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 11:15, 8 October 2006 view sourceMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits rv that website is baloney← Previous edit Revision as of 13:15, 8 October 2006 view source Seabhcan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,216 edits Saint Mongo of Factoid has pronounced upon this topic, but not yet blessed us with a holy citation, let us pray this will be improved in futureNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
Since the ], a variety of ] have challenged the official account of events that day. The content of the challenges typically include suggestions that individuals in the ] knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge, or even that they took active part in the attacks. Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the ] was caused by demolition charges or explosives placed in the buildings. Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into ], and that ] was shot down. No structural engineers have come forward to support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials insist that only ] was involved in the attacks. Since the ], a variety of ] have challenged the official account of events that day. The content of the challenges typically include suggestions that individuals in the ] knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge, or even that they took active part in the attacks. Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the ] was caused by demolition charges or explosives placed in the buildings. Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into ], and that ] was shot down. No structural engineers have come forward{{fact}} to support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials insist that only ] was involved in the attacks.


==The Official Account== ==The Official Account==

Revision as of 13:15, 8 October 2006

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a variety of conspiracy theories have challenged the official account of events that day. The content of the challenges typically include suggestions that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge, or even that they took active part in the attacks. Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by demolition charges or explosives placed in the buildings. Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. No structural engineers have come forward to support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials insist that only al-Qaeda was involved in the attacks.

The Official Account

In the years immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US government explained that the attacks were carried out by members of the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden. On the morning of September 11, nineteen terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes by using box cutters, mace and fake explosives. They piloted the planes themselves and crashed these into the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. According to the scientific account, the World Trade Center towers later collapsed due to the impact damage, removal of the fire protection and the intense fires. Due to the collapse of World Trade Center One and Two, all the surrounding World Trade Center buildings were heavily damaged as well, leading in turn to their complete or partial collapse. United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania later that day after passengers hearing of the previous attacks in air phone and cell phone conversations and brought the plane down. The U.S. government claimed it had no advance knowledge of the attacks.

Organizations representing the victims' families such as the Jersey Girls demanded further investigation and, after initial reluctance, the administration acceded to their request. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission was formed tasked with “not placing individual blame” but providing an explanation as to what happened and making recommendations to prevent a recurrence. In 2004 the commission released its report. It revealed that there were prior warnings of varying detail that the United States would be attacked by al-Qaeda. These were ignored due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement personnel. The report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970’s designed to prevent abuses that resulted major scandals during that era for the lack of interagency communication. The report also faulted both the Clinton and the Bush administration with “failure of imagination”. The explanation laid out in the report has been endorsed by most members of both major political parties and news media, and is what conspiracy theorists refer to as "the official account" of the September, 2001 attacks.

Origins And Reception

File:CNN911scrn.jpg
CNN broadcast of September 11 destruction when the second plane struck the south tower of the WTC.

Since the September 11 attacks, a number of websites, books, and films, largely promoted on and distributed through the Internet, have challenged the "official account" of the attacks. Although the "official account" contends al-Qaeda "conspired" to execute the attacks on the World Trade Center in the legal sense, a 9/11 conspiracy theory normally refers to a belief in a broad conspiracy, in which the attacks were executed by powerful groups often including government agencies or an alleged secret global network. Because belief in such networks predates the September 11, 2001 attacks, it may be argued that 9/11 conspiracy theories originated before the attacks themselves. The body of groups and individuals challenging the official account often refer to themselves as the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Inititially, 9/11 conspiracy theories received little attention in the media. In an address to the United Nations on November 10, 2001, United States President George W. Bush denounced the emergence of "outrageous conspiracy theories ... that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists." Later, as media exposure of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11 increased, US government agencies and the Bush Administration issued refutations to the theories, including a formal response by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to questions about the destruction of the World Trade Center, a revised 2006 State Department webpage to debunk the theories, and a strategy paper referred to by President Bush in an August 2006 speech, which declares that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

In August 2004, a Zogby International poll indicated that 49.3% New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens "overall" say US Leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". In July 2006, a Scripps Howard and Ohio University poll concluded that "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them", "sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings" and "twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists". A May 2006 Zogby International poll indicated that 42% of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up." A September 2006 Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans."

Just prior to the fifth anniversary of the attacks, a flurry of mainstream news articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories were released. In its coverage Time Magazine stated, "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality." Mainstream coverage has generally presented these theories as a cultural phenomenon and is often very critical of their content.

Main approaches

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

The weak version, which does not directly imply a conspiracy, merely suspects that government agencies, including the military and intelligence communities, dealt incompetently with the 9/11 attacks. It may go as far as suggesting that the 9/11 Commission covered up these alleged incompetencies and even that part of the incompetence involved inappropriate reactions to advanced warnings. While 9/11 conspiracy theories often include such claims, they go further to suggest intentional activities that either facilitated or directly caused the attacks. There are two main categories of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

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

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

The case for the theories is generally built on publicly available sources following a "connect the dots" approach. These sources include news reports of government actions, terrorist activities, and physical events, and a substantial amount of video footage. Part of the argument is a critique of the mainstream media for reporting individual facts without making an adequate effort to understand the connections between them. Conspiracy theories emerge from making such connections in the interpretative room left open by "unanswered questions". In some cases, conspiracy theorists will insist on the accuracy of early news reports that have since been retracted, refuted, or forgotten.

Arguments are offered to suggest both the physical possibility and circumstancial plausibility of a given conspiracy theory and, correspondingly, to demonstrate the physical impossibility and circumstancial implausibility of the official account. Since most conspiracy theorists argue for further indepedent investigations of the attacks, the basic assertion is normally only that the alternative conspiracy theory is more likely than "the official conspiracy theory". The remainder of this article provides a survey of the arguments, which are generally combined by individual theorists in overlapping and sometimes incompatible ways.

Basic argument

Unlike the official account, which suggests that the perpetrators (the terrorists) got much more than they bargained for, conspiracy theorists assume that the 9/11 attacks achieved more-or-less exactly their intended result. They therefore draw conclusions about the motives for 9/11 by looking at its consequences. Among these they emphasize the powerful military presence of the US in the Middle East (implying, they say, increased control over oil and natural gas reserves), the significant increase in funding for the American military and the intelligence community, the restrictions on civil liberties (often presented as an attack on the US constitution), and a general will to rule the world through brute military force. 9/11, the argument goes, was a convenient opportunity for certain factions of the American establishment, and the Bush administration in particular, to achieve key foreign and domestic policy goals that had been determined in advance of the attacks.

Many point to the writings of neoconservative strategists to suggest that 9/11 was, at best, on their 'wish list' and, at worst, on their list of 'things to do'. The standard reference in presenting this idea has become a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was written by the Project for the New American Century. This document outlines a global strategy that conspiracy theorists say is very similar in its details to the military strategy of the War on Terror. The document includes the line "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." On this basis, David Ray Griffin and others have presented an argument that draws a parallel to a particular interpretation of the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, according to which Roosevelt both provoked the attack and allowed it to happen in order to have a pretext for American entry into the second world war. Conspiracy theorists believe that 9/11 constitutes a "new Pearl Harbor" in at least this sense (LIHOP), many also adding the element of "false flag terrorism", i.e., that the attacks were organized by at least some of its supposed beneficiaries (MIHOP).

Pattern of behavior

To establish that the United States government (which some allege to have carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks) would be willing to use a staged incident to generate support for an armed conflict (which some conspiracy theorists claim was the purpose behind the attacks) conspiracy theorists have often pointed to Operation Northwoods. This plan, which was proposed by U.S. Department of Defense leaders in 1962 during the Kennedy administration, was meant to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan suggested various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored acts on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan, however, was rejected by the Kennedy administration.

Government foreknowledge

File:WTC1 on fire.jpg
The World Trade Center on fire. The plume of smoke escaping the Twin Towers is seen for miles.

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

Intelligence issues

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

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

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

  • The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI, but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00, 8/9/2005)
  • Acting Pentagon Inspector General Thomas Gimble in a 71-page report given to Defense Department officials in September 2006 dismissed claims that an Army intelligence unit code-named Able Danger uncovered data that could have thwarted the September 11 attacks, saying the allegations could not be substantiated. "Able Danger team members did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker," "In fact, Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information"
  • Reacting to the Pentagon report Rep. Weldon said "The report trashes the reputations of military officers who had the courage to step forward and ... describe important work they were doing to track al-Qaida prior to 9/11". 9/11 commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean said he hoped the report would put an end to discussion about Able Danger. "After this I don't know where it can go"
  • Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks.
  • FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid 2001 after an undisclosed source leaked information to the New York Times about an investigation into an incident that had occurred 13 months earlier. He was then recruited to be chief of security at the World Trade Center. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.

Possible early warning

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

Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge

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

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

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

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

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

World Trade Center

Main article: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center

The collapse of the World Trade Center was a surprise to the engineering community. While no skyscraper had ever before completely collapsed due to fire or other local damage, three skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001. The challenge for engineers was then to explain how the local damage caused by the airplanes (or, in the case of WTC 7, falling debris) was able to occasion a global progressive collapse. After an intensive three-year investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published an account that has been largely accepted in the engineering community. The official collapse mechanism refers only to the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires, which are taken to have caused sufficient structural damage to occasion the collapses. Conspiracy theorists emphasize that the only precedents for global collapse before 9/11 are controlled demolitions, and demand a more thorough investigation of this possibility.

The controlled demolition hypothesis plays a central, albeit not essential, role in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Jeff King and Jim Hoffman were early defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis and published their observations online. David Ray Griffin included the theory in his book The New Pearl Harbor. It received its most notable proponent to date in early 2006, when Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, argued that a "gravity driven collapse" without demolition charges would defy the laws of physics. There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort and amount of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Proponents of the hypothesis sometimes cite reports of what they believe are unusual power outages, maintenance work and emergency drills in the weeks leading up to September 11, 2001. Some conspiracy theorists propose a regular controlled demolition, in which the role of the demolition charges would have been to remove the main structural supports in order to let gravity and the weight of the building do the rest. Steven Jones believes that thermite (thermate), perhaps in combination with other devices, was likely involved.

NIST has explicitly rejected this hypothesis. There is widespread agreement, however, about the significance of the controlled demolition hypothesis, even among those who don't endorse it specifically or conspiracy theories in general. The necessary devices could only have been planted well in advance of the September 11 attacks and would have required extraordinary access to three highly secured buildings.

Building Seven

Another aspect of the September 11, 2001 attacks conspiracy theorists frequently raise, is the collapse of Seven World Trade Center, which they believe was caused by a controlled demolition. They cite several reasons for this. First, they believe the collapse displayed clear features of a controlled demolition. Second, they claim that since no plane hit the building, it should not have collapsed. The building, however, was heavily damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, just as world trade center 3, 4, 5 and 6, which all fully or partly collapsed. Third, in a PBS documentary on the collapes, Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, explained the fire department had decided to "pull it". Although his spokesperson explained that Silverstein meant that firefighters had decided to withdraw from the building and the surrounding area for their own safety, many conspiracy theorist insist that "pull it" is technical slang in the demolition industry for demolish a building. However, individuals in the demolition industry do not in fact use this term. Further fueling the conspiracy theory are the still ongoing investigation in the collapse (the NIST report is to be released early 2007) and the the fact that the building housed the offices of government agencies like the CIA, the FBI, and the SEC, along with the City of New York's emergency command bunker.

Pentagon

Security camera footage showing American Airlines Flight 77 (far right) just before impact.
File:Lawn1.jpg
The Pentagon, after collapse of the damaged section.

Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something significantly smaller than a Boeing 757 (typically a missile or smaller aircraft) have been raised by some conspiracy theorists based on photographs in which there appears to be a lack of expected debris or pieces of a commercial aircraft within the immediate impact area, and what some believe is a lack of damage to the building and the lawn. One of the first proponents of this conspiracy theory was Thierry Meyssan in his book 9/11: The Big Lie, the idea was also advanced by the website Hunt the Boeing! and the popular internet video Loose Change. A likely cause of these ideas was the initial scarcity of documentation of the attack. At first the only evidence available consisted of long distance photographs and video footage taken after the attack, eyewitness testimony from individuals at the scene, and five video frames captured by a security camera which were released on March 8, 2002. A large number of evidence was later released after the Zacarias Moussaoui trial and several Freedom of Information Act requests.

Suspicions were additionally fueled by a lack of video footage of the impact of the jetliner, since many assume that the Pentagon must be subject to intense camera surveillance for security reasons. In addition to the Pentagon's own security cameras, these people also noted that security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station and from the Virginia Department of Transportation was confiscated by the US government. On May 16, 2006 the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch's FOIA request. However, due to a low number of frames per second, the videos do not clearly show the impact of the plane, only the approach of the plane (at an angle) and the explosion cloud, thus keeping "no Boeing" theory popular. In addition to the security cam footage, the Citgo footage was released on 15 September, 2006, but did not show the attacks. The FBI is to release the Doubletree Hotel by November 9, 2006. Others are trying to obtain the over eighty other tapes confiscated in the Pentagon area after the attacks.

The Pentagon "no Boeing" theory constitutes a controversial issue, even among conspiracy theorists. Several researchers have shown that the wings would cause less damage than the plane's main body, that photographs of large amounts of wreckage and debris matching a 757 have become available, that the appearance of the size of the hole is typically misrepresented; and that the actual fuselage diameter of 12 feet is a much more relevant dimension for the deepest parts of the hole than the overall 44 foot height of the 757's tail. Purdue University also released a study with results that recreated the attack. According to Purdue, the plane was like a "sausage skin" because of the speed of impact. Moreover, hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the aircraft close up as it approached the Pentagon describe it as an American Airlines Boeing 757.

War games and training exercises

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

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

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

  • Northern Vigilance: a yearly Air Force drill simulating a Russian attack, in which defense aircraft normally patrolling the Northeast are re-deployed to Canada and Alaska.
  • Vigilant Guardian: a NORAD exercise posing an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide with a simulated air war and an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States.
  • On the morning of 9/11, 50 minutes before Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, the National Reconnaissance Office, who are responsible for operating US reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles from Dulles airport.
  • Tripod II, a FEMA drill simulating a biowarfare attack in New York City, was to take place on September 12th. FEMA set up a command post for this exercise at Pier 29 on September 10th.

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

The President's behavior

President Bush was promoting the passage of his education plan at Emma E. Booker Elementary School on the morning of September 11. Two aspects of his behaviour have been offered as indications that he had privileged access to the planning and execution of the events of 9/11. First, neither Bush nor his security personnel responded to the terrorist attacks in a manner that indicated that the President might be in danger, though he would presumably be among the targets of a coordinated terrorist attack. His continuing to read The Pet Goat to a classroom of schoolchildren, which was criticized in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, would be understandable if he knew what the plan was in advance. Second, Bush made statements on two separate occasions, in late 2001 and early 2002, that suggested he had seen the first plane hit the World Trade Center. But unless he had some special access to the events of that day, he could not have seen the first plane hit the tower live on commercial television, since no television stations were covering that area when the first plane hit. The White House explained his remarks as "a mistaken recollection"

Allegations of cover-up

Conspiracy theorists 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 "official account".

News stories they associate with that pattern include:

  • "Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes"
  • "Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel"
  • "The Battle Back Home"
  • "Whistleblower Complains of FBI Obstruction"
  • "9-11 Commission Funding Woes"
  • "Bush: Documents sought by 9/11 commission 'very sensitive'"
  • "9/11 commission finishes Bush, Cheney session"
  • "An Incomplete Investigation - Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"?""

Other points of interest

  • Former US Representative Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing on July 23, 2005, into "what warnings the Bush administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." Panelist and former CIA official Melvin Goodman was quoted as saying "Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian and I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom." Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists testified at the hearing, including Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, Wayne Madsen and several others.
  • Between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother was a principal in a company that provided security for both the World Trade Center and United Airlines. According to an article by David Ray Griffin "from 1999 to January of 2002 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO." According to its president CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down". This last statement has been used by some conspiracy theorists to say that the contract "expired" on September 11, 2001. Barbara Bush allegedly confirmed this theory in her book Reflections (ISBN 0-7432-2359-4) also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired. However, no specific quote is provided to support this allegation, and a search for the words "contract" or "expired" yields no results. Mr. Bush was also a former director and now is an advisor to the board of directors to a firm HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc that had what it called a small participation in the World Trade Center property insurance coverage and some of the surrounding buildings. Marvin Bush was on a subway under Wall Street when the attacks happened.
  • The day before the 9/11 attacks, President Bush's father former President George H.W. Bush and several members of his cabinet had been present at a Carlyle Group business conference with Shafig Bin Laden a brother of Osama bin Laden at the Ritz-Carlton hotel located several miles from the Pentagon. The conference was continuing with the remaining cabinet members and Bin Laden's brother at the time of the Pentagon attack. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) along with conspiracy websites have suggested that Carlyle's and Bush's ties to the Middle East made them somehow complicitous in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.. The New York Times reported that members of the bin Laden family were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas and then to Washington from where they left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks.. The official 9/11 commission later concluded that "the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights." and that the exodus was approved by special advisor Richard Clarke after a request by Saudi Arabia who feared for their nationals safety.
  • Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a letter to President Bush said, “September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?” He also wrote, “Some believe that the hype paved the way-- and was the justification-- for an attack on Afghanistan”.
  • Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in remarks delivered on September 12th 2006 said that it was plausible the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks and that "The hypothesis is not absurd ... that those towers could have been dynamited". The motive might have been "To justify the aggressions that immediately were unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq"
  • Former Minnesota Governor, actor and wrestling star Jesse Ventura in an interview with Alex Jones has publicly questioned the official version of events behind 9/11 and cited Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident as examples of how the government has planned and carried out staged war provocations in the past.
  • Although it had distanced itself from their brother and former company employee, The Saudi Binladin Group's corporate website, expired on September 11, 2001, the same day as the attacks in the United States. Several websites cited in this article use this fact to suggest foreknowledge of the attacks.
  • The Washington Post reported in its August 3, 2006 edition that "For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances" and that "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial account of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public" and that "Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted". Sources told the Post this was done to hide a bungled Pentagon response.

Claims that some of the hijackers are still alive

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

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

One of the hijackers was Waleed al-Shehri, and according to the BBC report he was found in Casablanca, Morocco.

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

According to the BBC report, Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other hijackers, were also living in the Middle East.

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

The BBC and The Guardian have since reported that there was evidence al-Mihdhar was still alive and that some of the other hijackers identities were in doubt. This was commented on by FBI director Robert Mueller. Der Spiegel later investigated the claims of "living" hijackers by the BBC and discovered them to be cases of mistaken identities. In 2002, Saudi Arabia admitted that the names of the hijackers were in fact correct. None of the hijackers have turned up alive since the September 11, 2001 attacks.(source?)

Motives

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

  • Michel Chossudovsky in an article entitled "The Criminalization of the State" suggests a simple motive in a plan for a New World Order. This particular theory takes root in a David Rockefeller Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994: We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.
  • An article on whatreallyhappened.com entitled "The 9/11 Reichstag Fire" suggests that the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) may have been responsible. It cites as evidence a statement from page 51 of a document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by PNAC: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.
  • The Web site OilEmpire.us proposed that 9/11 was arranged by the U.S. government in order to benefit the arms manufacturing and oil industries.
  • The Web site 9-11 Review listed several other benefits of the attacks as possible motives, including Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and President Bush's surge in popularity, Halliburton's defense contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a $2.2 billion insurance payout to the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein.

Claims related to Jews and Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origin of the "4,000" Figure

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

Actual Israeli and Jewish Deaths

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

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

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

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

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

Sharon was allegedly warned by Shabak to stay away from New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As reported in the Scotland-based Sunday Herald on Nov 2, 2003, a resident at Liberty State Park noticed the five on top of their white van, looking "happy", upon which the former called the police. Later that day, the van was discovered and its occupants arrested. In the van were found, among other things, recent photographs of the arrestees posing in jovial fashion with the WTC burning in the background. A search of these persons' workplace, Urban Moving in Weehawken, turned up a fellow employee who complained that those arrested had laughed and joked about the WTC attack. According to the story, "This makes it clear that there was no suggestion whatsoever from within American intelligence that the Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers."

Israel advance warning

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

Less common theories

Media reaction

File:LeMond-9-11FrontPage.png
Le Monde Diplo Norway July 2006

While discussion and coverage of these theories is mainly confined to internet chat sites and conversation, a number of mainstream news outlets around the world have covered the issue.

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

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

Criticism

Critics of these alternative theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, has 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. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.

The German magazine Der Spiegel summarily dismissed all skeptical accounts of the 9/11 attacks as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."

Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, and The Skeptic's Dictionary published articles that challenge and discredit various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists have jumped on the fact that the Popular Mechanics article was contributed to by "senior researcher" Ben Chertoff, which conspiracy theorists claim is cousin of Michael Chertoff -- the current head of Homeland Security. No evidence for the connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has publicly denied the allegation.. Popular Mechanics has published a book length version of their article. Scientific American described 9/11 conspiracy theory scholarly rigor as "the mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics)."

See also

References

  1. Bush, George Walker (November 10, 2001). "Remarks by the President To United Nations General Assembly". White House.
  2. "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions". NIST.
  3. "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories". Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. 28 August, 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. "Strategy for Winning the War on Terror". White House. September 2006.
  5. "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals". Zogby. 2004.
  6. "Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy". Scripps News. 2006.
  7. http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231
  8. "One in 5 Canadians sees 9/11 as U.S. plot: poll". Yahoo. September 14, 2006.
  9. Wolf, Jim (September 2, 2006). "U.S rebuts 9/11 homegrown conspiracy theories". Reuters.
  10. Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away". Time Magazine.
  11. Sales, Nancy Jo. "Click Here For Conspiracy", Vanity Fair July 9, 2006
  12. Eggen, Dan. "9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon", Washington Post, Wednesday, August 2, 2006, page A03.
  13. Sales, Nancy Jo. "Click Here For Conspiracy", Vanity Fair July 9, 2006
  14. This basic argument can be found a variety of forms in the work of David Ray Griffin, Webster Griffin Tarpley, Michael C. Ruppert and Ahmed M. Afeez.
  15. This document is available in its entirety online.
  16. The document recommending Operation Northwoods can be downloaded from the National Security Archive of the George Washington University at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/.
  17. "U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba". ABC News url= http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help)
  18. Meacher, Michael (2003). "This war on terrorism is bogus". The Guardian Unlimited - Comment. Guardian Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  19. "Interview with David Schippers". Alex Jones Infowars.com. Retrieved 2006-05-02.
  20. Crogan, Jim (2002). "Another FBI Agent Blows the Whistle". LA Weekly News. LA Weekly, LP. Retrieved 2006-06-11. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |publisher= at position 4 (help)
  21. Grigg, William Norman (2002). "Did We Know What Was Coming?". The New American magazine. American Opinion Publishing Incorporated. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  22. The Associated Press (2005). "More remember Atta ID'd as terrorist pre-9/11". MSNBC News - US Security. MSNBC.com. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  23. Kirk, Michael (2002). "The Man Who Knew". Transcript of Frontline program #2103. WGBH Educational Foundation. Retrieved 2006-06-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  24. "Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel". Matier and Ross. San Francisco Chronicle. 2001. Retrieved 2006-06-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  25. http://www.liberalconspiracy.com/911FAQ.htm
  26. http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/24/gen.europe.shortselling/
  27. http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/woil23.xml
  28. http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm
  29. page 51 of the Commission Report, PDF
  30. http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
  31. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html
  32. Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. PDF
  33. ^ "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions". National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. August 30, 2006.
  34. See Michael Ruppert's, "The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11", From the Wilderness, 2003.
  35. Plague Puppy, 9/11 Research
  36. Dr. Steven E. Jones (2006, September). "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse" (PDF). Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 3. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  37. "Larry Silverstein on PBS Documentary (video)". 2002, September. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  38. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
  39. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts
  40. Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!
  41. "Our Presentation from the American Scholars Symposium". Louder Then Words. - forward to 43 minute and 06 seconds for Bob Pugh's footage of The Pentagon minutes after the attack
  42. "FOIA request" (PDF). Judicial Watch.
  43. CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack
  44. flight 77.info - documenting the legal process to obtain government-held video recordings related to flight 77 on 9/11
  45. http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
  46. Pentagon missile hoax: the "no Boeing" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity
  47. Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
  48. 911 Myths - Pentagon
  49. Snopes - Hunt the Boeing!
  50. Mike J. Wilson's 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77, YouTube video
  51. "New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail", website of Purdue University
  52. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html
  53. Pentagon - Witness accounts
  54. - Analysis of Eyewitness Statements on 9/11 American Airlines Flight 77 Crash into the Pentagon
  55. http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/wargames.html
  56. http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=387
  57. "Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building". Associated Press.
  58. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030105_mckinney_question.shtml
  59. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
  60. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html
  61. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html
  62. Paltrow, S. (2004) "Day of Crisis: Detailed Picture of U.S. Actions on Sept. 11 Remains Elusive." Wall Street Journal March 22
  63. "9/11 Cover-up Two-Page Summary" WantToKnow.info
  64. "The Coverup", 911review.com
  65. "9/11 Commission: The official coverup guide", 911truth.org
  66. CNN.com
  67. CBS News
  68. reprint of Newsweek article
  69. FOX News
  70. Time.com
  71. CNN.com
  72. MSNBC
  73. reprint of The Washington Post article
  74. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072905_mckinney_911_briefing.shtml
  75. http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#_ednref58
  76. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bush_newyork_9-11.html
  77. "Connections and Then Some", The Washington Post
  78. http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/ahmadinejad0509.pdf
  79. http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-727571,36-769886@45-1,0.html
  80. http://www.saudi-binladin-group.com
  81. Altman, Howard "Osama Familys Suspicious Site",WIRED Magazine News November 9, 2001.
  82. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
  83. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html
  84. [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=94438
  85. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
  86. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html
  87. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/ap092001b.html
  88. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/coxnews102101.html
  89. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
  90. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html
  91. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html
  92. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
  93. http://www.oilempire.us/911.html
  94. http://911review.com/motive/index.html
  95. "No Planes and No Gas Chambers"
  96. Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth
  97. ^ http://www.adl.org/911/israel.asp
  98. http://www.slate.com/id/116813
  99. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
  100. http://www.burbank.com/PresidentBush09202001.shtml
  101. http://www.thejewishweek.com/bottom/specialcontent.php3?artid=362
  102. ^ http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-13.htm
  103. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
  104. jewishsf.com
  105. http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=15820
  106. http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.09.14/news3.html
  107. http://www.mavericksofthemind.com/bar-int.htm
  108. http://www.nocturne.org/~terry/wtc_4000_Israeli.html#NYC
  109. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/12/WTC_Mysteries3.html
  110. Haaretz.com – 5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy
  111. web.archive.org – Dead for now
  112. http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html
  113. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21OHIO.html
  114. http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/10953245.htm
  115. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/archive/ART/214/064.html
  116. http://www.sundayherald.com/37707
  117. http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml
  118. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/9/111622.shtml
  119. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217
  120. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover071105.htm
  121. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-07-21-bredesen-en.html
  122. Grossman, Lev. (2006) Time.com – Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
  123. Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
  124. Cziesche, Dominik (2003). "Panoply of the Absurd". Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  125. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm
  126. Christopher Bollyn (2005, March 4). "9/11 and Chertoff". Associated Free Press. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Books

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

Videos

External links

Final report of the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (9-11 Commission), chaired by Thomas H. Kean
Cynthia McKinney's July 2005 Congressional Briefing on 9/11
June 1, 2001, directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff changing rules on intercepting hijacked planes

Conspiracy theories

Descriptions of and evidence for various conspiracy theories

Mainstream news organizations

Webpages

Flight 93

Videos

Blogs

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

Debunking conspiracy claims

Categories: