Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hut 8.5 (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 24 April 2009 (→Notable proponents: articles on Kevin Ryan have been deleted multiple times so he is not notable and he was not fired just for "voicing his criticism of the official investigation"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories claim that the complete structural failure of the World Trade Center towers was not caused by the plane crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, nor by the fire damage that followed, but by explosives planted in the buildings in advance. They were first suggested in late 2001 and have since become increasingly important to the 9/11 Truth Movement, but are rejected by those in the mainstream media and the mainstream engineering community who have looked at the theories.

The most detailed theories have come from physicist Steven Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, theologian David Ray Griffin, and author Webster Griffin Tarpley. Proponents argue that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate collapse and that the buildings would in any case not have collapsed as completely, and quickly as they did without an additional source of destructive energy to undermine their structure. Various sources of this energy have been proposed; the use of thermite, explosives, or some combination thereof is the most common suggestion being made today.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the idea that collapse due to fire would be impossible, as has the engineering community.

History

Controlled demolition theory proponents cite mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks that suggested explosions and secondary devices. Journalists and experts commenting on the events as they happened mentioned that the World Trade Center collapses looked like those caused by intentionally planted explosives. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings said "Anybody who ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down" While watching footage of the collapse of WTC 7, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." Some of these suggestions would later be retracted or revised.

In a notable example, the Albuquerque Journal quoted Dr. Van D. Romero, an engineer who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that "some explosive devices inside ... caused the towers to collapse". Remero speculated that the collision of the planes into the towers was a diversionary attack as part of a common terrorist strategy intended to attract emergency personnel to the scene, followed by the detonation of "a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points" of the towers as the primary attack. He soon withdrew this assessment and later said he had been misquoted: "I only said that that's what it looked like." On September 22, 2001, the Albuquerque Journal printed a retraction.

Engineers were in fact initially surprised by the collapses and at least one considered explosives as a possible explanation. The broad outlines of an explanation that did not involve such explosives quickly emerged, however, and took its current shape in the 2005 NIST report. It has come to be known as "the official account" among proponents of controlled demolition.

The theory was first suggested in October 2001. An early book-length treatment of the hypothesis inspired both David Ray Griffin's critical inquiry as well as the Popular Mechanics investigation of 9/11 conspiracy theories. In late 2005, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven Jones made his own pursuit of the theory public. Even before publication of the article in 2006, his interest in the theory brought a measure of media exposure to the theory. BYU responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave in September, 2006. Shortly thereafter, Jones accepted BYU's offer of early retirement.

Proponents of the controlled demolition have questioned the "pancake collapse" theory originally suggested by FEMA which the NIST also rejected and finally replaced with the current column failure theory.

In its final report, NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001" and posted a FAQ about related issues to its website in August 2006. The major elements of the theory have been rebutted in mainstream engineering scholarship, where its proponents are considered "outsiders".

A 2006 poll found that 6 percent of Americans considered it "very likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings", while another 10% found it "somewhat likely". 77% found the demolition theory "unlikely". A 2007 poll found that 67% of Americans fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the collapse of World Trade Center 7. An August 2007 Zogby poll found that 4.8% of Americans believe that "certain US government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks".

In June 2008, Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson delivered a letter to the office of U.S. Senator John McCain asking him to meet with a group of professionals to discuss the events of 9/11. She also gave a speech on the floor of the Arizona Senate that included her support for the demolition theory, its proponents, and its relevance to current foreign policy in the US. Johnson said in her speech:

You don’t have to embrace every theory about 9/11. Indeed, there are some that should be soundly rejected. But if you believe, as these scientists, architects and engineers do, that the buildings were brought down by explosive demolition, then you must also agree that we need a new investigation. I have no preconceived notions about who did it and I am not pointing the finger of blame at anyone. But I do think that the worst attack on U.S. soil in American history deserves the best investigation possible.

In April 2008, a letter by Steven Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti, and James Gourley was published in an online civil engineering journal. In October 2008, an essay describing what the author sees as fundamental errors in a Bažant and Verdure paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by James Gourley.

World Trade Center Seven

7 World Trade Center was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the main WTC complex. Its tenants included Salomon Smith Barney (which leased 44% of the available office space), ITT Hartford Insurance Group (8%), the Securities and Exchange Commission (8%), the Secret Service (5%), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Regional Council (3%). Smaller tenants included the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense, though these shared a single floor with the IRS. Altogether, U.S. local, state, and federal government agencies occupied 11 of the overall 47 floors, or about 28% of the available 39 floors of office space. Though damaged by fires which burned for seven hours, it was not hit by a plane, and collapsed at about 5:20 p.m. EDT on the evening of September 11, 2001.

Some journalists commenting on the nature of the collapse of WTC 7 said that it resembled a controlled demolition, although the explanation that fires in the building, started by falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1, had caused the structure to fail, quickly emerged. No steel-frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire. BBC News reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it actually fell. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 on the day of the attacks. Jane Staley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.

Steven Jones claims that the presence of sulphur is evidence that indicates the use of explosives such as thermate, along with reports of molten metal and extremely high temperatures in the rubble. However, metallurgist Prof. Richard Sisson asserts that the sulfur came from gypsum in the wallboards, an opinion which was also given in the NIST report.

In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7 and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC Complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.

In 2002 the National Institute of Standards and Technology began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus on the collapse of the Twin Towers first. A draft version of its final report on the collapse of building 7 was released in August 2008. The agency has blamed the slowness of this investigation on the complexity of the computer model it is using, which simulates the collapse from the moment it begins all the way to the ground, and notes that the time taken on the investigation into building 7 is comparable to the time taken to investigate an aircraft crash. The agency also notes another 80 boxes of documents related to WTC7 were also found and had to be analyzed. These delays fueled suspicion that the agency was struggling to come up with a plausible conclusion.

Preliminary investigations did not include the mechanics of the actual collapse, concentrating instead on the events leading up to it. However, the final draft report on the collapse of WTC7 by NIST provides a detailed investigation into the collapse timeline, starting with the failure of a critical column, Column 79 (initial failure event). 6 seconds later, the collapse of the East Penthouse on the roof was visible. The collapse of the core columns progressed from east to west for another 6.9 seconds (12.9 seconds total since the initial failure event). At this point, the report says, "all the interior columns had buckled" and "the remaining exterior structure above began to fall vertically as a single unit." To calculate the timeline of the collapse of the rest of the building, NIST focused on the time between the initial collapse of the roofline and the last position that the complete roofline could be observed before portions of it started to become obscured by dust, at the top of Floor 29. NIST calculated the timeline for this observable descent as 5.4 seconds and calculated the theoretical free-fall time for the same portion of the building as 3.9 seconds, and concluded that, "The actual collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This was consistent with physical principles."

Following a three year investigation NIST released a draft version of its final report on the collapse on August 21, 2008. Investigators used videos, photographs and building design documents to come to their conclusions. The report concluded that the building collapsed due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

NIST considered the possibility that the towers were brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur. The investigation noted that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, even though it would have been audible at a level of at least 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. NIST also investigated the possibility that the collapse was caused by thermite and concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities needed could have been carried into the building undetected. The theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?". James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives." Quintiere said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.

On November 20, 2008 NIST released the final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7. For the final report in "response to comments from the building community" NIST ran additional analysis to "see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events."

Main towers

Supporters of the controlled demolition theory claim that anecdotal evidence of molten steel found in the rubble of the collapse and a stream of molten metal that poured out of WTC2 before it collapsed are evidence of temperatures beyond those produced by the fire (which was not expected to be hot enough to melt steel). Steven Jones has argued that the molten metal may have been iron, a byproduct of a thermite reaction. NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from WTC2 was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. They also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes "progressive collapse" inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was at least ten times greater than that which the lower section could support.

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally deny that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began. Controlled demolition of a building requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.

Proponents claim that eyewitness accounts made by firefighters and emergency medical responders of explosions just prior to the start of the collapse of the towers are suggestive of controlled demolition. However there are many causes of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives, and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.

Additionally, the production and expansion of the enormous dust clouds that covered Manhattan after the collapses has also been taken as an indication of an additional source of energy, such as explosives. NIST attributes these clouds to the ejection of air from compressed parts of the building.

Debris removal

Some of the steel from the Twin Towers was removed and sent to scrap yards before engineers were allowed access to the site on October 6, 2001. Webster Griffin Tarpley, an author, has criticized the official response to the crime scene, saying that the cleanup process resulted in the destruction of most of the evidence, identifying the New York City Mayor's office as a key player in this regard.

The debris removal process began shortly after the attacks, and concluded in May 2002. Robert F. Shea of FEMA testified to the House of Representatives that, "Because of the importance of the rescue effort at the World Trade Center complex, it was clear that information would have to be gathered without interfering with response and rescue activities. Based on this fact, the FEMA-ASCE team first visited the site on October 6, but gathered information from others who had been on-site before this date."

A call to action by Bill Manning, the chief editor of the trade journal Fire Engineering, is often quoted in this connection. In a January 2002 editorial, Manning called the early ASCE investigation (which would later turn into the FEMA building performance study) a "half-baked farce" and said that "the destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." He said that the cleanup of the WTC site differed in many respects from that of other engineering disasters. In defense of the decision to dispose of the steel, Mayor Bloomberg said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do." David Ray Griffin notes that this is exactly what Manning had worried about when he warned that "the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, allegations against a "speedy removal" of the steel hampering the engineering investigations appear to be unfounded, according to Dr. Gene Corley, head of the BPAT team and one of the lead engineers for the investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which began in September 2002. He testified to the House of Representatives in March 2002 that, "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

Notable proponents

The most notable statements of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory have been made by Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Webster Griffin Tarpley and Kevin Ryan. Jones has published his paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?" in a book called 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. Griffin, a retired professor of theology, published his own version of the theory in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, a book of critical essays on 9/11 edited by Paul Zarembka. Webster Griffin Tarpley has devoted a chapter of his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror to the theory. While his work remains largely self-published, Jim Hoffman's detailed web site, 9-11 Research, is often cited by proponents of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as an inspiration.

Criticism of the NIST Report

Criticism of the NIST Report plays a prominent role in presentations of the theory. Critics point out that the report does not provide an account of the structural behaviour of the towers after the collapses began. This is important because "much of the external evidence for controlled demolition typically comes after collapse initiation". It is argued that not modelling the totality of the collapses allowed NIST to ignore evidence of demolition, such as the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses, the observed explosive "squibs", the early drop of the North Tower antenna, and the pools of molten metal found in the rubble. Kevin Ryan's criticism of the NIST investigation and subsequent report is often mentioned in this regard. Jones also criticises NIST for "tweaking" the computer simulations of the pre-collapse sequence "until the desired result.” Jones goes on to quote the NIST report itself as proof for this claim, "The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases,it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing...The more severe case was used for the global analysis of each tower..To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports"

Members of the 9/11 Truth movement have filed Requests for Correction to the NIST report. Only one of their requests resulted in a change to correct an inconsistency between two parts of the NIST report. An unsuccessful appeal was then filed.

Reaction of the engineering community

The controlled demolition theory has been dismissed in the structural engineering literature. Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer reviewed theory of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition theory in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the view as presented in the NIST report, they note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition conspiracy theory assumes).

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) 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." Finally, Leslie Robertson, who helped design the Twin Towers, debated the issue with Steven Jones on a radio program in December 2006.

In popular culture

The demolition theory first entered mainstream media by way of negative press coverage of "9/11 conspiracy theories" or "9/11 myths". Critical articles in Popular Mechanics, which were later expanded into a book, and the popular magazine Skeptic presented rebuttals to the theory for a mainstream audience. In 2006, New York Magazine reported that, "A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day." The theory has been cited by popular actors, musicians and politicians, including Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Willie Nelson, El-P, Mos Def, and former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura. The theory also features prominently in the controversial online documentaries Zeitgeist, the Movie and Loose Change.

External links

• "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation".
• "The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse".

References

1. ^ Clarke, Steve. "Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development". Episteme, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2007, pp. 167-180.
2. ^ Jones, Steven E. (2006-09). "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse" (PDF). Journal of 9/11 Studies. 3. Retrieved 2008-04-11. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. 2006-08-06. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
4. Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, Steven E. Jones (2008-08). "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials". the Environmentalist. Online First. Retrieved 2008-08-08. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |journal= and |volume= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. ^ Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). J Engrg Mech. 133 (3): pp. 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved 2007-08-22. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
6. Gravois, John (2006-06-23). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
7. Asquith, Christina (2006-09-07). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
8. 9-11 Research: Notable Retractions
9. "Internet Archive: Details: ABC Sept. 11, 2001 9:54 am - 10:36 am". Archive.org. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
10. ^ "YouTube - 9/11: DAN RATHER SAYS WTC COLLAPSES LOOK LIKE DEMOLITIONS". Youtube.com. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
11. Uyttebrouck, Olivier (2001-09-11). "Use Of Explosives Believed". Extra. Albuquerque Journal. p. A2. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
12. Fleck, John (2001-09-22). "Expert Now Thinks No Explosives in Towers". Albuquerque Journal. p. A5. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
13. ^ The Editors (2005). "Debunking The 9/11 Myths". Popular Mechanics. 182 (3): pp. 70–81. Retrieved 2007-08-22. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
14. Oliver, Anthony (2005-06-30). "Lasting lessons of WTC". New Civil Engineer.
15. Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2002). "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis". J Engrg Mech. 128 (1). New York: ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers: pp. 2–6. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:1(2). {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
16. ^ Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2007-05-27). "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?" (PDF). 2007-06-22. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA. Structural Engineering Report No. 07-05/C605c. Retrieved 2007-09-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
17. Kevin Ryan has drawn attention to the initial impressions of Ronald Hamburger, who participated in the FEMA and NIST investigations. See his Power Point presentation “ A New Standard of Deception”. See also Joseph T. Hallinan, Thomas M. Burton and Jonathan Eig. “ Top Structural Engineers To Do Autopsy On Twin Towers To Assess Why They Fell.” Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2001.
18. Gross, John L. (2005-09). [http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-6index.htm accessdate=2008-03-20 "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers"]. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); line feed character in |url= at position 47 (help)
19. ^ NIST (2006-08). "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions". Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Retrieved 2006-01-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
20. ^ Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-552-9.
21. Hufschmid, Eric (2002). Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack. Endpoint Software. ISBN 1-931947-05-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
22. ^ Griffin, David Ray (2006-09-30). 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1566566592. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
23. "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Retrieved 2009-01-04.
24. Sullivan, Will. "BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor". U.S. News & World Report. www.usnews.com.
25. ^ "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction". Retrieved 2008-05-29.
26. Sunder, Shyam (2005). "Consideration of Public Comments" (PDF). NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
27. Hargrove, Thomas (2006-08-02). "Anti-government anger spurs 9/11 conspiracy belief". Scripps Howard News Service. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
28. "Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment". 2007-09-06. Retrieved 2007-09-15.
29. "X-911T.spo" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-30.
30. AZ legislator wants McCain to hear Sept. 11 suspicions Tucson Citizen June 3, 2008
31. WTC destroyed by bombs, not planes, senator says, Arizona Capitol Times, June 10, 2008
32. James R. Gourley (2008). "Discussion of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" by Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure". ASCE Publications, Reston, VA.
33. ^ "FEMA 403 -- Chapter 5" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-30.
34. "Dan Rather". Cooperativeresearch.org. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
35. FEMA. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p. 4.
36. Porter, Richard. "Part of the conspiracy? (2)" March 2, 2007. The Editors, BBC.
37. The Weekend's TV: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower The Independent July 6, 2008
38. "Q&A: The Collapse of Tower 7". BBC. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
39. ^ "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation". NIST. 2008-08-21. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
40. "Identifying Misinformation: 9/11 Revealed?". usinfo.state.gov. 2005-09-16. Retrieved 2007-01-06.
41. Barber, Peter (2008-06-07). "The Truth Is Out There - Part III". Financial Times. pp. p.14. Retrieved 2008-08-22. {{cite news}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
42. "Style Guide for Word Users for the NIST Special Publication Format" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-30.
43. Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says NMew York Time August 21, 2008
44. "World Trade Centre building seven not destroyed by explosives, says US study". Retrieved 2009-04-24.
45. Final NIST Report on collapse of WTC7 November 20, 2008
46. NIST press release for final report of collapse of WTC7 November 20, 2008
47. ^ Dwyer, Jim (2006-09-02). "U.S. Counters 9/11 Theories Of Conspiracy". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
48. ^ Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2007-01-24. Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.
49. "NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | PBS". Pbs.org. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
50. Wilkinson, Tim (2006-01-14). "World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects". University of Sydney School of Civil Engineering. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
51. Griffin, David Ray. "Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories". Retrieved 2007-10-31. Griffin analyzes "The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers", released by FDNY in August 2005 under order from the New York Court of Appeals.
52. Blanchard, Brent (2006). "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint" (PDF). implosionworld.com. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
53. "Seismic Spikes". Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report. Popular Mechanics. 2005. Retrieved 2008-09-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
54. Gross, John L. (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers". National Institute of Standards and Technology. p. 320. Retrieved 2009-03-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
55. ^ Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2007-05-07). "Chapter VI: The Collapse of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7". 9/11 Synthetic Terror (4th ed.). Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press. ISBN 0930852370..
56. "FOXNews.com - Silent Tribute Marks End of Ground Zero Search - U.S. & World". Foxnews.com. May 30, 2002. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
57. ^ "Learning From 9/11-Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center". Commdocs.house.gov. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
58. ""Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse". 2002-01-04. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
59. Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris EastDay.com via China.org.cn, January 24, 2002
60. Zarembka, Paul (ed.) (2006-07-14). The Hidden History of 9-11-2001. Research in Political Economy, Volume 23. JAI Press, an imprint of Elsevier. ISBN 0762313056. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
61. Cite error: The named reference GriffinCannotBe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
62. NIST Report, p80
63. Steven Jones, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?", p27
64. Steven Jones, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?", p38
65. Steven Jones, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?"
66. Steven Jones, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?", p37
67. NIST, 2005, p. 142
68. "Request for Correction from Bob McIlvaine et al dated April 12, 2007" (PDF). Office of the Chief Information Officer. Retrieved 2009-04-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
69. ^ http://wtc.nist.gov/ErratumNCSTAR1-2.pdf
70. "Response to McIlvaine Request" (PDF). Office of the Chief Information Officer. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
71. "Appeal by McIlvaine to NIST Initial Denial" (PDF). Office of the Chief Information Officer. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
72. Gallagher, Patrick. "Response to McIlvaine Appeal" (PDF). Office of the Chief Information Officer. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
73. 9/11 Commission Report
74. Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
75. Jones, Steven; Robertson, Leslie (2006-10-26). (Interview) http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3. Retrieved 2007-02-27. {{cite interview}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (help)
76. Roberts, Gregg (2007). "Jones v. Robertson, A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-12-02.
77. Molé, Phil. "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement Perspective" and "What Demolition Experts Say About 9/11" in Skeptic, v. 12, n. 4. 2006
78. Mark Jacobson (2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
79. "CNN.com - Transcripts". Transcripts.cnn.com. Retrieved 2008-10-30.

v t e 9/11 conspiracy theories
Key topics	Advance-knowledge conspiracy theories Opinion polls 9/11 truth movement World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
Groups	Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Million Muslim March
Film and TV	911: In Plane Site A Few Days in September Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura Loose Change "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" Zeitgeist
Books	9/11: The Big Lie American Conspiracies Among the Truthers Debunking 9/11 Myths The CIA and September 11 The New Pearl Harbor The Terror Timeline
Category

• Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks
• World Trade Center
• Conspiracy theories