collapsing on top of one another, or as the "piledriver" theory, where the kinetic energy of the falling tower is simply too great and the steel columns below the impact simply shatter without resistance. However, as previously mentioned, no official study has yet attempted to quantitatively explain the collapse pattern of both towers and WTC 7, and as such these theories have not been adequately proven.

In addition to the characteristics of the collapse, pools of molten metal were found in the rubble of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 for several weeks after the collapse. Dr. Jones believes that molten metal was video taped dripping out of the South Tower just before it collapsed. Dr. Jones has analyzed the color of the molten metal, which is an indicator of its temperature, and believes that the metal was at least 1000°C. Adherents of the official theory point out that the molten metal may simply be aluminum from the aircraft, which melts at about 650°C. Dr. Jones rejects this theory since molten aluminum is not a good emitter of black body radiation and thus molten aluminum appears silvery-gray under daylight conditions. This molten metal contradicts the official story, which claims that fires in the buildings reached sufficient temperatures to weaken the steel, but not to melt it.

In addition to the molten metal, the initial FEMA investigation team did find abnormal sulfide on parts on the structural steel in the towers and WTC 7: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." While FEMA has been unable to ascertain the cause of this sulfide, the NIST report does not mention it. Currently, many researchers, including Steven Jones believe that this sulfide may have been caused by the use of a thermite reaction to melt and destroy the steel within the structure. Thermite reactions can reach temperatures of up to 4500°F (2500°C), sufficient to melt the steel within the buildings (approximately 1500°C) and with the addition of sulfur, can cause an eutectic reaction within the steel. This 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 would also explain the presence of the aforementioned molten metal seen dripping out of the South Tower. Dr. Jones believes that this metal is actually molten iron, a byproduct of the thermite reaction.

WTC 1, 2, and 7 also fell straight down, with remarkable symmetry, according to researchers. Absent explosives, they say, this symmetry would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Collapse theorists also point to photographs and video 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. Official theorists propose that the squibs were merely the ejection of material due to the evacuation of air as the floors collapsed, however the plumes appear approximately 10 stories below the area of main destruction and are only ejected from the centers of the towers. These plumes appear in both towers, in regular intervals, and from multiple camera angles. Researchers believe the prescense of these squibs indicate secondary explosive devices that are activated just ahead of the collapsing material, removing the structural support and allowing total collpase. It is also believed that squibs were seen in the destruction of WTC 7, running rapidly up the Southwest corner of the building. Similarly, while a possible theory is that the WTC 7 squibs are simply the floors collapsing, the time between the events is much too rapid to be due to gravitational acceleration.

Jim Hoffman claims that gravity alone has insufficient energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, nor to explain the pyroclastic cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions.

As evidence of controlled demolition, conspiracy theorists point to the use of words such as "bomb" or "explosion" by witnesses (including firefighters) to describe various events before the collapse of the towers. They also say witnesses specifically describe seeing explosions or the result of explosions before the planes hit the towers, during the evacuation, and immediately prior to the collapse of the towers. One account of these explosions is by William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked at the WTC for 20 years. On the morning of the attack, he was in the first sublevel of WTC 1 when he heard a massive explosion from below in floors B2 and B3: "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking... was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms." Seconds later, Rodriguez heard a second, separate explosion from far above and felt the tower oscillate briefly. He was later told that this was the airplane that had hit the North Tower.

9/11 theorists also allege that no study has been done to ascertain the presence of explosive residues in Ground Zero or the released dust, though many environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue. .

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

• the Caracas Tower (2004) - burned for more than 17 hours, spread to over 26 floors.
• One Meridian Plaza (1991) - burned for 18 hours, gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building.
• First Interstate Bank (1988) - burned for 3 1/2 hours, gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower.
• 1 New York Plaza (1970) - burned for more than 6 hours.
• The Madrid Windsor Tower (2005) - a partial collapse of building began with the steel sections of the structure after slightly more than 90 minutes , , while the concrete framework prevented a complete collapse .

However, 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 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 . Unlike those buildings, WTC 1 and WTC 2 were constructed using a "steel perimeter frame-tube system". The load of the building was carried by steel beams in the central core and by perimeter columns on the exterior of the building. The core was connected to the perimeter columns via steel trusses. Except for the core, the floors were open space unobstructed by columns. Significant damage to the exterior of the building and/or the trusses could and did cause a total failure of the system.

Theorists also allege that these fires are particularly relevant to WTC7, which was not struck by planes and suffered damage only from fires and falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

Steel manufacturer Corus Group (formerly British Steel) conducted tests on unprotected steel beems in an office fire. Despite temperatures of unprotected steel beams being in excess of 1100°C, there was no collapse .

Besides fires alone, researchers have compared the WTC collapses to the Ronan Point disaster in which one corner of Ronan Point collapsed after a gas explosion . Ronan Point was found to be structurally unsound (unsafe) , however the building did not totally collapse: the Twin Towers and Building 7 totally collapsed and none of them were subsequently declared structurally unsafe.

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 noted 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. Critics question Jones' credibility on the subject by pointing out that he does not have a structural engineering background.

• The FEMA and NIST reports have yet to resolve all disagreements among engineers. Although not advocating a controlled demolition, New Civil Engineer published several articles regarding the collapse. One such article, Row Erupts Over Why Twin Towers Collapsed, cites one party claiming "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.” Additional articles on the subject can be found here.
• In addition to the above articles, other theorists continue to point out 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."

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

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:
  • Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y described "literally molten steel" at the WTC.
  • 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."

• 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.
• It is important to recognize 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 WTC 7. (Images of the debris sorting.)

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 claim 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 claim 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, http://web.archive.org/web/20041030023935/http:/www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/10033802.htm; http://counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html.

On September 16th, 2001, several news agencies reported authorities finding "the passport of a suspected hijacker" which they described to be that of Satam al Suqami.

• Without noting the other personal artifacts recovered from the debris pile, this statement is generally presented to promote the idea of its sheer impossibility.

Individuals Questioning Aspects of the Collapse

The following individuals have expressed scepticism 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." ("Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones)
• 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." ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001).
• 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 WTC 2 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, " 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, 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 boxcutters 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."
• 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 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 note 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. Although the 707 weighs around 160,000 pounds including fuel and the Boeing 767 is nearly two and a half times bigger, and has twice as much fuel, 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 notes, “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.

Structural and civil engineering research

While the above individuals have supplied fuel for the demolition theory, 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, notes 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 inferno 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.

Critics of the demolition theory also point out the in-depth planning, preparation, and production involved in a controlled demolition. This labor-intensive task leaves clear signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers.

7 World Trade Center

7 World Trade Center was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that stood across the street from the rest 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.

9/11 researchers 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 steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. The building came down in just under seven seconds.

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. The collapse was not as tidy as sometimes thought; the building just to the north of WTC 7 took considerable damage during its collapse.

The Damage and Fire

According the controlled demolition theory, among the primary questions unanswered by the offical 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. Very few photographs or video provide a clear image of the full damage to the building. 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 WTC 7 collapse:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis 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 WTC 7. 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 WTC 7 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.

A complete timeline of the collapse is provided on page 23 of the FEMA report, documented with photographs of the major events leading up to the structural failure. 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, corroborating the official claim that the building collapsed due to a structural failure in the east side of the building. This is further corroborated by a visible "kink" in the east side of the roofline captured in photographs taken as the building fell.

The Silverstein Statement

The demolition theory was further fueled by a quotation within a PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002. Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for Building Seven and insurance policy holder for the World Trade Center Complex, was quoted during the film as he recalled the events of that morning:

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." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has written the term "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition" and that Silverstein made a reference to his order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition in the above interview.

Silverstein's spokesperson, McQuillan, later attempted to clarify:

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.

McQuillan has commented that by "it", Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

As mentioned in the previous section, NIST is also conducting an investigation into the structural failures of World Trade Center Seven. The release of the final report has been twice postponed and is scheduled for release sometime in 2006. 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."

The Pentagon

Flight 93

Questions about war games on the morning of 9/11

Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 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 7-9 minutes. That is seen as an indication that his security staff was informed in advance about the specifics of the attacks, and was therefore not worried about the President's safety.

Did George W. Bush see the first plane hit?

George Bush was asked a question by a child at a town hall meeting:

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card — actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And 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, "There's one terrible pilot." And 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 who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

Some have pointed out that George Bush could not have seen the first plane hit the tower live on television, as it was a surprise attack and no television station was covering that area when the first plane hit. The videotape of the attack was not presented to the general public until several hours after the attack. This quote has made some suggest that George Bush has access to footage the general public does not, especially about the September 11th attacks., . A White House spokesperson said that the president's comment was "just a mistaken recollection" .

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 researchers testified at the hearing, including Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, Wayne Madsen and several others.
• In a Zogby International poll commissioned by 911truth.org, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall believe the US Government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."
• The FOX TV series The Lone Gunmen aired their opening episode "Pilot" six months before 9/11 which depicted a secret U.S. government agency behind a plot to simulate a foreign terrorist airline attack (a Boeing 727 flying into 2 World Trade Center by a powerful computer via remote control) to further a larger political agenda.
• 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 confirmed this theory in her book 'Reflections' also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired. 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”.

Bin Laden tapes and videos

On September 16, 2001 Osama bin Laden issued the following statement via al-Jazeera in reference to the 9/11 attacks: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation." In December 2001 U.S. military forces found a video tape of Osama Bin Laden taking credit for the 9/11 attacks. Amateur researchers such as Jim Hoffman have expressed doubt that the man who appears in the video is actually Bin Laden. .

On 29 October 2004, at 21:00 UTC, the Arab television network Al Jazeera broadcast excerpts from another videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States, in which he takes responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks, and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after having personally seen destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video.

Also, on 23 May 2006, a new audiotape of al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, surfaced on the internet. On the tape, bin Laden claims that it was he alone who assigned the hijackers to perform the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and that Zacarias Moussaoui had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. "He had no connection at all with Sept. 11. I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission. I am certain of what I say because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers ... with the raids," said bin Laden who was speaking about the 9/11 highjackers. He also claimed that all of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks" .

Also Read:

On September 16, 2001 Osama bin Laden issued the following statement via al-Jazeera in reference to the 9/11 attacks: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation." On December 9, 2001 U.S. military forces in Jalalabad found a video tape of bin Laden taking credit for the attacks . Researchers such as Jim Hoffman have expressed doubt that the man who appears in the video is actually Bin Laden. .

On December 27, 2001, a second bin Laden video was broadcast on al-Jazeera . The tape was reportedly made after November 16, 2001 . There were notable differences in the appearance of bin Laden in the two tapes. Some accounts claimed bin Laden was suffering from Hepatitis C, and Peter Bergen said of the tape “This is a man who was clearly not well. I mean, as you see from these pictures here, he's really, by December he's looking pretty terrible. … he's barely moving the left side of his body. So he's clearly got diabetes. He has low blood pressure. He's got a wound in his foot. He's apparently got dialysis ... for kidney problems.” The recording was dismissed by the Bush administration as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qaeda leader was already dead. "He could have made the video and then ordered that it be released in the event of his death," said one White House aide.

Other prominent figures have stated bin Laden is “probably” dead, these people include Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf , Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai , and US Federal Bureau of Investigation's counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson .

On December 26, 2001 FOX News reported “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.” The World Tribune subsequently reported “Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December . They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications.”

On September 9, 2002 an audio tape purportedly made by bin Laden was broadcast on al-Jazeera. US intelligence officials concluded the tape was genuine , but researchers at the Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, in Lausanne, were 95% sure the recording was a fake. The researchers have refused to verify other tapes

On February 12, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Senate panel that he had reviewed a transcript of a message from bin Laden stating he was “in partnership with Iraq" which was to be broadcast on al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera initially denied having the tape, but subsequently located it. On October 29, 2004, two days before the US elections, the Arab television network al-Jazeera sprung an October Surprise by broadcasting a videotape of a healthy looking bin Laden addressing the people of the United States in which he took responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He also condemned the Bush government's response to the attacks, and presented the attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after personally seeing the destruction of the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video. President Bush opened up a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast. Walter Kronkite found the video very convenient for the Bush administration, and said of it “I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.”

On 23 May 2006, another audiotape of bin Laden surfaced on the internet. On the tape bin Laden claims that it was he alone who assigned the hijackers to perform the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and that Zacarias Moussaoui had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. "He had no connection at all with Sept. 11. I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission. I am certain of what I say because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers ... with the raids," said bin Laden who was speaking about the 9/11 hijackers. He also claimed that all of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks"

Claims that some of the hijackers are still alive

There have been claims that several of the hijackers who were reported to have carried out the attacks are still alive.

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

One of the 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 claimed 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.

Motives

Theories as to why members of the U. S. 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 move 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 website OilEmpire.us proposed that 9/11 was arranged by the U.S. government in order to benefit the arms manufacturing and oil industries .
• The website 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 .

David Ray Griffin's suppositions regarding whistleblowers

Author David Ray Griffin has said that while opponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories would suggest that a conspiracy would require silencing a vast number of individuals, he disagrees.

Griffin has cited historical examples such as the Manhattan Project to argue that many of the people involved would likely not know the full extent of the plot. Griffin theorizes so few individuals have come forward out of fear from threats, possibly in regards to family or employment. In an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent, Griffin states: "You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, 'If you go public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family.'" Griffin does not cite any examples of this occurring.

Griffin also argues that many would likely feel they have little incentive to come forward, given the lack of interest on the part of the mainstream media thus far. "You might just be denounced as a conspiracy kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look into your past and find that you had done some things you're not so proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut." In spite of these supposed repercussions, he claims a number of whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds, and David Schippers have chosen to speak out.

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

Of the increasing instances in which 9/11 conspiracy theories have been discussed in the mainstream media, two instances occurred in 2004 involving Howard Dean and Michael Moore. 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 Osama's guilt was self-evident. Such 9/11 statements were often cited as an important reason for the failure of his candidacy.

Also in 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore released the much discussed 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 an outright conspiracy, if not a conflict of interest 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

Some Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on 9/11

This claim made by Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah, has been repeated by a wide variety of other sources, such as Amiri Baraka. The original Al-Manar claim 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 rumour 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 Ahranot 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 claim 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 point 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. Yossi Melman had reported to that effect in Haaretz on September 17 2001, using the words "puzzling behavior" and "what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery." 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 Forward's authority) 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.

The claim was revived by the Scotland-based Sunday Herald's article (Nov 2, 2003.)

Israel advance knowledge

An ambiguous claim that the Mossad had been shadowing the perpetrators and had advance warning of these attacks but failed to share it was made.

Supporters of this claim sometimes cite a Washington Post article of September 28, 2001 according to which "Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks." CNN also reported this but added that "Alex Diamandis, vice president for sales and marketing with Odigo Inc., said there was nothing specifically about the attacks in the message, but he said it was suspicious in nature, especially because of its timing." The Israeli newspaper Haaretz also published reports regarding these warnings.

The first major Western source to explicitly make this claim was Fox News, in a four-part series by Carl Cameron in December 2001. This story which "alleges that Israeli intelligence officials failed to share what they knew about September 11 with their American counterparts prior to the attacks" was condemned by Israeli officials. Soon afterwards Fox pulled it from its website without explanation.

Israeli officials claim that within the week prior to 9/11, they had warned both the FBI and CIA in August of an imminent large-scale attack. There were also reports that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad urgently tried to warn the US government that an attack was pending and provided details, but apparently no heed was paid to these warnings, that it asked the French and Egyptian intelligence services to pass similar warnings, and that a company which moved had in fact been planning to relocate for some months, and had announced its relocation plans in April 2001.

Less common theories

• The Church of Scientology claims that the 9/11 hijackers were brainwashed by psychiatrists who were the real masterminds behind the attacks.
• 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.

Criticism

Critics of these alternative theories claim 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).

Both Scientific American and Popular Mechanics published articles debunking various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Software engineer Jim Hoffman has argued that these articles "misrepresent the skeptic point of view", and are essentially a Straw-man argument being used to discredit more valid theories.

See also

• September 11, 2001 attacks
• Conspiracy Theories
• 9/11 Truth Movement
• Scholars for 9/11 Truth
• Bush family conspiracy theory
• Cover-up
• Black propaganda
• Disinformation
• Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report
• Media manipulation
• Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11

Videos

• Loose Change
• 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands
• 911 In Plane Site

References

7. anonymous (2006-03-23). "Sheen: What 9/11 Hijackers?". The New York Post. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. p. 10. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
8. Paltrow, S. (2004) "Day of Crisis: Detailed Picture of U.S. Actions on Sept. 11 Remains Elusive." Wall Street Journal March 22

Books

• The 9/11 Commission Report
• The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions
• 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 - theirry Meyssan
• Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City - Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, ISBN 9430960512
• Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press. ISBN 0520238052.
• Laurent, Eric (2004). La face cachée du 11 septembre. Plon. ISBN 2259200303.
• 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, by Webster Griffin Tarpley

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

Descriptions of and evidence for various conspiracy theories

• JudicialWatch.com - Official website showing the two videos released on May 16 2006
• 9-11 Research: An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001
• Centre for Research on Globalization, edited by Michel Chossudovsky
• Alex Jones'Infowars
• Tagesspiegel Interview with former German Defence Secretary and former German Minister for Research and Technology Andreas Von Buelow
• Conspiracy Theories CBC Television
• Bush: The Ignored Warning That Will Come To Haunt Him by Gordon Thomas
• 'The censured FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds speaks out'
• Information on 9/11 Wargames
• Evidence that Flight 93 was shot down
• ASCE Report On The Pentagon Examined
• Scholars for 9/11 Truth
• RINF 9/11 Conspiracy News
• Official 9/11 story vs. Free Fall Physics
• BYU.edu - 'Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse'
• Collection of media files, some related to 9/11
• NIST and the WTC
• Document base dedicated to 9/11 attacks
• CNN media hosted at youtube - Charlie Sheen talks about September 11th
• Telepolis Special: The WTC Conspiracy (in German)

Skeptical of or debunking conspiracy claims

• Debunking 911 conspiracy theories Evidence against Controlled Demolition and its most widely held myths.
• 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.

• Reply 1 to Popular Mechanics re 9/11

• Scientific American 9/11 Article Skeptical of Conspiracy Theories by Michael Shermer, Phd.

• Reply 1 to Scientific American's Debunking of 9/11 Skeptics

• 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!
• The June 1, 2001 Joint Chiefs of Staff directive changing regulations on interception of hijacked planes, requiring SecDef approval and specifically forbidding the shooting down or seizure of "pirated" airliners

• 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
• 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

• September 11, 2001 attacks
• Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks
• Conspiracy theories
• Black propaganda