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.
A number of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding September 11th. Some have proposed alternative theories and explanations. Assertations include the involvement of the government and private sector agents; that the government had foreknowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to prevent them; the existence of a cover-up in the investigation, and criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report. Most of these claims have been dismissed as conspiracy theories by a number of journalists and scientists in the publications Scientific American and Popular Mechanics, however some of these claims are supported by a minority of scientists, government officials, military experts and some in the intelligence community -including Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Prof. Steven E. Jones, Robert M. Bowman, and Wayne Madsen.
Origins
File:CNN911scrn.jpgCNN broadcast of September 11 destruction when the second plane struck the south tower of the WTC.
Before the United States retaliation began for the attacks, books and websites surfaced promulgating alternative theories about 9-11. These have persisted in spite of Al Qaeda's eventual claim of responsibility for the attacks.
While alternative hypotheses are often described as conspiracy theories, there are individuals, groups and organizations who say the official story of events can likewise be referred to as a conspiracy theory. Professor of philosophy of religion and theology David Ray Griffin has written, "we can say that we accept all those conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all those that we believe to be false."
Main categorizations
The variety of these theorists’ views is widespread, and not all of them share the same opinion. The common trait they do share is the belief that at least one, if not all, of the official accounts for September 11th are wrong.
According to Nick Levis of 9/11 truth, the range of views on 9/11 can be categorized into four types:
The Incompetence Theory (also the Stupidity, Arrogance, “Reno Wall” Theory): Accepts the Official Story, adds failure by the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. to heed ample warnings. This line was advanced, with much ass-covering compensation, in The 9/11 Commission Report.
LIHOP (or “Let It Happen on Purpose”): Many variations, but primarily that elements of the U.S. government and the private sector were aware of the hijackers’ plans and, recognizing that 9/11 suited their policy goals, did nothing to stop it.
MIHOP (“Made It Happen on Purpose”): The U.S. government or private forces planned and executed the attacks.
Government foreknowledge
File:WTC1 on fire.jpgThe 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 failed to act on that knowledge. This theory does not necessarily suggest that individuals within the US Government actually conducted the operation, but rather, that there was enough information in the hands of the government that should have prevented the attack.
Intelligence issues
Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan."Interview with David Schippers". Alex Jones Infowars.com. Retrieved 2006-05-02.
According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors, they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft with my concerns." Ashcroft allegedly responded that they do not start investigations at the top.
It is unclear exactly what warnings he is thought to have received from the FBI, but Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device .
Author William Norman Grigg furthered the Schippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. (Able Danger was a SOCOM exercise)
The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00, 8/9/2005)
Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks.
FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid- 2001 after an undisclosed source leaked information to the New York Times concerning an investigation pertaining to an incident that occurred 13 months earlier. He was then recruited to be chief of security at the World Trade Center. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.
Suggested warnings or hidden motives
Four days before the attack, Florida Governor John Ellis Bush signed an executive order that some interpreted as allowing Bush to declare martial law while others have stated it was a routine training order.
Daniel Woodring, Bush's assistant general counsel, responded to these allegations in a press release stating "While Governor Bush has taken appropriate steps to deal with this terror attack, he has not in any shape, form or fashion instituted martial law in Florida."
Allegations of trading by people with foreknowledge
Many theorists view the activities of the stock market and certain financial transactions as evidence of foreknowledge. ,
Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, in her statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003 noted the put options placed on United and American Airlines:
"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account."
The most notable reference concerns the option market where more than 6 times the volume of put options were purchased in the days before 9/11 on both American and United Airlines than normal.
On September 10 Amr "Anthony" Elgindy, an Egyptian-born financial analyst, tried to liquidate his children's $300,000 trust account."
Although this report doesn't indicate US involvement, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen has stated that this could have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks.
However, each trade was examined and no evidence of a connection was found according to the 9/11 Commission based upon investigation by the SEC and FBI. Commission Reportpage 51 of this PDF
130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face.
Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.
These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo,Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
Some alternative theories of the collapse of the Twin Towers are that planted explosives brought down the structures. Much of the support for this claim comes from differing interpretations of video footage capturing the collapse. Many researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have highlighted the following as evidence for the theory that planted explosives brought down the WTC towers:
Claims regarding the actual collapse
It is alleged that the Twin Towers exhibited many features normally charcteristic of controlled demolition. For instance, it is alleged that the Twin Towers fell at close to free-fall speed, which is further alleged to be a characteristic of controlled demolition.Steven E. Jones claims the fall violates conservation of momentum]. Dr. Jones also claims that molten metal was video taped dripping out of the south tower just before it collapsed, and that pools of molten metal were found in the rubble for weeks afterwards. WTC 1,2,and 7 also fell straight down, with remarkable symmetry, according to conspiracy theorists. Absent explosives, they say, this symmetry would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Conspiracy theorists also point to photographs of what they believe are demolition "squibs", which are tightly focused horizontal plumes of smoke eminating from the twin towers during the collapse.
Furthermore, conspiracy theorists say that gravity alone has insufficient energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, nor to explain the formation of pyroclastic flows which are alleged to have billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions.
As evidence of controlled demolition, conspiracy theorists point to the use of words such as "bomb" or "explosion" by witnesses (including firefighters) to describe the collapse of the towers. They also allege that no study has been done to ascertain the presence of explosive residues in Ground Zero or the released dust, though many environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue..
Furthermore, theorists allege that the collapse of WTC 1,2,and 7 are anomalies, since no steel hi-rise building has suffered a total collapse as the result of fire, before or since the 9-11 attack. The WTC towers burned for less than 102 min (WTC 1) and 56 minutes (WTC 2), during which both towers were stable after the impacts. These hi-rise fires are considered the most similar for comparative purposes:
the Caracas Tower (2004) - burned for more than 17 hours, spread to over 26 floors.
One Meridian Plaza (1991) - burned for 18 hours, gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building.
First Interstate Bank (1988) - burned for 3 1/2 hours, gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower.
1 New York Plaza (1970) - burned for more than 6 hours.
The Madrid Windsor Tower (2004) - burned for nearly 24 hours resulting in a partial collapse of the steel sections of the structure, which included concrete members.
They allege that it is particularly relevant to WTC7, which was not struck by planes and suffered only damage from falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.
Government inquiry
Following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three year $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures. The study included in-house technical expertise and drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions for aid to include:
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)
Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)
Opponents of the demolition theory cite this government report which presented evidence on how and why the buildings collapsed. The report also noted that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." Though this report said there was no such evidence, professor Steven E. Jones (See individual viewpoints below), as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis. Critics question Jones' credibility on the subject by pointing out that he does not have a structural engineering background.
The FEMA and NIST reports have yet to resolve all disagreements among engineers. Although not advocating a controlled demotion, New Civil Engineer published several articles regarding the collapse. One such article, Row Erupts Over Why Twin Towers Collapsed, cites one party claiming "the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact". Another quote from the same article states, "World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers…Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.” Additional articles on the subject can be found here.
In addition to the above articles, other theorists continue to point out critical aspects of the NIST report in the engineering community. In 2005 fire engineers B. Lane and S. Lamont stated: "This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. There is no evidence in NIST's preliminary report that this is backed up by structural modeling in response to fire. It appears that only heat transfer modeling considering different levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and stiffness only. Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described as yet."
Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the institute’s Trade Center report, recently addressed many of the issues 9-11 conspiracy theorists have with the study. Dr. Sunder replied, " Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”
Claims in reference to the aftermath or debris field
File:Wtcdebris.jpgA section of fuselage rests in the ruins of the World Trade Center.
In addition to the observation of the collapse, theorists draw upon the post collapse elements surrounding the World Trade Center. The compilation of the following is put forward by opponents of the official story to further the idea of a controlled demolition as well as government involvement.
The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse.
This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives. A handful of individuals working in and around the debris field utilized phrases containing the words “molten metal” or “molten steel” to describe the devastation. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done. The following are some of the more common statements seen:
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y described "literally molten steel" at the WTC.
The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers in a second hand account by James Williams who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
File:Lobby damage and cloud.jpgThe lobby of one of the towers was partially destroyed (broken windows and marble panels) and a dust cloud can be seen rising from the ground during the moments of collapse.
Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, recalled in the late fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."
Obtaining a conclusive answer to these molten metal arguments is difficult for a lack of documented research on the issue. While NASA's satellite images of Ground Zero do show large hot spots well after 9/11, they do not provide an exact measure of temperatures within the rubble pile since this type of remote sensing captures only the temperatures on the surface of a debris pile. Independent scientific investigation into what sort of metal, if any, was liquefied has yet to be conducted.
Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft (10 m) long and large sections of steel destined for recycling were quickly sent to areas in SE Asia.
This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence.
It is important to recognize the longest beam surrounding the towers was no greater than 38 feet.
Ground Zero actually took more than eight months to remove all of the debris.
Furthermore, Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, responded to this notion and the evaluation of evidence, "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples." NIST has numerous sections of steel from both Towers as well as WTC 7. (Images of the debris sorting.)
While it is still publicly unknown if any of the black boxes were recovered intact from the wreckage, a recent report has quoted an unnamed source claiming to have knowledge of the black boxes recovery saying they "were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB." The Chicago Tribune reported that experts believed the recorders would not be found simply because of the massive scope of the damage and debris. NTSB and FBI have both publicly stated the recorders were never recovered.
On September 16th, 2001, several news agencies reported authorities finding "the passport of a suspected hijacker" which they described to be that of Satam al Suqami.
Without noting the other personal artifacts recovered from the debris pile, this statement is generally presented to promote the idea of its sheer impossibility.
Individual viewpoints on the collapse
As the above theories were generated, individuals questioning the collapse were highlighted. The following individuals have expressed concern or doubts on the common account regarding the fate of the Twin Towers:
Jimmy Walter -who believes that 9/11 was the work of a government conspiracy and has run ads in New York requesting that the investigation into 9/11 be reopened- suggests that, " aircraft were robot planes; the passengers were mainly military contractors; the aircraft were only 10 to 25 per cent full, while all other planes that day were booked out."
In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." UL is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. Kevin Ryan was subsequently fired from his job.
Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, a major authority on explosions' effects on buildings, has said, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." Romero has since retracted his belief, later stating, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001).
On June 13, 2005, the Washington Times reported that former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the common account of the WTC collapse is "bogus" and suggests a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Some have doubted this individual's credibility because he also questioned the involvement of commercial jets stating that "North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767."
Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the common account in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."
In The New Pearl Harbor, former theology and philosophy Professor David Ray Griffin argues on the fact that since WTC 2 collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower, makes the collapse questionable. Additionally, he argues the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, suggesting less fuel would have burned in the central support area.
Recently, Charlie Sheen has come out publicly stating that he agrees with many of the 9-11 theories, including the controlled demolition. Sheen told talk radio host, Alex Jones, the collapse resembled an implosion. He recalled asking his brother on the day of the attacks, “Did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?”
Before his death in February, 1986, Minoru Yamasaki, architect and designer of the WTC, stated, "We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes."
This statement is seen on many conspiracy websites with the idea simply being: if the building was designed to withstand an aircraft impact, it should have.
Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center. Robertson notes, “It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”
Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.
Structural and civil engineering research
As the above individuals have supplied fuel for the demolition theory, the mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Numerous aspects of the collapse have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community. The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to provide what the world observed.
The following are a few examples of the structural engineering research done on the collapse:
According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle.
Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down.
Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.
Critics of the demolition theory also point out the in-depth planning, preparation, and production involved in a controlled demolition. This labor-intensive task leaves clear signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers.
7 World Trade Center
File:WTC7.jpgBuilding damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume along the South face of WTC 7, looking from the World Financial Plaza.
Similar to the Towers One and Two theories, 9/11 researchers have proposed the idea Building Seven collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. The basis for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse. Advocates for this theory will point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. The building came down in just under seven seconds.
The collapse of WTC 7 was an event that baffled structural engineers. Building Seven was not struck by an aircraft nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. The common working hypothesis suggests Building 7 collapsed as the result of structural damage from the collapsing Towers in addition to prolonged fires throughout sustained by fuel stores for emergency generators. Further discussion of the intensity and severity of the fires is mentioned below. Engineers refer to this type of destruction as a "progressive collapse."
A kink or crimp near the center of the building is identical in appearance to many that have occurred when implosion professionals have made buildings collapse inwards to minimize damage of the surrounding structures.
This observation appears to support the demolition idea which suggests that a carefully calculated fall took place. Although the collapse was not as tidy as sometimes thought; the building just to the north of WTC 7 took considerable damage during its collapse.
The damage and fire
According to supporters of the controlled demolition theory, one of the primary unanswered questions surrounding Building Seven concerns the severity of both the damage and the fires. The controlled demolition theorists maintain neither were severe enough to initiate a collapse. Very few photographs or video provide a clear image of the full damage to the building. Dr. Steven E. Jones, a proponent of the controlled demolition theory, speculates on Building Seven:
"The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires."
Dr. Jones also points to concluding notes in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
Opponents to the controlled demolition theory recognize testimony provided by firefighters and EMT personnel about the severity of the damage to WTC 7. Firefighters used transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure and were surprised to discover that it was, in fact, moving. A collapse zone was set up at that time, and WTC 7 collapsed about an hour and a half later at 5:20 pm.
New York Fire Department personnel on the scene described the damage inflicted to the south face of WTC 7. Several statements were given by firefighters and other first responders emphasizing the critical condition of Building Seven.
The demolition theory was further fueled by a quotation within a PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002. Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for Building Seven and insurance policy holder for the World Trade Center Complex, was quoted during the film as he recalled the events of that morning:
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has written the term "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition" and that Silverstein made a reference to his order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition in the above interview. Critics of this theory argue that the term "pull" was in reference to evacuating the firefighting team from the building.
Silverstein's spokesperson, McQuillan, later attempted to clarify:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
McQuillan has commented that by "it", Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
As mentioned in the previous section, NIST is also conducting an investigation into the structural failures of World Trade Center Seven. The final report is scheduled for release sometime in 2006. In draft copies of that document, NIST states that it has "seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."
Based primarily on photographic evidence, French researcher Thierry Meyssan, an early proponent of the idea that a Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon, suggested that a truck bomb or missile caused the damage. Other theories of what did crash at the site have ranged from military aircraft, such as the A-3 Skywarrior, to cruise missiles.
However, these statements are contradicted by the preponderance of eye-witness testimony at the scene reported an aircraft fitting the description of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the side of the building.
In contrast, other researchers studying the crash believe that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon and suggest Meyssan’s theory is a distraction functioning to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, particularly the 9/11 families. Most of these researchers cite anomalies such as why the hijackers chose to hit the most unoccupied and yet most reinforced area of the building, rather than targeting high level officials, and how the plane managed to penetrate all US defenses.
The observations below are highlighted by those questioning the official account of the Pentagon attack:
Flight 77 flew in the direction of the DC area for approximately 40 minutes without interception.
This is considered unusual given the Pentagon's close proximity to Andrews Air Force Base and the well-established standard operating procedures for intercepting aircraft which go off course or lose communication, i.e., between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. Thus, 9/11 researchers suggest that routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th. Officials state that only two airfields in the north sector of the U.S. had aircraft available for scramble: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.
There are claims that anti-missile batteries at the Pentagon should have intercepted Flight 77.
Those supporting a theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon consider photographic evidence of plane wreckage lying on the grounds of the Pentagon to be ambiguous. They claim that they cannot find burnt metal, human remains, passenger's luggage or seats.
As a response to this claim, others point to similar crashes where the entire aircraft was converted to small, unrecognizable confetti-like debris. This crash is an example of such a case. Furthermore, some high-resolution photos do show aircraft debris.
Most of the photographic evidence of the plane was taken inside the building by search teams and investigators. (Images) File:9-11 Pentagon explosion.jpgCNN released frame of the explosion at the Pentagon as captured by a surveillance camera.
The resolution of the image is less than desirable to determine with any degree of accuracy what caused the explosion and the images were not released officially, but were leaked. The incorrect time and date have added to the speculation.
A 3D analysis of the scene shot by the cctv camera shows the trajectory of an alleged smoke trail in the images. Some claim that this means it is impossible for it to have been made by any kind of flying object, and further claim that this demonstrates these five frames have been doctored.
The FBI confiscated a video from a nearby gas station attended by Jose Velasquez, and from the Sheraton Hotel roof. These videos have not yet been released.
9/11 researchers call for the release of all information regarding the crash and suggest that the withholding such information is government secrecy. FBI documents describing the collection of evidence explain this particular video did not capture the impact. None of the other videos have been released either.
The Pentagon was struck in a newly renovated and reinforced section.
Wedge 1, as the area is referred to, began renovation in 1998. A phased move-in of tenants began in February 2000, with the last tenant move-in completed February 6, 2003.
The aircraft struck the northern edge of Wedge 1, and some speculate this location to be indicative of insider involvement, noting it as a possible attempt to reduce casualties.
Initial damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is thought by those supporting a theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon to be inconsistent with a large aircraft.
Others argue that given the reinforced strength of the building in comparison to the relative light weight material that made up the aircraft, considerable damage was made. The impact point did fit the dimensions of the 757 flight-deck and fuselage -- minus the jet engines, tail, and wings.
Some researchers who question the common account of United Airlines Flight 93 crashing as a result of an attempted cockpit invasion, have speculated that it was shot down by US fighter jets.
This idea was promoted by author David Ray Griffin in his book, The New Pearl Harbor, which includes cited research by Paul Thompson. Thompson examined a number of mainstream media reports that fighter jets were actually much closer to Flight 93 at the time of the crash than stated in the official record. He mentions witnesses who noticed a small white jet near the impact site soon after the crash. The ATC asked a business jet to investigate the crash area and the aircraft descended to an altitude of around 1500 ft to survey the impact. Recently, the website Flight93crash.com has also become a popular website for those seeking information about alternative theories of Flight 93.
Mr. Thompson and other 9/11 researchers note that pieces of Flight 93 were found far from the crash site and suggest that this may be evidence of a shoot-down. Although NTSB investigators claim to have found no evidence the plane was shot down, 9/11 researchers point to:
The existence of multiple debris fields located miles away from the crash site
That witnesses observed debris falling out of the sky, like confetti
Those who believe the plane was not shot down argue that debris exploding away and landing far from the crash scene is not a unique occurrence in commercial airline accidents.
Donald Rumsfeld, in an address to U.S. troops, referred to "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." While the Pentagon said Rumsfeld misspoke, and "has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists," some believe Rumsfeld's slip was based on truth.
Claims Flight 93 landed safely
There are reports that flight 93 landed safely in Ohio after a suspected bomb threat. The Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder from Flight 93 have not been released to the general public. Some claim this is because the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually not United 93.
The following points help to clarify a few misunderstandings:
A 1990 Congressional Law prohibits the “public disclosure cockpit voice recorder recordings and transcriptions, in whole or in part, of oral communications by and between flight crew members and ground stations…”
On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings. This was made possible only because the FBI controlled the investigation, as opposed to the NTSB as in typical air disasters.
WCPO, a local Cincinnati ABC news affiliate, released a preliminary AP story on United Flight 93’s safe landing at a Cleveland airport. It was later learned Delta Flight 1989 was the plane confused with Flight 93. WCPO has since retracted the story noting its earlier factual inaccuracies. .
Most 9/11 researchers critical of the official story of the fate of Flight 93 believe that the plane was shot down ,,,, not that it landed elsewhere, and believe the efforts to spread such ideas to be distractions.
Claims cell phone calls were impossible
During the flight of United 93 passengers are said to have made a number of calls to both family and emergency personnel. It is argued by some that connecting a cell phone to a tower's signal would have been near to impossible from the air. Based on this information, some theorists suggest the calls were fabricated or never made at all.
In 2003 a Canadian team conducted experiments to determine if cell phones could be used from civilian aircraft flying at cruising speeds and altitudes. Their findings concluded the probability of a typical cell phone making a stable connection to a cell on the ground is roughly .006% from the altitude that Flight 93 was supposedly flying at at the time of the cell phone calls. Anecdotal evidence provided to the team by airline passengers in other parts of the US and the world corroborates their findings.
Carnegie Mellon researchers published results of a study in which they monitored spectrum frequencies generated by cell phone use during commercial passenger flights. They concluded that one to four cell phone calls are made during each average passenger flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations. The study makes no mention of the length of the calls or whether a successful air-ground connection was actually made during the monitored transmissions.
It is known that in the final moments of the flight Edward Felt dialed 911 from his cell phone from the lavatory of the aircraft which was answered by dispatcher John Shaw. Felt was able to tell the dispatcher about the hijacking before the call was out of range and subsequently disconnected.
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.
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.
President Bush was promoting the passage of his education plan at Emma E. Booker Elementary School on the morning of September 11th.
Conspiracy theorists have questioned the President's behavior after being told that the nation was under attack.
They think it's likely that he would have been taken to safety at once, presuming that he too would be a possible target of a terrorist attack. That he remained in the classroom for another 7-9 minutes is seen as an indication that his security staff was well aware of what was happening, and was therefore not worried.
Did George W. Bush see the first plane hit?
George Bush was asked a question by a child at a town hall meeting:
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card — actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower — the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there — I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
Some have pointed out that George Bush could not have seen the first plane hit the tower live on television, as it was a surprise attack and no television station was covering that area when the first plane hit. The videotape of the attack was not presented to the general public until several hours after the attack. This quote has made some suggest that George Bush has access to footage the general public does not, especially about the September 11th attacks., . Others have suggested that the President's statement was, "a lie fabricated to justify his unwillingness to deal with the magnitude of the disaster that had stricken all Americans on September 11, 2001.". Others suggest that perhaps he just simply meant to say that he saw live footage of the World Trade Center after the first plane had hit, which many media outlets were covering at the time.
Other points of interest
US Representative Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing on July 23, 2005 into "what warnings the Bush administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." Panelist and former CIA official Melvin Goodman was quoted as saying "Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian and I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom." Many 9/11 researchers testified at the hearing, including Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, Wayne Madsen and several others.
In a Zogby International poll commissioned by 911truth.org, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall believe the US Government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."
The FOX TV series The Lone Gunmen aired their opening episode "Pilot" six months before 9/11 which depicted a secret U.S. government agency behind a plot to simulate a foreign terrorist airline attack (a Boeing 727 flying into 2 World Trade Center by a powerful computer via remote control) to further a larger political agenda.
Between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother was a principal in a company that provided security for both The World Trade Center and United Airlines. According to its president CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down". This last statement has been used by some conspiracy theorists to say that the contract "expired" on September 11, 2001. Barbara Bush confirmed this theory in her book 'Reflections' also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired. Mr. Bush was also a former director and now is an advisor to the board of directors to a firm HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc that had what it called a small participation in the World Trade Center property insurance coverage and some of the surrounding buildings. Marvin Bush was on a subway under Wall Street when the attacks happened.
Some of the hijackers are still alive
There have been claims that several of the hijackers who were reported to have carried out the attacks are still alive.
The BBC News reported on September 23, 2001 that some of the hijakers named by the FBI, who were killed on the crashes, were actually alive and well.
One of the hijackers was Waleed al-Shehri, and he was supposedly found in Casablanca, Morocco.
However, the al-Shehri's father says he hadn't heard from his sons in ten months prior to September 2001. An ABC News story in March 2002 repeated this, and during a report entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC on Aug 25 2002, NBC's reporter John Hockenberry traveled to 'Asir, where he interviewed the third broter Salah who agreed that his two brothers were dead and claimed they had been "brainwashed".
Furthermore another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.
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 September2001, the BBC and The Telegraph reported that a person named Saeed al-Ghamdi was alive and well. His name, birth date, origin, and occupation were the same as those released by the FBI, but his picture was different. He says that he studied flight training in Florida flight schools from 1998 to 2001. The journalist involved with the story later admitted "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time."
After the attacks, reports began emerging saying that al-Mihdhar was still alive. On September 19, the FDIC distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive. The Justice Department says that this was a typo. The BBC and The Guardian have since reported that there was evidence al-Mihdhar was still alive.
Motives
Theories as to why members of the U. S. government would have allowed the attacks to occur, perpetrated the attacks, and/or obstructed the investigation generally involve one or more of the following:
A simple move in a plan for a New World Order. This particular theory takes root in a David Rockefeller Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994: We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. Another reference to a similar statement made by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. See also above PNAC reference.
To destroy embarrassing or incriminating materials located inside of World Trade Center Seven. According to an article in the December 7-13 2005 issue of The Village Voice, the CIA, the Secret Service, the New York City Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney all had offices located in that building, and other government agencies had offices in the other 6 World Trade Center buildings (FBI, Customs, etc.)
David Ray Griffin's Suppositions Regarding Whistleblowers
While many researchers in opposition to 9/11 conspiracy theories suggest that a conspiracy would require silencing a vast number of individuals, the proponents of those theories tend to disagree.
On speculation alone, author David Ray Griffin has argued that many of the people involved would likely not know the full extent of the plot. Griffin theorizes so few individuals have come forward out of fear from threats, possibly in regards to family or employment. In an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent, Griffin states: "You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, 'If you go public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family.'" Griffin does not cite any examples of this occurring.
Griffin also argues that many would likely feel they have little incentive to come forward, given the lack of interest on the part of the mainstream media thus far. "You might just be denounced as a conspiracy kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look into your past and find that you had done some things you're not so proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut." In spite of these supposed repercussions, he claims a number of whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds, and David Schippers have chosen to speak out.
Claims related to the Saudi royal family and other Saudi government officials
Of the increasing instances in which 9/11 conspiracy theories have been discussed in the mainstream media, two instances occurred in 2004 involving Howard Dean and Michael Moore. Howard Dean, who was then the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President stated that he had heard of some people theorizing that the Saudi Royal family were behind the attacks. Though he made the comments somewhat sympathetically, he did state that this was not his personal belief. Later, he would also comment that he believed Osama Bin Laden needed to be "proven guilty" in a court of law, a remark some saw as a subtle indication Dean did not presently believe Osama's guilt was self-evident. Such 9/11 statements were often cited as an important reason for the failure of his candidacy.
Also in 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore released the much discussed documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11, in which many aspects of September 11th were discussed from a point of view skeptical of the official story. The film suggests that the business relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud led to an outright conspiracy, if not a conflict of interest which hindered both the prevention of the attack and the investigation of it.
An article in the December 7-13 2005 issue of The Village Voice reported "The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, which was released in late 2002, included 28 pages that were blanked out, apparently concerning the possible role of Saudi government officials". Another article from the same issue discussing the 9/11 Commission reported "The Joint Inquiry traced the flow of money from the Saudi royal family and government institutions to a Saudi spy in California who had contact with the hijackers. The commission found Saudi Arabia blameless although behind closed doors the staff is said to have demanded an airing of the situation."
Claims related to Jews and Israel
4,000 Israeli/Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on 9/11
This claim made by Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah, has been repeated by a wide variety of other sources, such as Amiri Baraka. The original Al-Manar claim was:
"With the announcement of the attacks at the World Trade Center in New York, the international media, particularly the Israeli one, hurried to take advantage of the incident and started mourning 4,000 Israelis who work at the two towers. Then suddenly, no one ever mentioned anything about those Israelis and later it became clear that they remarkably did not show up in their jobs the day the incident took place. No one talked about any Israeli being killed or wounded in the attacks."
Al-Manar further claimed that "Arab diplomatic sources revealed to the Jordanianal-Watan newspaper that those Israelis remained absent that day based on hints from the Israeli General Security apparatus, the Shabak". It is unclear whether al-Watan (a minor Jordanian newspaper with no website) made these claims or who (if anyone) the alleged "Arab diplomatic sources" were. No independent confirmation has been produced for this claim.
In some versions of the story circulated on the Internet, the title was changed to "4,000 Jewish Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack" from its original "4000 Israeli Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack", spawning a further rumor that not only Israeli but all Jewish employees stayed away. On September 12 an American Web site called "Information Times" published an article with the headline "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," which it credited to "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." According to Slate.com, "The '4,000 Jews' page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message's rapid dissemination." The rumour was also published; according to the United States Department of State "Syria's government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the "4,000 Jews" claim... its September 15th edition falsely claimed 'four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions.' "
There were a total of 5 Israeli deaths in the attack (Alona Avraham, Leon Lebor, Shay Levinhar, Daniel Lewin, Haggai Sheffi), of which 3 were in the World Trade Center and 2 were on the planes. (4 are listed as American on most lists, presumably having dual citizenship.)
Early estimates of Israeli deaths, as of the total death toll and the death toll for other countries' citizens (e.g. India) proved substantially exaggerated. George W. Bush cited the figure of 130 in his speech on September 20th.
The number of Jewish victims was considerably higher, typically estimated at around 400; according to the United States Department of State
A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%. This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.
The figure "4,000" was probably taken by Al-Manar from a Jerusalem Post article of September 12 (p. 3) which said "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack." This number was obviously not (as Al-Manar claimed) restricted to employees; in fact, Tsviya Shimon, minister of administrative affairs for the Israeli consulate and mission in New York, said on September 14 "that there might have been up to 100 Israeli citizens working in the World Trade Center".
Furthermore, many Orthodox Jews left for work later than usual that day due to Selichot (additional prayers recited around the time of Rosh Hashanah).
Sharon was warned by Shabak to stay away from New York
Al-Manar the official television station of Hezbollah, also made related claims that then-prime minister Ariel Sharon was warned to stay away from New York:
Suspicions had increased further after Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahranot revealed that the Shabak prevented Israeli premier Ariel Sharon from traveling to New York and particularly to the city's eastern coast to participate in a festival organized by the Zionist organizations in support of Israel. Aharon Bernie, the commentator at the newspaper, brought up the issue and came up with a negative conclusion, saying "no answer". He then asked about the clue behind the Shabak's position in preventing Sharon's participation, and again without giving an answer.
Detractors claim that this theory does not hold up to examination. A pro-Israel rally led by the United Jewish Communities, expected to include 50,000 people, had been planned for September 23, 2001. Ariel Sharon had been scheduled to speak there, but it was canceled on September 12. According to The Forward, Sharon was still scheduled to speak there at the point of cancellation.
There was no article in Yediot Aharonot that contains the information cited by Al-Manar, nor was there a columnist named Aharon Bernie. There is an Israeli reporter named Aharon Barnea of Israel's Channel 2 News whose wife Amalia works for Yediot Aharonot; it has been speculated that "Aharon Bernie" arose as a misspelling of this name.
A group of Israelis filmed 9/11 whilst celebrating
This claim formed part of the Al-Manar report mentioned above. The claim is that:
For its part, the Israeli Ha'aretz' newspaper revealed that the FBI arrested five Israelis four hours after the attack on the Twin Towers while filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building. The FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior". They are said to have been caught videotaping the disaster in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.
This claim was substantially correct. Yossi Melman had reported to that effect in Haaretz on September 172001, using the words "puzzling behavior" and "what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery." Several mainstream Western media groups researched this. On June 21, 2002, ABC published a report that five Israelis seen filming the events of September 11 in New York and looking "happy" were subsequently arrested, claiming (on The Forward's authority) that the "FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives" but had no advance knowledge of 9/11.
The Forward had reported the five as a possible Mossad surveillance operation conducted not against the US but against "radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism." Mossad was known to have been infiltrating Al Qaeda at the time. Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari, the five Israelis who were kept in custody in the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Sunset Park for approximately two months were eventually
deported back to Israel on November 20-21, 2001. Ellner and others in the prison have complained of abuse by prison guards.
The claim was revived by the Scotland-based Sunday Herald's article (Nov 2, 2003.)
Israel advance knowledge
An ambiguous claim that the Mossad had been shadowing the perpetrators and had advance warning of these attacks but failed to share it was made.
Supporters of this claim sometimes cite a Washington Post article of September 28, 2001 according to which "Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks." CNN also reported this but added that "Alex Diamandis, vice president for sales and marketing with Odigo Inc., said there was nothing specifically about the attacks in the message, but he said it was suspicious in nature, especially because of its timing." The Israeli newspaper Haaretz also published reports regarding these warnings.
The first major Western source to explicitly make this claim was Fox News, in a four-part series by Carl Cameron in December 2001. This story which "alleges that Israeli intelligence officials failed to share what they knew about September 11 with their American counterparts prior to the attacks" was condemned by Israeli officials. Soon afterwards Fox pulled it from its website without explanation.
Israeli officials claim that within the week prior to 9/11, they had warned both the FBI and CIA in August of an imminent large-scale attack. There were also reports that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad urgently tried to warn the US government that an attack was pending and provided details, but apparently no heed was paid to these warnings, that it asked the French and Egyptian intelligence services to pass similar warnings, and that a company which moved had in fact been planning to relocate for some months, and had announced its relocation plans in April 2001.
Less common theories
The Church of Scientology claims that the 9/11 hijackers were brainwashed by psychiatrists who were the real masterminds behind the attacks.
Some theories claim that then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein conspired in the 9/11 attacks. Some proponents of this theory refer to another theory surrounding the Oklahoma City Bombing, according to which Iraqi intelligence agents were involved. This was reported by investigative journalist Jana Davis in her book The Third Terrorist.
Critics of these alternative theories claim they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003).
