Misplaced Pages

9/11 conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:24, 10 September 2009 view sourceArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits Undid revision 312854511 by 99.145.16.176 (talk) revert nonsense grammar← Previous edit Revision as of 05:28, 10 September 2009 view source 207.67.109.94 (talk) ←Replaced content with '{{globalize}} thumb|The [[Collapse of the World Trade Center|collapse of the two World Trade Center towers and the nearby...'Tag: blankingNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
] of the two ] towers and the nearby ] (in this photo, the brown building to the left of the towers) are a major focus of ] conspiracy theories.]] ] of the two ] towers and the nearby ] (in this photo, the brown building to the left of the towers) are a major focus of ] conspiracy theories.]]


'''9/11 Was an inside job!
'''9/11 ]''' claim that ]'s ] in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a ] operation orchestrated by elements within the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://stj911.org/hypotheses/alternative.html |title=Hypotheses: Principal Alternative Theories of the Attack |date= |accessdate=2009-08-28}}</ref> The most prominent claim is that the ] and ] were the result of a ] rather than structural weakening due to fire.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones |title=Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? |publisher=www.physics911.net |date= |accessdate=2009-08-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ae911truth.org/info/24 |title=Retrieved 27 February 2008 |publisher=Ae911truth.org |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> Another prominent claim is that the ] was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government<ref name="usgovDidPlaneHitPentagon" /> or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective stand down of the American military.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.physics911.net/omholt |title=9-11 and the Impossible: The Pentagon |publisher=www.physics911.net |date= |accessdate=2009-08-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.physics911.net/pdf/jacobs.pdf |title=The Military Drills on 9-11: "Bizarre Coincidence" or Something Else? |date= |accessdate=2009-08-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://911-strike.com/pentagon.htm |title=The Five-Sided Fantasy Island: An analysis of the Pentagon explosion on 9-11 |date= |accessdate=2009-08-28}}</ref> The common prescribed motives are the use of the attacks to justify the invasion of ] and ], to facilitate increased ], and to ].

Published reports and articles by the U.S. ], '']'' and mainstream media have rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/|title=NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster|month=September | year=2005|publisher=]|pages=146|accessdate=2009-07-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf|title=Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7|month=August | year=2008|publisher=]|pages=22-4|accessdate=2008-09-29|format=PDF}}</ref> ]s state that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.<ref>Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in ''Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE'', Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in ] and ] (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows...." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).</ref>

== History ==

Since the ], a variety of conspiracy theories regarding the 9/11 attacks have been put forward in Web sites, books, and films. Many groups and individuals advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories identify as part of the ].<ref>{{cite news|journal=New York Times|last=Feuer|first=Alan|date=June 5, 2006|title=500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11|accessdate=May 5, 2009|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
| last=Griffin|first=David Ray|authorlink=David Ray Griffin|isbn=156656686X|publisher=Olive Branch Press|year=2007}}</ref><ref>The following news media state that the movement is being known as or being called "9/11 Truth movement":
*{{cite web
| title = The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers
| last = Hayes | first = Christopher
| publisher = CBS News
| date = 10 December 2006
| url = http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/opinion/main2242387.shtml
| accessdate = 8 June 2009
}}
*{{cite news
| title = The truth is out there
| last = Barber | first = Peter
| newspaper = Financial Times
| date = June 7, 2008
| url = http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8d66e778-3128-11dd-ab22-000077b07658.html
| accessdate = 23 May 2009
| quote = An army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
}}
*{{cite news
| title = The Disbelievers
| last = Powell | first = Michael
| newspaper = The Washington Post
| date = 8 September 2006
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html
| accessdate = May 30, 2009
| quote = The loose agglomeration known as the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’
}}
*{{cite news
| title = 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y.
| last = Barry | first = Ellen
| newspaper = Los Angeles Times
| date = 10 September 2006
| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/10/nation/na-conspiracy10
| accessdate = 30 May 2009
| quote = a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement
}}
*{{cite news
| title = The 30 greatest conspiracy theories&nbsp;— part 1
| last = Hunt | first = H.E.
| newspaper = The Daily Telegraph
| date = 19 November 2008
| url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3483477/The-30-greatest-conspiracy-theories-part-1.html
| accessdate = 30 May 2009
| quote = A large group of people&nbsp;— collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement
}}
*{{cite news
| title = Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire
| last = Kay | first = Jonathan
| journal = National Post
| date = 25 April 2009
| url = http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1532386
| accessdate = 30 May 2009
| quote = The ‘9/11 Truth Movement,’ as it is now commonly called
}}</ref> Unlike ], 9/11 conspiracy theories did not emerge immediately after the event. Indeed, most professional conspiracy theorists in the United States appeared to be as shocked as the rest of the population.<ref name="Knight">{{cite journal|last=Knight|first=Peter|title=Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States|journal=New German Critique|number=103|volume=35|issue=1|year=2008|url=http://ngc.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/1_103/165.pdf|accessdate=June 9, 2009}}</ref> The first theories that emerged focused primarily on various anomalies in the publicly available evidence, and proponents later developed more specific theories about an alleged plot.<ref name="Knight" />

The first elaborated theories appeared in Europe. They include a blog published by ], an editor at the German newspaper '']'' at the time, the book '']'' by French journalist ], the book '']'' by former German state minister ] and the book ''Operation 9/11'', written by the German journalist Gerhard Wisnewski.<ref name="Knight" />

While these theories were popular in Europe, they were treated by the U.S. media with either bafflement or amusement and were dismissed by the U.S. government as the product of ].<ref name="Knight-Popular">{{cite journal|last=Knight|first=Peter|title=Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States|journal=New German Critique|number=103|volume=35|issue=1|year=2008|url=http://ngc.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/1_103/165.pdf|accessdate=June 9, 2009|pages=&nbsp;168–169|quote=Although immensely popular in Europe (and soon translated into Arabic), these early conspiracy accounts were treated by the U.S. media with either bafflement or amusement and were dismissed by the U.S. government as the product of anti-Americanism.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Johnson|first=Ian|title=Conspiracy Theories about Sept. 11 Get Hearing in Germany|journal=Wall Street Journal|date=September 29, 2003|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106479068042179400,00.html|accessdate=June 9, 2009}}</ref> In an address to the ] on November 10, 2001, ] ] denounced the emergence of "outrageous conspiracy theories&nbsp; that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."<ref>{{cite web| author= Bush, George Walker|title = Remarks by the President To United Nations General Assembly| publisher = ]| date = 2001-11-10| url =http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html}}</ref>

By 2004, conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks began to gain ground in the United States. One explanation for the increase in popularity was that it was not the discovery of any new or more compelling evidence or an improvement of the technical quality of the presentation of the theories, but rather the growing criticism of the ] and the presidency of George W. Bush, who had been reelected in 2004.<ref name="Knight" /> Revelations of spin doctoring and lying by federal officials, such as the ] about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the belated release of the ] and reports that ] had lied to the ], may have fuelled the conspiracy theories.<ref name="Knight" />

Between 2004 and the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in 2006, mainstream coverage of the conspiracy theories increased.<ref name="Knight" /> Reacting to the growing publicity, the U.S. government issued responses to the theories, including a formal analysis by the ] (NIST) about the collapse of the World Trade Center,<ref name="nistfaq">{{cite web|title = National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions| publisher = NIST| url =http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm}}</ref> a revised 2006 ] webpage to debunk the theories,<ref name="usgovTopConspiracyTheories">{{cite web
|url=http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/September/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html
|title = The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories
|publisher = Bureau of International Information Programs, ]
|date=2006-09-16}}</ref> and a strategy paper referred to by President Bush in an August 2006 speech, which declared 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."<ref>{{cite web|title =
Strategy for Winning the War on Terror| publisher = ]|month=September | year=2006| url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html}}</ref> ] has repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attacks, with chief deputy ] accusing ] ] and ] of intentionally starting rumors that ] carried out the attacks to denigrate ] successes in hurting America.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref>

Some of the conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks do not involve representational strategies typical of many conspiracy theories that establish a clear dichotomy between good and evil, or guilty and innocent. Instead, they call up gradations of negligence and complicity.<ref name="Knight" /> Matthias Bröckers, an early proponent of such theories, dismisses the official account of the September 11 attacks as being itself a conspiracy theory that seeks "to reduce complexity, disentangle what is confusing," and "explain the inexplicable".<ref name="Knight" />

Just prior to the fifth anniversary of the attacks, mainstream news outlets released a flurry of articles on the growth of 9/11 conspiracy theories,<ref>{{cite news |first = Jim |last = Wolf|title = U.S rebuts 9/11 homegrown conspiracy theories|url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR2006090200527.html|publisher = ]|date=2006-09-02}}</ref> with an article in the magazine ] stating that "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."<ref name="time">{{cite news |first = Lev|last = Grossman|title = Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away|url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html|publisher = ]|date=2006-09-03}}</ref> An August 2007 Zogby poll commissioned by 911Truth.org<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1354 |title=Zogby International |publisher=Zogby.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> found that 63.6% of Americans believe that Arab fundamentalists were responsible for 9/11 while 26.4% of believed that "certain elements in the U.S. government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic reasons" and 4.8% of them believe that "certain U.S. Government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf |title=X-911T.spo |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> (See ].) In 2008, 9/11 conspiracy theories topped a "greatest conspiracy theory” list compiled by '']''. The list was based on following and traction.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3483477/The-30-greatest-conspiracy-theories-part-1.html |title=The 30 greatest conspiracy theories The Telegraph November 19, 2008 |publisher=Telegraph.co.uk |date=2008-11-19 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures |title=Audit Bureau of Circulations Ltd |publisher=Nmauk.co.uk |date=2009-02-23 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> Mainstream coverage generally presents these theories as a cultural phenomenon and is often critical of their content.

== Mainstream account ==
{{Main|September 11 attacks}}
On September 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying at least two nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon and a fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew revolted.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.biography.com/profiles-of-9-11/about911.jsp |title=Profiles of 9/11 - About 9/11 |publisher=Biography.com |date=2001-09-11 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

Within the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the terms 'mainstream account,' 'official account' and 'official conspiracy theory' all refer to:
* The reports from government investigations&nbsp;— the ] (which incorporated intelligence information from the earlier ] investigation (]) and the Joint Inquiry of 2002), and the studies into building performance carried out by the ]<ref>
{{cite web |url=http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm |title= World Trade Center Building Performance Study |accessdate= |format= |work= }}</ref> (FEMA) and the ] (NIST).
* Investigations by non-government organizations that support the mainstream account&nbsp;— such as those by the ], and by scientists of ] and ].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html |title=The Conspiracy Industry |publisher=Popular Mechanics |author=Meigs, James |date=2006-10-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5442 |title=Behind Purdue’s computing simulation on the 2001 World Trade Center attack ZDNET June 20, 2007 |publisher=Blogs.zdnet.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Herman |first=Steve |url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-06-20-fireproofing-wtc-collapse_N.htm |title=Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings |publisher=Usatoday.com |date=2007-06-20 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>
* Articles supporting these facts and theories appearing in magazines such as '']'', '']'', and '']''.
* Similar articles in news media throughout the world, including<!-- ] Needs another link. The former link has no information regarding this news. --> '']'',<ref>{{cite news |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms |title=Osama claims responsibility for 9/11|date=2006-05-24 |publisher=Times of India}}</ref> the ] (CBC),<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html |title=Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11|publisher=CBC (Canada)}}</ref> the ],<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/ |title=America's Day of Terror |publisher=BBC}}</ref> ']'',<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-687756@51-641954,0.html |title=Depuis le 11-Septembre, la menace terroriste est devenue permanente |publisher=Le Monde}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,623034,00.html |title=Sept. 11: One Year Later |publisher=Deutsche Welle}}</ref> the ] (ABC),<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1736235.htm |title=Bin Laden tape shown days before 9/11 anniversary |publisher=ABC}}</ref> and '']'' of South Korea.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200609/200609110002.html
|title=Korean's Memories of 9/11 Still Fresh Five Years On |publisher=The Chosun Ilbo}}</ref>
* President ]'s June 2009 ] where he said "I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day."<ref>{{cite web|author=June 05, 2009 |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-excerpts5-2009jun05,0,7535721.story |title=Excerpts from President Obama's speech Los Angeles Times June 5, 2009 |publisher=Latimes.com |date=2009-06-05 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

The ] disclosed prior warnings of varying detail of planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the ] and the ] administrations with “]”. Most members of the Democratic and the Republican parties applauded the commission's work.<ref>{{cite news | last = Schmitt| first = Richard| title = The 9/11 Commission Report; Panel Calls for Single Intelligence Chief| publisher = Los Angeles Times| date = 2004-06-23 | url=http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/23/nation/na-intel23}}</ref>

Some members of the ] have ] how the government formed and operated the commission, and allege omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report.<ref>CBC News, August 21, 2006, http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html </ref><ref> Eggen, Dan. "9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon", Washington Post, 2 August 2006. Retrieved on 2007-02-02.</ref><ref>''Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission'', Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton</ref> Commission co-chairs ] and ] wrote in their book ''Without Precedent'' that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and in an interview with CBC News, Mr. Hamilton complained of "poor access" and said that the Commission was unable to answer many of its questions about ] (FAA) and NORAD and White House activity.<ref name="cbc.ca">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html |title=CBC News: Sunday - 9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy |publisher=Cbc.ca |date=2006-08-21 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> He also acknowledged that NORAD had told the Commission things that were not true.<ref name="cbc.ca" /> According to an article in ''Harpers'' magazine, the Commissioners wrote that they threatened to seek prosecution of officials for criminal obstruction. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/0082303 |title=Justice after Bush: Prosecuting an outlaw administration—By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine) |publisher=Harpers.org |date=2001-09-11 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

== Variants ==

Most 9/11 conspiracy theories generally originate from dissatisfaction with the mainstream account of 9/11.<ref name=VF>Sales, Nancy Jo. , ''Vanity Fair'' July 9, 2006</ref> Less extensive theories allege that official reports have covered up incompetence or negligence from U.S. personnel, or involvement of a foreign government or organization other than al-Qaeda.<ref>, Summeroftruth.org</ref> The most prevalent theories can be broadly divided into two main forms:

* LIHOP ("let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.<ref name=VF/><ref name="BBCevolution">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm|title=The evolution of a conspiracy theory|date=4 July 2008|publisher=]|accessdate=2008-07-27}}</ref>
* MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out. There is a range of opinions about how this might have been achieved.<ref name=VF/><ref name="BBCevolution" />

== Main theories ==
=== Foreknowledge ===
{{Main|9/11 advance-knowledge debate}}
{{See also|U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks}}

It has been claimed that action or inaction by U.S. officials with foreknowledge was intended to ensure that the attacks took place successfully. For example, ], former British environment minister and member of ]'s Cabinet until June 2003 claims that the United States knowingly failed to prevent the attacks.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq |title=Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus Politics &#124; The Guardian |publisher=The Guardian<! |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/uk.iraq |title=Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war Politics &#124; The Guardian |publisher=The Guardian<! |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> ] alleges that the 9/11 conspiracy was considerably larger than the government claims and that the entire 9/11 Commission Report "is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true."<ref>{{cite web|author=David Ray Griffin|title= The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-page Lie|url=http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404}}</ref>

One popular conspiracy theory suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of ] placed on ] and ] stocks just before 9/11. According to this theory, trading insiders knew in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. While this may look suspicious in isolation, the general volume of put trading on these stocks reached similar levels at earlier points in the year.<ref> Allen M. Poteshman 2006 ] pdf.</ref> In fact, American Airlines had just released a major warning about possible losses.<ref name="skeptic.com">{{cite web|last=Mol |first=Phil |url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11 |title=eSkeptic » Monday, September 11th, 2006 |publisher=Skeptic |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

Another common claim is that the ] (NORAD) issued a stand down order or deliberately scrambled fighters late to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their targets without interference. According to this theory, NORAD had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur.<ref name="skeptic.com" /> The Web site emperors-clothes.com argues that the U.S. military failed to do their job. StandDown.net's Mark R. Elsis says "There is only one explanation for this.... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."<ref name="popularmechanics.com">{{cite web|last=Editors |first=The |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3 |title=Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report |publisher=Popular Mechanics |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref name="women.timesonline.co.uk">{{cite web
| url = http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6187493.ece
| title = 9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet
| author = David Aaronovitch
| date = 2009-04-29
| publisher = ]
| accessdate = 2009-09-06
}}</ref>

Phil Molé of '']'' magazine has responded that it is neither quick nor easy to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically, and that the hijackers turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplanes, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD’S radar screens, making them very difficult to track.<ref name="skeptic.com" /><ref name="popularmechanics.com" />

According to ''Popular Mechanics'', in fact, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states on 9/11. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD. "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. According to ''Popular Mechanics'',<ref name="popularmechanics.com" />

<blockquote>In the decade before 9/11, NORAD ] only one civilian plane over North America: golfer ]'s ], in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore ]s (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
</blockquote>

=== World Trade Center collapse ===
{{Main|World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories}}
] on the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings plays a central role in theories about an alleged controlled demolition. The picture shows the simulated exterior buckling of ] during the collapse.]]

The controlled demolition conspiracy theories state that the ] of the North Tower, South Tower and ] was caused by the use of explosives or incendiaries.<ref>{{cite news | first=Suzanne | last=Dean | title=Physicist says heat substance felled WTC | date=2006-04-10 | publisher=Deseret News | url =http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,635198488,00.html | accessdate = 2009-05-11 }}</ref> ], a retired professor of ], suggests that the working hypothesis, as outlined in NIST's 2004 interim report, that fire and debris induced the collapse of 7 WTC, is false.<ref>{{cite web | title = Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse | work = Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 3 |date=2006, September | author = Dr. Steven E. Jones|url = http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf|format=PDF}}</ref>

Proponents, such as ], ] and ] argue that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, symmetrically, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures. Jones has presented the hypothesis that ] or ] was used to demolish the buildings. In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors, published a paper that claims nano-sized "chips" consisting of unreacted and partially reacted ] are present in the samples of the dust.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm |title=Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe |accessdate=2009-04-03 |last=Harrit |first=Niels H}}</ref>

The ] report of 2002 and the later ] report of 2005 regarding the reconstruction of the collapse events of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center both contradict the controlled demolition conspiracy theories. On August 21, 2008, the ] released a 77-page report on the cause of the collapse of 7 WTC. It concluded that the collapse occurred because the building was set on fire by falling debris from the other burning towers, that catastrophic failure occurred when the 13th floor collapsed weakening a critical steel support column and that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water. The theories that the collapse was caused by explosions or fires caused by ] in the building was investigated and ruled out.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html|title=Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation|date=2008-08-21|publisher=]|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref>

=== The Pentagon ===
{{Quotefarm|section|date=August 2009}}
] just before impact.<ref> May 17, 2006</ref>]]
]
] scattered near the Pentagon.]]

] and Reopen911.org argue that ] did not crash into ] but instead was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government. Reopen911.org argues that the holes in the Pentagon walls were far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757: "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 60 ft. across?" Meyssan’s book, ''L’Effroyable Imposture'' (published in English as ''9/11: The Big Lie'') became an instant bestseller in France and is available in more than a dozen languages. When released, the book was heavily criticized by the French press. The French newspaper ''Liberation'' called the book "a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation."<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|last=Editors |first=The |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?do=print |title=Popular Mechanics |publisher=Popular Mechanics |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/01/september11.france |title=US invented air attack on Pentagon, claims French book &#124; World news |publisher=The Guardian |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

According to Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at ], a crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building. When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns.<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Flight 93 ===

{{Quotefarm|section|date=August 2009}}

The fourth plane hijacked on 9/11, ], crashed in an open field near ], ] after the passengers revolted. Out of the four planes hijacked on that day, it was the only one not to reach its target.<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk">{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm#8 |title=Programmes &#124; Conspiracy Files &#124; Q&A: What really happened |publisher=BBC News |date=2007-02-16 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

One of the popular conspiracy theories surrounding this event is that Flight 93 was actually shot down by a U.S. fighter jet. ] and ] say that large parts of the plane including the main body of the engine landed miles away from the main wreckage site, too far away for an ordinary plane crash. Jones says that planes usually leave a small debris field when they crash, and that this is not compatible with reports of wreckage found farther away from the main crash site. A posting on Rense.com claimed that the main body of the engine "was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner." <ref name="ReferenceA" /><ref name="news.bbc.co.uk" /><ref name=autogenerated3> 2006-12-20</ref>

According to some theories, the plane had to be shot down by the government because passengers had found out about the "plot".<ref name=Aaronovitch/>

According to the magazine '']'', " claim rests largely on unsupported assertions that the main body of the engine and other large parts of the plane turned up miles from the main wreckage site, too far away to have resulted from an ordinary crash. This is incorrect, because the engine was found only 300 yards from the main crash site, and its location was consistent with the direction in which the plane had been traveling." Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of ] in 1996 says that "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground.... When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more, you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."<ref name="ReferenceA" /><ref> </ref>

Reports of wreckage discovered at Indian Lake by local residents are accurate. CNN reported that investigators found debris from the crash at least eight miles away from the crash site, including in ].<ref>{{cite news|publisher=CNN|title='Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found|date=September 13, 2001|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/|accessdate=July 19, 2009}}</ref> However, according to CNN, this debris was all very light material that the wind would have easily blown away, and a ''Pittsburgh Post-Gazette'' article from September 14, 2001 describes the material as "mostly papers", "strands of charred insulation", and an "endorsed paycheck". The same article quotes FBI agent Bill Crowley that, "Lighter, smaller debris probably shot into the air on the heat of a fireball that witnesses said shot several hundred feet into the air after the jetliner crashed. Then, it probably rode a wind that was blowing southeast at about 9&nbsp;m.p.h."<ref>{{cite news | first=James | last=O'Toole | coauthors= Tom Gibb and Cindi Lash | title=Flight data recorder may hold clues to suicide flight | date=2001-09-14 | publisher=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | url =http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914p2.asp | accessdate = 2009-07-12 }}</ref> Also, the distance between the crash site and Indian Lake was misreported in some accounts. According to the BBC, "In a straight line, Indian Lake is just over a mile from the crash site. The road between the two locations takes a roundabout route of 6.9 miles&nbsp;— accounting for the erroneous reports."<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk" />

Some conspiracy theorists believe a small white jet seen flying over the crash area may have fired a missile to shoot down Flight 93.<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7 |title=Flight 93 |accessdate=2009-07-12 |date=March 2005 |work=Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report |publisher=Popular Mechanics }}</ref>{{Dubious| reason=In the reference, no one specifically theorizes that the "small white jet" observed by witnesses committed a shootdown. An "Air Force jet" or a "U.S. Customs airplane" are conjectured. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7|date=July 2009}} However, government agencies such as the FBI assert this was a ] business jet asked to descend to an altitude of around 1500&nbsp;ft to survey the impact.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unanswered-questions-the-mystery-of-flight-93-639770.html | last = Carlin| first = John| title = Unanswered questions| publisher = ]| date =2002-08-13 | accessdate=2009-07-12}}</ref> Ben Sliney, who was the FAA operation manager on September 11, 2001, says no military aircraft were near Flight 93.<ref> October 4, 2006</ref>

Some internet videos, such as '']'', speculate that Flight 93 safely landed in ], and a substituted plane was involved in the crash in Pennsylvania.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.physics911.net/faq.htm|title=Physics911 Frequently Asked Questions section}}</ref> Often cited is a preliminary news report that Flight 93 landed at a ] airport;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11|title=9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective}}</ref> it was later learned that Delta Flight 1989 was the plane confused with Flight 93, and the report was retracted as inaccurate. Several websites within the 9/11 Truth Movement dispute this claim, citing the wreckage at the scene, eyewitness testimony, and the difficulty of secretly substituting one plane for another, and claim that such "hoax theories... appear calculated to alienate victims' survivors and the larger public from the 9/11 truth movement".<ref name=autogenerated3 /><ref></ref> The editor of the article has since written a ] to the claims.<ref> (Archived by the ])</ref>

The woman who took the only photograph of the mushroom cloud from the impact of Flight 93 hitting the ground says she has been harassed by conspiracy theorists, who claim she faked the photo. The FBI, the Smithsonian, and the National Park Service’s Flight 93 National Memorial have found it to be authentic.<ref name=Flight93Photo>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10cnd-shanksville.html|title=Picture Made on 9/11 Takes a Toll on Photographer}}</ref>

Conspiracy theorists have claimed that passengers of Flight 93 or ], or of both flights, were murdered or that they were relocated, with the intent that they never be found.<ref name=Aaronovitch></ref>

=== Remote control ===

Some theories suggest that, rather than having preset routes entered into the planes' on-board computers, the planes were flown by remote control. Theories of remotely controlled aircraft have been criticised for ignoring phone calls made by passengers which state that their aircraft had been hijacked.<ref name="usgovDidPlaneHitPentagon" />

According to Boeing spokesperson Elizabeth Verdiev, Boeing designed its commercial airplanes so that it is impossible for them to be controlled remotely:<ref name="usgovAttackOnWTC">{{cite web
|url=http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/April/20090428135102atlahtnevel0.7969629.html#ixzz0KsG5YGTm&C
|title=The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers
|publisher=Bureau of International Information Programs, ]
|date=2009-04-24
|accessdate=2009-09-06}}</ref>

<blockquote>
No Boeing commercial jet transport can be controlled from outside the airplane. No Boeing commercial jet transport can be commanded or have its flight controlled other than from within the flight deck by the pilots. Pilots can program the airplane to take off, fly to a destination and land automatically, but Boeing design philosophy keeps pilots in control and in the decision-making loop at all times.
</blockquote>

=== Hijackers ===

{{Quotefarm|section|date=August 2009}}

{{See also|Hijackers in the September 11 attacks|9/11 advance-knowledge debate#Blocked al-Qaeda investigations}}

During the initial confusion surrounding the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the ] published the names and identities of some of the hijackers. Although this story was superseded by subsequent reporting,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm |title=AMERICAS &#124; The investigation and the evidence |publisher=BBC News |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> the original story has been cited as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy. The BBC explained that this confusion may have arisen because the names they reported back in 2001 were common Arabic and Islamic names. In response to a request from the BBC, the FBI stated:<ref>{{cite web|author=Steve Herrmann |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html |title=9/11 Conspiracy Theory, by Steve Hermann, BBC Editor |publisher=Bbc.co.uk |date=2006-10-27 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

<blockquote>The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.</blockquote>

'']'' also acknowledged these as cases of mistaken identity.<ref> September 16, 2001</ref>

According to Managing Editor John Bradley of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the only public information about the hijackers was a list of names issued by the FBI on September 14, 2001. When the FBI released photographs four days after the cited reports on September 27, the mistaken identities were quickly resolved. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, ] and ], are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain."<ref name="Panoply"> September 08, 2003</ref>

=== Phone calls ===
Air phone calls and cell phone calls were placed from the hijacked planes. Conspiracy theorist ] claims that cell phone calls should either be impossible or rarely possible from commercial planes, and therefore the hijackings were staged and the phone calls were faked.<ref>{{cite paper |author=A. K. Dewdney |title=Project Achilles: Low Altitude Cellphone Experiments |url=http://physics911.net/pdf/Achilles.pdf }}</ref>

After 9/11, cellular experts said that they were surprised calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They said that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground.<ref> Elliot.org September 19, 2001</ref> Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson said it was almost a ]
that the calls reached their destinations.<ref name="Final Contact">{{cite web|url=http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/ar/wireless_final_contact/|title=Final Contact|work=Telephony Online|author=Betsy Harter|date=November 1, 2001}}</ref> Other industry experts said that it is possible to use cell phones with varying degrees of success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights.<ref name=Romero>{{cite news|last=Romero|first=Simon|journal=New York Times|title=After the Attacks: Communications; New Perspective on the Issue Of Cell Phone Use in Planes|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/us/after-attacks-communications-new-perspective-issue-cell-phone-use-planes.html|accessdate=July 8, 2009|quote=According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude.}}</ref> Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at ] said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight."<ref name=Romero/>

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from ] made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed ] calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report). According to Debunk911myths.org, all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air phones, not cell phones, and both calls lasted about a minute before being dropped.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Phone_calls|title=Phone calls}}</ref> Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was supported by several cell sites.<ref name="Final Contact" /> There were reportedly three phone calls from ], five from ], and three calls from ]. Two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and ] on Flight 11. A conspiracy theory web site claims anomalies relating to the nature of the phone call transcripts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/callanomalies.html#various|title=Phone Call Oddities}}</ref>

=== Jewish and Israeli involvement ===
{{See also|9/11 advance-knowledge debate#Israel}}
There are theories that 9/11 was part of an international ]. One the more popular claims in these theories{{dubious|August 2009}} is that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the World Trade Center on September 11. This was first reported on September 17 by the ] ]-owned satellite television channel ] and is believed to be based on the September 12 edition of the '']'' that stated "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 attacks."<ref></ref> Both turned out to be incorrect; the number of Jews who died in the attacks is variously estimated at between 270 to 400.<ref>A survey of the 1,700 victims whose religion was listed found approximately 10% were Jewish indicating around 270 in total. A survey based on the last names of victims found that around 400 (15½%) were possibly Jewish. A survey of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who had public memorials (out of the 658 who died) found 49 were Jewish (12½%). According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, New York State's population was 9% Jewish. Sixty-four percent of the WTC victims lived in New York State.</ref><ref> Gary Rosenblatt, August 3, 2007</ref><ref name="phas-13"> 1 October 2003</ref><ref> January 2005</ref> The lower figure tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area and partial surveys of the victims' listed religion. The U.S. State Department has published a partial list of 76 in response to claims that fewer Jews/Israelis died in the WTC attacks than should have been present at the time.<ref name="usgov4000JewsRumor">{{cite web
|url=http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2007/November/20050114145729atlahtnevel0.1679041.html
|title=The 4,000 Jews Rumor
|publisher=Bureau of International Information Programs, ]
|date=2007-11-16
|accessdate=2009-09-06}}</ref><ref></ref> Five Israeli citizens died in the attack.<ref>{{cite news |first = Greer Fay|url = http://web.archive.org/web/20021104190710/http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1031666147075 |last = Cashman|title = Five Israeli victims remembered in capital|work = The Jerusalem Post |publisher = ''The Jerusalem Post'' |page = 3|date=2002-09-12 |accessdate = 2006-10-17}}</ref>

It has been claimed that ] may have had foreknowledge of the attacks. Four hours after the attack, the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of a white van in the parking lot of an apartment building, for "puzzling behavior". The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of "joy and mockery".<ref></ref>

== Other theories ==
=== Cover-up allegations ===
Conspiracy theorists say they detect a pattern of behavior on the part of officials investigating the September 11 attack meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that might contradict the mainstream account.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up|title="9/11 Cover-up Two-Page Summary" WantToKnow.info}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://911review.com/coverup/index.html|title="The Coverup", 911review.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040525104145424|title="9/11 Commission: The official coverup guide", 911truth.org}}</ref> They associated news stories from several different sources with that pattern.<ref> CNN.com</ref><ref> CBS News</ref><ref> FOX News</ref><ref> Time.com</ref><ref> CNN.com</ref><ref> MSNBC</ref>

==== Cockpit recorders ====
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the ]s (CVR) or ]s (FDR), or "black boxes", from Flights 11 and 175 were not recovered from the remains of the WTC attack; however, two men, Michael Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi, who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, stated in the book ''Behind-The-Scenes: Ground Zero''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://summeroftruth.org/groundzero.html |title=Behind-the-Scenes: Ground Zero. A Collection of Personal Accounts - <! |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> that they helped federal agents find three of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners:<ref>{{cite web | url=http://counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html |title=9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI |accessdate=2006-10-07 |last= |first= |authorlink=Dave Lindorff |coauthors= |date=2005-12-19 |year= |month= |work=A CounterPunch Special Report&nbsp;— Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission? |publisher=CounterPunch |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}</ref><ref name="JonesFAQ">{{cite web|url=http://worldtradecentertruth.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf |title= FAQ: Questions and Answers|last=Jones |first=Steven E. |year=2006 |format=pdf |publisher=}} page 181.</ref>{{Dead link|date=July 2009}}

<blockquote>
"At one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three."<ref>{{cite book |last=Swanson |first=Gail |coauthors=edited by Dennis Fisin |title= Ground Zero, A collection of personal accounts |year=2003 |publisher=TRAC Team}} </ref>
</blockquote>

] from ] was heavily damaged from the impact and resulting fire.]]
Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, remarked that "It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders."<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/23/black-boxes.htm |title= Voice recorders could provide crucial 9/11 clues|publisher=USAToday}}</ref>

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, both black boxes from Flight 77 and both black boxes from Flight 93 were recovered. However, the CVR from Flight 77 was said to be too damaged to yield any data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.<ref> April 18, 2002</ref> In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the ] trial. Some conspiracy theorists {{Who|date=May 2009}} do not believe that the black boxes were damaged and that instead there has been a cover up of evidence.

==== Bin Laden tapes ====
{{Main|Videos of Osama bin Laden}}

A series of interviews, audio and videotapes have been released since the 9/11 attacks that have been reported to be from Osama bin Laden. At first the speaker denied responsibility for the attacks but over the years has taken increasing responsibility for them culminating in a November 2007 videotape in which the speaker claimed sole responsibility for the attacks and denied the ] and the ] government or people had any prior knowledge of the attacks.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html |title=Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN September 17, 2001 |publisher=Archives.cnn.com |date=2001-09-17 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/page/0,12643,839823,00.html |title=Timeline: the al-Qaida tapes The Guardian Unlimited |publisher=Guardian |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref name=autogenerated5>{{cite web|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL2912911920071129?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 |title=Bin Laden urges Europe to quit Afghanistan Reuters UK November 29, 2007 |publisher=Uk.reuters.com |date=2007-11-29 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> The ] has confirmed the speaker was or was likely to be Osama bin Laden. Some people in the ] doubted the authenticity of the tape.<ref> '']'' December 15, 2001</ref> Steve and Paul Watson of ] claim that the organization handling the tapes is a ] for ] and that the tapes are "highly suspect".<ref name=autogenerated5 /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://infowars.net/articles/november2007/291107Laden.htm |title=New Bin Laden "Confession" Tape: Fake Like The Rest? PrisonPlanet.com November 29, 2007 |publisher=Infowars.net |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

=== Foreign governments ===
{{See also|Responsibility for the September 11 attacks#Other alleged responsibility|9/11 advanced-knowledge debate#Foreign government foreknowledge}}

There are allegations that individuals within the Pakistani ] (ISI) may have played an important role in ]. There are also claims that other foreign intelligence agencies, such as the Israeli ], had foreknowledge of the attacks, and that Saudi Arabia may have played a role in financing the attacks. ], former President of Italy from 1985 until his resignation over ], asserts that it is common knowledge among democratic circles in the U.S. and Europe, and primarily in the Italian center-left, that the 9/11 attacks were a joint operation of the CIA and the Mossad.<ref>{{cite news|journal=Corriere della sera|title=Osama-Berlusconi? «Trappola giornalistica»|date=November 30, 2007|url=http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml|accessdate=June 15, 2009|quote=tutti gli ambienti democratici d'America e d'Europa, con in prima linea quelli del centrosinistra italiano, sanno ormai bene che il disastroso attentato è stato pianificato e realizzato dalla Cia americana e dal Mossad}}</ref> General ], a former head of ISI, believes the attacks were an “inside job” originating in the United States, perpetrated by Israel or neo-conservatives.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/07/fzgps.01.html |title=Fareed Zakaria GPS Mexican Crisis; India Terror Attacks CNN Transscript December 7, 2008 |publisher=Transcripts.cnn.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

The theory that such foreign individuals outside of al-Qaeda were involved is often part of larger “inside job” theories, although it has been claimed that, while al-Qaeda deserves most of the responsibility, the alleged role played by Pakistan, Israel or Saudi Arabia was deliberately overlooked by the official investigation for political reasons.{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}}

=== "No plane" theories ===
] accidentally appearing from behind a ].]]
Nico Haupt and ], formerly the chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175, being largely ], could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that ] was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video.<ref name="msnbc">{{cite web
| url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/print/1/displaymode/1098/
| title = WP: 9/11 conspiracy theories
| author = Michael Powell
| date = 2006-09-08
| publisher = ]
| accessdate = 2009-09-06
}}</ref> "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to ], "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." Truth movement veterans tend to distance themselves from "no-planers".<ref name="women.timesonline.co.uk"/><ref name="msnbc"/> Discussion of no plane theories have been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites while advocates have been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites.<ref name=Yoda/>

=== Reptilian shape-shifting aliens ===
{{See also|David Icke}}
] argues that ] are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world. According to ''Phoenix New Times'', "Icke is part of a virulent strain of anti-Semitism that runs throughout the 9/11 conspiracy crowd." Icke's theories are rejected by 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites.<ref name=Yoda>{{cite web|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-08-09/news/the-yoda-of-9-11/5 |title=Phoenix News&nbsp;— The Yoda of 9/11 - page 5 |publisher=Phoenixnewtimes.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1861029,00.html |title=The Reptilian Elite&nbsp;— Conspiracy Theories |publisher=TIME |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref name="DavidIckeIsBack">{{cite web
| url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4226273.ece
| title = Reptilians beware - David Icke is back!
| author = Philippe Naughton
| date = 2008-06-27
| publisher = ]
| accessdate = 2009-09-06
}}</ref>

== Motives ==
=== Pax Americana ===
{{Main|Pax Americana}}
In suggesting motives for the U.S. government to have carried out the attacks, Professor ] claims that a global "]" was a dream held by many members of the ].{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} <!-- If no reliable sources have covered this, it should be removed from the article. --> This dream was first articulated in the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, drafted by ] on behalf of then ] ], in a document that has been called "a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony."<ref>{{cite book|author=Andrew J. Bacevich|title=American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy|publisher=Cambridge: Harvard University Press|year=2002|date=44}}</ref>

Matt Taibbi, in his book ''The Great Derangement'' argues that this is "taken completely out of context", and that the "transformation" referenced in the paper is explicitly stated to be a decades-long process to turn the ]-era military into a "new, modern military" which could deal with more localized conflicts.<ref name="tgd" /> He further ridicules this position by pointing out that, for this to be evidence of motive, that either those responsible decided to openly state their objectives, or read the paper in 2000 and quickly laid the groundwork for the 9/11 attacks using it as inspiration.<ref name="tgd" /> In either case, he argues that this is a form of "defiant unfamiliarity with the actual character of America's ruling class" and constitutes part of a "completely and utterly retarded" narrative to explain the attacks.<ref name="tgd" />

=== Invasions ===
There are claims that the ] was being planned before 9/11. The military intelligence journal '']'' reported on March 15, 2001, that India was believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, and that the efforts of the four countries facilitated the capture of a strategic town in Afghanistan by the ].<ref>{{cite news|last=Bedi|first=Rahul|publisher=Jane's Intelligence Weekly|title=India joins anti-Taliban coalition|date=March 15, 2001|accessdate=July 2, 2009}}</ref> The ] reported on September 18, 2001 that Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.<ref>{{cite news
|author=
|title=US 'planned attack on Taleban'
|date=2001-09-18
|work=]
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
|accessdate=2008-08-05
}}</ref> ] reported on May 16, 2002 that unspecified "U.S. and foreign sources" said President ] received plans on September 9, 2001 to begin a worldwide war on ] but did not have the chance to sign it before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/ |title=U.S. planned for attack on al-Qaida&nbsp;— Security&nbsp;— MSNBC.com |publisher=MSNBC |date=2002-05-16 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

Conspiracy theorists {{Who|date=May 2009}} have questioned whether the ] and 9/11 provided the ] and the ] with a reason to launch a war they had wanted for some time, and suggest that this gives them a strong motive for either carrying out the attacks, or allowing them to take place. For instance, ], a former research minister in the German government, has argued that 9/11 was ] to justify the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.<ref>{{cite web|last=Connolly |first=Kate |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1447232/German-Sept-11-theory-stokes-anti-US-feeling.html |title=Telegraph, 20 Nov 2003 |publisher=Telegraph.co.uk |date=2003-11-20 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

=== Suggested historical precedents ===
] magazine contrasts events which inspired past conspiracy theories with those that inspire 9/11 conspiracy theories such as the ]. Whereas the assassination of Kennedy was a private, intimate affair, the attack on the World Trade Center was witnessed by millions of people and documented by hundreds of videographers. ''Time'' magazine explains that "there is no event so plain and clear that a determined human being can't find ambiguity in it."<ref name="time" />

== Media reaction ==
While discussion and coverage of these theories is mainly confined to internet pages, books, documentary films, and conversation, a number of mainstream news outlets around the world have covered the issue.

The ] version of the July 2006 '']'' sparked interest when they ran, on their own initiative, a three page main story on the 9/11 attacks and summarized the various types of 9/11 conspiracy theories (which were not specifically endorsed by the newspaper, only recensed).<ref> , Norwegian edition of '']'', July 2006. See also English translation: Kim Bredesen, </ref> The ], which has changed position since the September 11 attacks and whose director, ], became a leading proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theory, explained that although the Norwegian version of ''Le Monde diplomatique'' had allowed it to translate and publish this article on its website, the mother-house, in France, categorically refused it this right, thus displaying an open debate between various national editions.<ref> * {{fr icon}} ,
'']'' * {{es icon}} </ref> In December 2006, the French version published an article by ], co-editor of '']'', which strongly criticized the endorsement of conspiracy theories by the U.S. left-wing, alleging that it was a sign of "theoretical emptiness."<ref> *{{en icon}} , by ] in '']'', December 2006 *{{fr icon}}, by ] in ''Le Monde diplomatique'', December 2006 *{{fa icon}} *{{pt icon}} </ref><ref> , by ] and ], '']'', November 28, 2006 </ref>

Also, on the Canadian website for ''CBC News: ]'', a program titled, "Conspiracy Theories: uncovering the facts behind the myths of Sept. 11, 2001" was broadcast on October 29, 2003, stating that what they found may be more surprising than any theories.<ref> at www.cbc.ca</ref>

An article in the September 11, 2006 edition of ''Time'' magazine comments 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 enjoy continued popularity because “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” and constitute “an American form of national mourning.”<ref>Grossman, Lev. (2006) &nbsp;– Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away</ref>

'']'' published an article titled "The CIA couldn't have organised this..." which said "The same people who are making a mess of Iraq were never so clever or devious that they could stage a complex assault on two narrow towers of steel and glass" and "if there is a nefarious plot in all this bad planning, it is one improvised by a confederacy of dunces". This article mainly attacked a group of scientists led by Professor ], now called ]. They said "most of them aren't scientists but instructors... at second-rate colleges".<ref> 08/09/2006</ref>

A major Australian newspaper ''The Daily Telegraph'', published an article in May 2007 that was highly critical of ''Loose Change 2'', a movie which presents a 9/11 conspiracy theory.<ref>{{cite web|last=Blair |first=Tim |url=http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,21671628-5001031,00.html |title=The Daily Telegraph "Virgin's 9/11 Farce" |publisher=News.com.au |date=2007-05-05 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

Doug MacEachern in a May 2008 column for the '']'' wrote that while many "9/11 truthers" are not crackpots that espouse "crackpot conspiracy theories". He wrote that supporters of the theories fail to take into account both human nature and that nobody has come forward claiming they were participants in the alleged conspiracies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0511vip-maceachern0511.html |title=Truthers are overlooking key point about 9/11 Human nature Doug MacEachern for the Arizona Republic May 11, 2008 |publisher=Azcentral.com |date=2008-05-11 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> This view seconded by Timothy Giannuzzi, a '']'' ] columnist specializing in foreign policy.<ref>{{cite web|last=Calgary |first=The |url=http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=0bc82ffe-1e2e-4991-93ea-0f384b864bad&p=2 |title=Washington can't live up to standards of 9/11 'truthers Timothy Giannuzzi for the Calgary Herald July 10, 2008 |publisher=Canada.com |date=2008-07-10 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

On June 7, 2008, ''] Magazine'' published a lengthy article on the ] and 9/11 conspiracy theories.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a3e2879e-342c-11dd-869b-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fa3e2879e-342c-11dd-869b-0000779fd2ac.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3D9%252F11%2Btruth%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26aje%3Dtrue%26dse%3D%26dsz%3D |title=The Truth Is Out There&nbsp;— Part I Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008 |publisher=Ft.com |date=2008-06-07 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e46f11d8-342c-11dd-869b-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fe46f11d8-342c-11dd-869b-0000779fd2ac.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3D9%252F11%2Btruth%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26aje%3Dtrue%26dse%3D%26dsz%3D |title=The Truth Is Out There&nbsp;— Part II Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008 |publisher=Ft.com |date=2008-06-07 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a580372-342b-11dd-869b-0000779fd2ac.html |title=The Truth Is Out There&nbsp;— Part III Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008 |publisher=Ft.com |date=2008-06-07 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

] a British multimedia personality in a July 2008 column published by '']'' as part of its "Comment is free" series agreed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists fail to take in account human fallacies and added that believing in these theories gives theorists a sense of belonging to a community that shares privileged information thus giving the theorists a delusional sense of power.<ref>{{cite web|author=Logged in as click here to log out |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/september11.usa |title=So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you're the Emperor of Pluto Charles Brooker for The Guardian Unlimited 14 July, 2008 |publisher=Guardian |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> The commentary generated over 1700 online responses the largest in the history of the series.<ref>{{cite web|author=Logged in as click here to log out |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/september11 |title=Who knows what happened on 9/11? Dan Hind for the Guardian Unlimited 17 July, 2008 |publisher=Guardian |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

On September 12, 2008, ] broadcast in ] a documentary made by ] ] entitled ''Zero'' sympathetic to those who question the mainstream account of the attacks according to Chiesa. According to ] in conjunction with the documentary, Russian State Television aired a debate on the subject. The panel consisted of members from several countries including 12 Russians who hold divergent views. The motive of Russian State Television in broadcasting the documentary was questioned by a commentator from '']'' who noted that Russian State Television had a history of broadcasting programs involving ] involving the ]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3626100,00.html |title=DPA News Agency Filmmaker Urges International Tribunal to Probe 9/11 September 9, 2008 |publisher=Dw-world.de |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Tarpley |first=Webster G. |url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10130 |title=Landmark Russian TV Debate on 9/11 Center for Research on Globalization September 9, 2008 |publisher=Globalresearch.ca |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/09/16/russian-tv-teaches-%E2%80%9C911-truth%E2%80%9D/ |title=Russian TV Teaches "9/11 Truth" The Other Russia September 16, 2008 |publisher=Theotherrussia.org |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

] in a commentary printed by the '']'' wrote favorably about a 9/11 truth lecture and film festival held in California and quoted a Jewish speaker at that festival who said that none of the 19 suspected hijackers had been proven guilty of anything and compared racism against Muslims resulting from what he called false accusations to the racism against Jews in the Nazi era.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pakobserver.net/200809/15/news/topstories07.asp |title=19 Muslims involved in 9/11 never proved guilty by anybody Nasir Mahmood for the Pakistan Observer September 15, 2008 |publisher=Pakobserver.net |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

On November 10, 2008, ] broadcast a story summarizing various 9/11 conspiracy theories.<ref name=ITN081110>{{cite web|url=http://itn.co.uk/news/eb25eb27b4c1315a34017442fb7831a7.html |title=9/11 conspiracy theories exposed ITN November 10, 2008 |publisher=Itn.co.uk |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

The emergence of the ] in 2009 has led to comparisons between that movement and the ], with both movements seen in a very negative light. ] have also been compared to the birther and 9/11 conspiracy theories. James Borne, a journalist for ] who covered the ], described his assignment covering a 9/11 truth meeting "Perhaps the most intellectually scary assignment I have had in recent years".<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref>

On August 31, 2009 The ] aired a program ''9/11 Science and Conspiracy''. The channel used The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center to test four popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. Specifically the experiments concluded that jet fuel would quickly knock out fireproofing material and produce temperatures high enough to burn down a building quickly, that a controlled demolition would leave clear traces of evidence that were not found at ground zero, that ] is not a material that would have been capable knocking down the towers and that even if thermite is found it would be impossible to tell if it came from the airplanes melting or a controlled demolition. The testing concluded that the type of hole found at The Pentagon was plausible with the mainstream scenario and that damage from a bombing or a missile attack of the Pentagon would differ from the actual damage that occurred on 9/11. Several prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists and debunker's commented and disagreed on the results. The program concluded that the divisions over 9/11 conspiracy theories show that the 9/11 attacks have left a wound that can nor should be healed.<ref></ref><ref>] 9/11 Science and Conspiracy</ref>

=== In popular culture ===
In June 2005 the popular murder mystery ] program '']'' ran an episode in which a woman who claims the 9/11 attacks were instigated by the Bush family for oil and power is targeted by FBI and CIA hitmen after her male roommate is found dead. The roommate was trained to be a 9/11 pilot but was left behind. The episode viewed by 7 million people ended when the detectives investigating the death believed her and she escapes to an unnamed Arab country.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/08/20050608-095942-4588r/ |title=TV show depicts 9/11 as Bush plot The Washington Times June 9, 2005 |publisher=Washingtontimes.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> In season 10 of the animated show ], the episode ] centers around 9/11 conspiracy theories. After ], a main character in the show, blames ] of causing 9/11, Kyle and his friend ] end up in the White house, where they are told that the government did in fact cause the 9/11 attacks. They escape, and eventually it is revealed that the government wants people to think that they caused 9/11, so that they think the government has more power than it does. <ref></ref> A '']'' episode featured a character played by actor ] who is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist in real life, explaining to a French journalist that the 9/11 attacks were a “neoconservative government effort” to create a new Pearl Harbor to control oil and increase military spending.<ref></ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courant.com/entertainment/tv/hc-rescue_me.artmar22,0,6562062.story |title='Rescue Me' Returns; Leary Fans The Flames Hartford Courant March 22, 2009 |publisher=Courant.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> According to ] major plot lines in the first 10 episodes of the shows season 5 revolve around reinvestigation and conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks.<ref>{{cite web|last=Broadley |first=Erin |url=http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/hollywood/last-night-denis-leary-reveals/ |title=Last Night: Denis Leary Reveals New 'Rescue Me' Plot and Reminds us 'Why We Suck' @ Book Soup LA Weekly December 2, 2008 |publisher=Blogs.laweekly.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

== Criticism ==
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of ] common throughout history after a traumatic event in which ] emerge as a mythic form of explanation.<ref>Barkun, 2003</ref> A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue.<ref>{{cite web|last = Walch|first = Tad|year = 2006|url=http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645200098,00.html|title = Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones|work = Utah news|publisher = Deseret News Publishing Company|accessdate = 2006-09-09}}</ref>

Michael Shermer, writing in ''Scientific American'', said:
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."<ref>{{cite web|last = Shermer|first = Michael|authorlink = Michael Shermer|year = 2005 |url = http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000&colID=13|title = Fahrenheit 2777 |work = Skeptic|publisher = Scientific American, Inc. |accessdate = 2006-10-13}}</ref>

'']'',<ref name="SciAm">{{cite web| title = Fahrenheit 2777, 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories | publisher = Scientific American |month=June | year=2005 | author = Shermer, Michael | url = http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000}}</ref> '']'',<ref>{{cite web| title = Debunking The 9/11 Myths&nbsp;— Mar. 2005 Cover Story | publisher = Popular Mechanics |month=March | year=2005 | url = http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y}}</ref> and '']''<ref>{{cite web| title = Mass Media Bunk - 9/11 conspiracies: the war on critical thinking | publisher = The Skeptic's Dictionary | author= ] |date=2006-03-30 | url = http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html}}</ref> have published articles that rebut various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these conspiracy theories have attacked the contribution to the ''Popular Mechanics'' article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is a cousin of ]&nbsp;— former head of Homeland Security.<ref>{{cite web| title = 9/11 and Chertoff | publisher = Associated Free Press |date=2005-03-04 | author = Bollyn, Christopher | url = http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=66176}}</ref> <!-- *the article is obviously an opinion piece attributed per NPOV* --> However, ''U.S. News'' says no actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.<ref>{{cite web| title = Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll | publisher = Us News |date=2006-09-03 | author = Sullivan, Will |url = http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm}}</ref> ''Popular Mechanics'' has published a book entitled '']'' that expands upon the research first presented in the article.<ref>{{cite web| title = Debunking The 9/11 Myths blog | publisher = Popular Mechanics | url = http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/911mythsblog}}</ref> In the foreword for the book ] ] wrote that blaming the U.S. government for the events "mars the memories of all those lost on that day" and "exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It trafficks in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans."<ref>{{cite web|last=Dunbar |first=David |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3491861.html?page=4 |title=John McCain forward to Debunking 9/11 myths August 4, 2006 |publisher=Popularmechanics.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> '']'' dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."<ref>{{cite web| author = Cziesche, Dominik, Jürgen Dahlkamp, Ulrich Fichtner, Ulrich Jaeger, Gunther Latsch, Gisela Leske, and Max F. Ruppert|date=2003-09-08| url = http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html| title = Panoply of the Absurd| publisher = Der Spiegel}}</ref> ] has published a book entitled ''Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory'',<ref>{{cite book|title=Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory|last=Griffin|first=David Ray|isbn=978-1566566865|publisher=Olive Branch Press|year=2007}}</ref>{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} and Jim Hoffman has written an article called 'popular mechanics assault on 9/11 truth" where he attacks the methods ''Popular Mechanics'' uses in forming their arguments.<ref>{{cite web|title=911 research|url=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html}}</ref>{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}<!-- Do we have any reliable sources covering Giffin's and Hoffman's responses? If not, we're treading on WP:OR and definitely WP:UNDUE.-->

Journalist ], in his book ''The Great Derangement'', discusses 9/11 conspiracy theories as symptomatic of what he calls the "derangement" of American society; a disconnection from reality due to widespread "disgust with our political system".<ref name="tgd">{{cite book| last = Taibbi| first = Matt| title = The Great Derangement| publisher = Spiegel & Grau| year = 2008| location = New York| pages = 9–12, 148–166| isbn = 9780385520348}}</ref> Drawing a parallel with the ], he argues that both "chose to battle bugbears that were completely idiotic, fanciful, and imaginary," instead of taking control of their own lives.<ref name="tgd" /> While critical, Taibbi explains that 9/11 conspiracy theories are different from "Clinton-era black-helicopter paranoia", and constitute more than "a small, scattered group of nutcases they really were, just as they claim to be, almost everyone you meet."<ref name="tgd" />

Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there wasn't a conspiracy. He suggests that the answer is criminal negligence on the part of the president and vice president, who were repeatedly warned, followed by a cover-up conspiracy after 9/11.<ref>{{cite web|title=Anomalous Mistake-driven Opportunity Creation|url=http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/amoc.htm}}</ref> This was expanded upon by columnist Matt Mankelow writing for the ] Online. He concludes that 9/11 truthers while "desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events" end up playing into the hands of the ] they are trying to take down by creating a diversion. Mankelow noted that this has irritated many people who are politically ]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18266 |title=David Aaronovitch: Cover-ups, collusion and conspiracies Socialist Workers Online June 23, 2009 |publisher=Socialistworker.co.uk |date=2009-06-27 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

British historian ] wrote in January 2009 that "studies of internet sites reveal an unholy alliance between left-wing 9/11 conspiracy theorists, right-wing ]s and ]". He claimed that 9/11 and other conspiracy theories are a result of a "Misplaced Pages age" phenomenon that author ] dubbed "counterknowledge". It allegedly involves people "seizing upon one or two minor discrepancies in a government report, then joining up all the wrong dots to create a monstrous fable". He believes "counterknowledge" is potentially greater threat to ] than ] and ]. <ref></ref>

David Aaronovitch, a columnist for '']'', in his book entitled ''The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History'' that was published in May 2009, claimed that the theories strain credulity.<ref name= Aaronovitch/>

=== In the political arena ===

Former Canadian ] leader ] forced a candidate from ], Lesley Hughes, to terminate her campaign after earlier writings from Hughes surfaced in which Hughes wrote that U.S., German, Russian and Israeli intelligence officials knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/506806 |title=Dion drops candidate over 9/11 remarks Toronto Star September 26, 2008 |publisher=Thestar.com |date=2008-09-26 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{Dead link|date=July 2009}}</ref> Earlier, ], Deputy Editor of ] and ] candidate in the 2008 Canadian election, had called for Hughes's resignation saying that the ] is "one of Canada’s most notorious hatemongering fringe movements" composed of "conspiracy theorists who are notorious for holding anti-Semitic views."<ref>{{cite web|author=Conservative Party Of Canada |url=http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/106439 |title=Dion must fire his anti-israel candidate Conservative Party Press Release September 26, 2008 |publisher=Conservative.ca |date=2008-09-26 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> On June 16, 2009, Hughes sued Kent, the ], the ] of Canada and four senior members of the two organizations alleging the anti-Semitic allegations they were untrue and defamatory and ruined her career.<ref>{{cite web|last=Martin |first=Nick |url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/hughes-sues-mp-bnai-brith-says-anti-semite-accusations-have-ruined-career-48864447.html |title=Hughes sues MP, B'Nai Brith Says anti-Semite accusations have ruined career Winnipeg Free Press June 23, 2009 |publisher=Winnipegfreepress.com |date=2009-06-23 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref> Later another Conservative Party candidate called for the leader of the ] to fire a candidate for her pro 9/11 truth views.<ref>{{cite web|author=Conservative Party Of Canada |url=http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/106644 |title=Ottawa NDP continue to flirt with fringe Conservative Party Press release September 30, 2008 |publisher=Conservative.ca |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

In 2008 calls for the resignation of ], the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories for the ], were partially based on his support investigating the validity of 9/11 conspiracy theories.<ref>{{cite web|last=Abrams |first=Joseph |url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369122,00.html |title=Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 'Inside Job' Theories Fox News June 19, 2008 |publisher=Foxnews.com |date=2008-07-15 |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

In February 2009, ], a professor of geopolitics at CID military college in Paris, was fired by French Defence Minister ] for writing a book entitled ’’Chronicle of the Clash of Civilizations’’ that espoused 9/11 conspiracy theories.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/French-lecturer-sacked-over-9_11-conspiracy-claims_49327.html |title=French lecturer sacked over 9/11 conspiracy claims AFP/Expatica February 6, 2009 |publisher=Expatica.com |date= |accessdate=2009-07-20}}</ref>

In September 2009 ], an adviser to US President Barack Obama, resigned after his signature on a 2004 petition calling for an investigation into whether government officials deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur and other controversial statements came to light drawing criticism. Van Jones said he was a victim of a smear campaign, and does not currently and has never agreed with that theory.<ref name="ObamaDidNotOrderVanJonesResignation">{{cite web
| url = http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/06/obama.adviser.resigns/
| title = Obama did not order Van Jones' resignation, adviser says
| date = 2009-09-06
| publisher = ]
| accessdate = 2009-09-06
}}</ref>

== See also ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|2}}

== References ==
* {{cite web | title =911truth.org: The 9/11 Truth Movement | url =http://www.911truth.org | accessdate=2007-10-09 }}
* {{cite web | title =9-11 Research: An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001 (WTC 7) | url = http://www.911research.wtc7.net/index.html | accessdate=2006-07-30 }}
* {{ cite web | title=Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth! | url = http://www.ae911truth.org/ | accessdate = 2007-07-30 }}
* {{cite web | title =Pilots for 9/11 Truth | url =http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ | accessdate=2007-10-24 }}
* {{cite web | title =Scholars for 9/11 Truth | url =http://911scholars.org/ | accessdate=2007-10-09 }}
* {{cite web | title =Loose Change | work = | url =http://www.seeloosechange.com |accessdate=2006-07-30}}
* {{cite web | title = Conspiracy Theories | work = CBC Television | url = http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/ | accessdate=2006-07-30 }}
* {{cite web | title =9/11 conspiracy | work = Conspiracy4u Chanel | url =http://www.conspiracy4u.com |accessdate=2009-08-20 }}

== Bibliography ==
{{refbegin|2}}
* {{cite book | last = Begin | first = Jeremy | year = 2007 | title = Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) | publisher = Trine Day Press | isbn = 978-0-9777953-3-8 }}
* {{cite book | last = Barkun | first = Michael | year = 2003 | title = A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America | publisher = University of California Press | isbn = 0-520-23805-2 }}
* {{cite book | last = Broeckers | first = Mathias | title = Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, and the Secrets of 9/11 | year = 2006 | publisher = Progressive Press | isbn = 0930852230 }}
* {{cite book | title = Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York's World Trade Center }}
* {{cite book | last = Editors of ] | year = 2002 | title = Inside 9-11: What Really Happened | publisher = St. Martin's Press | isbn = 0-312-30621-0 }}
* {{cite book | last = Editors of ] | title = ] | isbn = 1-58816-635-X | year = 2006 | publisher = Hearst Books | location = New York }}
*
* {{cite book | last = Fetzer | first = James H. | title = 9/11 Conspiracy | publisher = Open Court Publishing Company, U.S. | isbn = 0812696123 | page = 342 | year = 2007 }}
* {{cite book | last = Griffin | first = David Ray | year = 2007 | title = Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. | publisher = Olive Branch Press | isbn = 1566566865 }}
* {{cite book | last = Griffin | first = David Ray | year = 2006 | title = 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1 | publisher = Olive Branch Press | isbn = 1566566592 }}
* {{cite book | last = Griffin | first = David | year = 2004 | title = The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions | publisher = Olive Branch Press | isbn = 1566565847 }}
* {{cite book | last = Griffin | first = David Ray | coauthors = Richard Falk | title = The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 | url = http://bogusstory.com/TheNewPearlHarbor.html/ | accessdate = 2007-07-26 | isbn = 1566565529 | year = 2004 | publisher = Olive Branch Press | location = Northampton, Mass. }}
* {{cite book | last = Henshall | first = Ian | year = 2007 | title = 9.11: The New Evidence | publisher = Robinson Publishing | isbn = 1845295145 | page = 256 }}
* {{cite book | last = Hufschmid | first = Eric | year = 2002 | title = Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack | publisher = Ink & Scribe | isbn = 1931947058 | page = 158 }}
* {{cite book | last = Johnston | first = Patrick, S. | year = 2006 | title = ] | publisher = Dog Ear | isbn = 1-59858-244-5 }}
* {{cite book | last = Laurent | first = Eric | year = 2004 | title = La face cachée du 11 septembre | publisher = Plon | isbn = 2-259-20030-3 }}
* {{cite book | last = Marrs | first = Jim | year = 2006 | title = The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty | publisher = Disinformation Company | isbn = 1932857435 }}
* {{cite book | last = Meyssan | first = Thierry | title = ] | year = 2002 | publisher = Carnot Editions | isbn = 2912362733 }}
* {{cite book | last = Meyssan | first = Thierry | title = Pentagate | year = 2003 | publisher = USA Books | isbn = 1592090281 }}
* {{cite book | last = Morgan | first = Rowland | coauthors = Ian Henshall | title = 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions }}
* {{cite book | author = National Commission on Terrorist Attacks | title = ] | year = 2004 | publisher = W. W. Norton & Co. | isbn = 0393060411 }}
* {{cite book | last = Olmsted | first = Kathyrn| title = Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 | isbn = 0-195183533 | year = 2009 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = }}
* {{cite book | last = Paul | first = Don | coauthors = ] | title = Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City | isbn = 0-943096-10-3 | year = 2004 | publisher = Harts Spring Works | location = }}
* {{cite book | last = Ruppert | first = Michael | title = Crossing the Rubicon }}
* {{cite book | last = Ridgeway | first = James | title = The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11 }}
* {{cite book | last = Tarpley | first = Webster Griffin | title = 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA }}
* {{cite book | last = Thompson | first = Paul | coauthors = The Center for Cooperative Research | title = ] | year = 2004 }}
* {{cite book | last = Williams | first = Eric D. | year = 2006 | title = 9/11 101: 101 Key Points that Everyone Should Know and Consider that Prove 9/11 Was an Inside Job | publisher = Booksurge Publishing | isbn = 1419624288 }}
* {{cite book | last = Wright | first = Lawrence | year = 2006 | title = The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 | publisher = Knopf | isbn = 037541486X }}
* {{cite book | last = Zwicker | first = Barrie | year = 2006 | title = Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11 | publisher = New Society Publishers | isbn = 0865715734 | page = 416 }}
* {{cite book | last = Taibbi | first = Matt | year = 2008 | title = 'The Great Derangement' A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire | publisher = Spiegel & Grau | isbn = 9780385520348 | page = 288 }}
* {{cite book | last = Roeper | first = Richard | year = 2008 | title = Debunked!: Conspiracy Theories, Urban Legends, and Evil Plots of the 21st Century | publisher = Chicago Review Press | isbn = 9781556527074 | page = 224 }}
* {{cite book | last = ] | first = Farhad | year = 2008 | title = True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society | publisher = Wiley | isbn = 9780470050101 | page = 256 }}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
*
* , 19 September 2006
* , 30 August 2006
*
*
* {{Google video | id = 9072062020229593250 | title = BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11 }}
* {{Google video | id = 3538037502590699697 | title = David Ray Griffin - 911 and the American Empire (2005)}}

{{911ct}}
{{Conspiracy theories}}
{{Sept11}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:9/11 Conspiracy Theories}}
]
]

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Revision as of 05:28, 10 September 2009

Globe icon.The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
The collapse of the two World Trade Center towers and the nearby WTC7 (in this photo, the brown building to the left of the towers) are a major focus of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

9/11 Was an inside job!