9/11 truth movement: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 314397517 by Jordgette (talk) Source for Peter Jennings, slight adjustment of wording.
→‎NIST Report reaction: Per WP:UNDUE, this is an article about 9/11 conspiracy theorests, not the theories themselves.
Line 58: Line 58:
{{Image|World Trade Center 9-11 Iron-rich sphere.jpg|240px|thumb|right|Iron-rich sphere, found in the dust of the World Trade Center, as documented by the United States Geological Survey. According to Steven Jones, the NIST did not look for evidence of explosive residue.<ref>{{cite news | first=Jennifer | last=Abel | title=Theories of 9/11 | date=2008-01-29 | publisher=Hartford Advocate | url =http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546 | accessdate = 2009-06-13 | language = }}</ref>}}
{{Image|World Trade Center 9-11 Iron-rich sphere.jpg|240px|thumb|right|Iron-rich sphere, found in the dust of the World Trade Center, as documented by the United States Geological Survey. According to Steven Jones, the NIST did not look for evidence of explosive residue.<ref>{{cite news | first=Jennifer | last=Abel | title=Theories of 9/11 | date=2008-01-29 | publisher=Hartford Advocate | url =http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546 | accessdate = 2009-06-13 | language = }}</ref>}}


Immediately after the collapses of the Towers and Building 7, eyewitness testimony referring to explosions, along with features of the collapses caught on film led many people, including some news anchors,<ref>{{cite news|publisher=ABC|title=Live coverage of the September 11 attacks|date=September 11, 2001|url=http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110954-1036|accessdate=September 16, 2009}}</ref> to suspect that explosives inside the buildings were the cause of the destruction.{{citation needed|date=May 2009}} Within hours, the explanation that the impact damage and fires had led to a "progressive collapse" was presented in the mainstream media. And in weeks and months that followed, articles in scientific journals explained that the global collapses of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were inevitable, with most asserting that the impact damage and intense heat of the fires caused the floor trusses and the vertical columns to weaken and fail, and the "pancake" effect of floors crashing down on top of one another brought down the entire structure.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://web.archive.org/web/20011031095744/http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/| title=Why did the World Trade Center collapse? - A simple analysis}}</ref> The initial government investigation, the [[Federal Emergency Management Agency]] (FEMA) Report (May 2002), reached similar conclusions, but recommended a more thorough investigation.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm| title=World Trade Center Building Performance Study (FEMA)}}</ref> The full Report into the collapses of the Twin Towers by the official investigators, [[NIST]], was published in June 2005.
In weeks and months that followed 9/11, articles in scientific journals explained that the global collapses of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were inevitable, with most asserting that the impact damage and intense heat of the fires caused the floor trusses and the vertical columns to weaken and fail, and the "pancake" effect of floors crashing down on top of one another brought down the entire structure.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://web.archive.org/web/20011031095744/http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/| title=Why did the World Trade Center collapse? - A simple analysis}}</ref> The initial government investigation, the [[Federal Emergency Management Agency]] (FEMA) Report (May 2002), reached similar conclusions, but recommended a more thorough investigation.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm| title=World Trade Center Building Performance Study (FEMA)}}</ref> The full Report into the collapses of the Twin Towers by the official investigators, [[NIST]], was published in June 2005.


Following the [http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm NIST Report], numerous responses were written by members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Many of these responses claimed that it ignored key evidence suggesting an explosive demolition, "distorted reality" by using deceptive language and diagrams, and attacked [[straw man]] arguments, such as the 2005 article by [[Jim Hoffman]] entitled, ''Building a better mirage: NIST's 3-year $20,000,000 Cover Up of the Crime of the Century''.<ref>[http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/17162 KPFA 94.1, Guns and Butter - September 28, 2005]</ref>
Following the [http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm NIST Report], numerous responses were written by members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Many of these responses claimed that it ignored key evidence suggesting an explosive demolition, "distorted reality" by using deceptive language and diagrams, and attacked [[straw man]] arguments, such as the 2005 article by [[Jim Hoffman]] entitled, ''Building a better mirage: NIST's 3-year $20,000,000 Cover Up of the Crime of the Century''.<ref>[http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/17162 KPFA 94.1, Guns and Butter - September 28, 2005]</ref>

Revision as of 22:11, 16 September 2009

Supporters of the 9/11 Truth movement at a Los Angeles demonstration, October 2007

9/11 Truth movement is the collective name of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals who question the mainstream interpretation of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Adherents of the movement discuss and propagate 9/11 conspiracy theories and call for a new investigation into the attacks.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Some of the organizations state that there is evidence that the United States government may have been either responsible for or knowingly complicit in the September 11 attacks. Motives given include the use of the attacks to initiate the launch of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in creating the opportunities to curtail civil liberties.[2] Members of the movement are often referred to as "truthers,"[14] "conspiracy theorists,"[1][15][16] occasionally as "9/11 deniers,"[17][18] and "9/11 skeptics."[19][20] Members of the movement hold diverse views on other political issues.

Characteristics

Name

“9/11 Truth movement” is the collective name of loosely affiliated[14][17] organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks.[3][4][5][6][7][21][22][23] The term is also being used by the adherents of the movement.[24][25] Adherents also call themselves “9/11 Truthers,”[26] “9/11 skeptics”[27] or “truth activists,”[28] while rejecting the term “conspiracy theorists”.[14][28]

Adherents

Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement come from diverse social backgrounds.[1][25][28] Many adherents are politically liberal, while the movement also includes people on the right.[3][22][28]

According to Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon, anti-Semites have joined the movement,[29] and accusations of anti-Semitism have been directed against the 9/11 Truth movement.[30] Several truth movement websites and organizations maintain statements and pages explicitly rejecting Holocaust Denial, anti-semitism and other forms of racism.[31][32][33] One site, 911Review.com, which hosts the page, "Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth", states that, "It is easy to find writers and websites that openly mix 9/11 skepticism with Holocaust denial."[32] Chip Berlet, speaking on NPR's Fresh Air in June 2009, stated, "I have to say in fairness to the 9/11 Truth Movement, they have tried to keep some of the anti- Semitism out of it with varying degrees of success, but good for them that they did that."[34]

Prominent adherents of the movement include, among others, theologian David Ray Griffin, former Green Jobs 'czar' Van Jones, the journalist Robert Fisk,[35][36] physicist Steven E. Jones, software engineer Jim Hoffman, architect Richard Gage, film producer Dylan Avery, actors Ed Asner and Charlie Sheen, and journalist Thierry Meyssan.[4][17][27]

According to Lev Grossman of TIME magazine, support for the 9/11 Truth movement is not a “fringe phenomenon”, but “a mainstream political reality”.[24] Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor and author of the book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, says that “the amount of organisation” of the movement is significantly stronger than the organization of the movement related to doubts about the official account of the assassination of former United States President John F. Kennedy.[3]

Views

See also: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or at the very least knew they were coming and let them occur anyway.[27]

Those within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks, often suggest that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.[24][25] This would have given the Bush administration the justification to clamp down on civil liberties and invade Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure future supplies of oil.[27] In some cases, hawks in the White House, especially former Vice President Dick Cheney, and members of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank, have been accused of involvement in or awareness of the alleged plot.[15][37][38]

Many adherents allege that the buildings of the World Trade Center have been destroyed by controlled demolition, a theory of major importance for the 9/11 Truth movement.[1][22][39]

Communication

The Internet plays a large role both in the communication between adherents and between local groups of the 9/11 Truth movement and in the dissemination of the views of the movement to the public at large.[2][3][6][24][37]

History

Both before and after the 9/11 Commission Report, there were skeptics of the official account published. Among others, Michael Ruppert[40] and Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker,[41] published criticisms or pointed out purported anomalies of the mainstream account of the attacks. French author Jean-Charles Brisard[42] and German authors Mathias Bröckers[43] and Andreas von Bülow[44] published books critical of media reporting and advancing the controlled demolition thesis of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

In September 2002, the first “Bush Did It!” rallies and marches were held in San Francisco and Oakland, California organized by The All People's Coalition.[45]

In October 2004, the organization 9/11 Truth released a statement, signed by nearly 200 people, including many relatives of people who perished on September 11, 2001, that calls for an investigation into the attacks. It also asserted that unanswered questions would suggest that people within the administration of former President G. W. Bush may have deliberately allowed the attacks to happen. Actor Edward Asner, former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, former assistant secretary of housing Catherine Austin Fitts, author Richard Heinberg, Enver Masud, founder of The Wisdom Fund, professors Richard Falk of the University of California, Mark Crispin Miller of New York University, Douglas Sturm of Bucknell University, Burns H. Weston of the Iowa Law School and others signed the statement. In 2009, Van Jones, a former advisor to President Obama, said he hadn't fully reviewed the statement before he signed and that the petition did not reflect his views "now or ever."[46][47][48]

In 2006, Steven E. Jones, who became a leading academic voice of the demolition theory,[2] published the paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?”.[49] He was placed on paid leave by Brigham Young University following what they described as Jones's “increasingly speculative and accusatory” statements in September, 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[50]

In the same year, 61 legislators in the U.S. State of Wisconsin signed a petition calling for the dismissal of a University of Wisconsin assistant professor Kevin Barrett, after he joined the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Citing academic freedom, the university provost declined to take action against Barrett.[51][52][53]

Several organizations of family members of people who have died in the attacks are calling for an independent investigation into the attacks.[54] In 2009, a group of people, including 9/11 Truth movement activist Lorie Van Auken and others who have lost friends or relatives in the attack, appealed to the City of New York to investigate the disaster. The organization New York City Coalition for Accountability Now is collecting signatures to require the New York City Council to place the creation of an investigating commission on the November 2009 election ballot.[55]

9/11 Commission Report reaction

To the consternation of the families and adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement, many of the questions that the 9/11 Family Steering Committee put to the 9/11 Commission, chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, were not asked in either the hearings or in the Commission Report.[56] Lorie Van Auken, one of the Jersey Girls, estimates that only 30% of their questions were answered in the final 9/11 Commission Report, published July 22, 2004. The story of the Families Movement and their monitoring of the commission is documented in the film 9/11: Press for Truth (2006).

The 9/11 Family Steering Committee produced a website summarizing the questions they had raised to the Commission, indicating which they believe had been answered satisfactorily, which they believe had been addressed but not answered satisfactorily, and which they believe had been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report.[57]

In addition, the 339-page book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin, claimed that the report had either omitted information or distorted the truth, providing 115 examples. He summarizes his book in the article The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-page lie, claiming that “the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.”

On May 26, 2008 college professor Blair Gadsby began a protest and a hunger strike outside the offices of Senator and Republican Party Nominee for President John McCain's office demanding to see McCain. Arizona Republican State Senator Karen Johnson joined the protest in support. On June 10 Johnson with Gadsby as her guest and other 9/11 Truth movement members in the audience spoke before the Arizona State Senate espousing the controlled demolition theory and supporting a reopening of the 9/11 investigation.[13][58] In response to a question, McCain, who wrote the foreword to a book published by the magazine Popular Mechanics, that aims at debunking the theories, said he did not meet Gadsby, adding: “Because I don't take well to threats.”[59]

NIST Report reaction

Template:Image

In weeks and months that followed 9/11, articles in scientific journals explained that the global collapses of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were inevitable, with most asserting that the impact damage and intense heat of the fires caused the floor trusses and the vertical columns to weaken and fail, and the "pancake" effect of floors crashing down on top of one another brought down the entire structure.[60] The initial government investigation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Report (May 2002), reached similar conclusions, but recommended a more thorough investigation.[61] The full Report into the collapses of the Twin Towers by the official investigators, NIST, was published in June 2005.

Following the NIST Report, numerous responses were written by members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Many of these responses claimed that it ignored key evidence suggesting an explosive demolition, "distorted reality" by using deceptive language and diagrams, and attacked straw man arguments, such as the 2005 article by Jim Hoffman entitled, Building a better mirage: NIST's 3-year $20,000,000 Cover Up of the Crime of the Century.[62]

In the fall of 2005, physicist Steven Jones, a professor at Brigham Young University at the time, announced a paper criticizing the NIST Report and describing his hypothesis that the WTC towers had been intentionally demolished by explosives. This paper garnered some mainstream media attention, including an appearance by Jones on MSNBC. This was the first such programming on a major cable news station. As of November 2006, Jones had not published his research in peer-reviewed mainstream journals. Jones has been criticized by his university for making his claims public before vetting them through the approved peer review process and has since been placed on paid leave.[63][64] He continues to remain a focus of public interest for his 9/11 research.

Accordingly, in April 2007, some 9/11 victims' family members and some members of the new Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice submitted an additional request for correction to NIST, containing their own views on the defects in the report.[65] NIST responded to this request in September 2007 supporting their original conclusions;[66] the originators of the request wrote back to them in October 2007, asking them to reconsider their response.

Criticism

The movement has attracted the attention of some major mainstream media publications. A book critic of the magazine TIME noted in 2006 that the movement is "a mainstream political reality" after citing a poll in which 36% of Americans believe the government either allowed the attacks to occur, or were involved in carrying out the attacks themselves. The editor also declared that "The theories prompt small, reasonable questions that demand answers that are just too large and unreasonable to swallow."[67] The movement receives criticism from a variety of sources. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote that he has "two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth Movement":

"The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes.... Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost."[68]

MIT engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to physicist Steven Jones publishing a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eager stated:

"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."[69]

Organizations

Since the publication of the official reports, a number of interconnected 9/11 Truth movement organizations have been formed to research the events of the day, to promote the 9/11 Truth movement and 9/11 conspiracy theories to the general public, and to try and force a new investigation.

911 Truth

This organization was launched in June 2004 and has become the central portal for all the 9/11 Truth movement organizations. It is run by Janice Matthews[70] (Executive Director), David Kubiak[71](International Campaign Advisor) and Mike Berger[72] (Media Coordinator), among others, and its advisory board includes Steven Jones, Barrie Zwicker and Faiz Khan.[73]

The organization co-sponsored the Zogby Polls that have shown an increasing number of people believing the government has covered-up the real story of 9/11.[citation needed][74][75] A few of its sister and spin-off organizations include the 9/11 Visibility Project[citation needed] and Justice For 9/11[citation needed]. It also organizes gatherings and events, promotes "scholarly" research, warns about the discrediting effect of extreme alternative theories, and attempts to affect mainstream media coverage.[citation needed]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Template:Image

See also: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization of architectural and engineering professionals[76] who advocate September 11 conspiracy theories and are calling for a new investigation into the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC.[9][77] The group is collecting signatures for a petition to the United States Congress that demands "a truly independent investigation with subpoena power" of the September 11 attacks, and in particular "a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction" of the World Trade Center buildings.[78][79][80] Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area based architect,[81] founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006.[2][82]

Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[83][84] Gage criticized the government agency NIST for not having investigated the complete sequence of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers[85] and claims that "the official explanation of the total destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers has explicitly failed to address the massive evidence for explosive demolition."[86] To support its position, the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth points to the "free fall" pace of the collapse of the buildings, the "lateral ejection of steel", and to the "mid-air pulverization of concrete".[76]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

The original 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth', founded by Dr. James H. Fetzer and Dr. Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.

Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer—such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers—were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule. By December 2006, Dr. Steven Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.[87] The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.[88] By 2007, James Fetzer had been openly rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement, banned from and criticized on popular forums[89][90][91] [92] and no longer invited to public 9/11 events.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (STJ) formed in January 2007 and is "a group of scholars and supporters endeavoring to address the unanswered questions of the September 11, 2001 attack" with a focus on scientific research. The group is composed of more than 700 members,[93] including Richard Gage, Steven E. Jones, Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin, Peter Phillips, former Congressman Daniel Hamburg, and Kevin Ryan. Most members support the theory that the World Trade Center Towers were destroyed through explosive demolition.

In 2008 and 2009, several Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice members published essays in science and engineering journals. In April 2008, a letter by members Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley, was published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal.[94] In July 2008, an article by Ryan, Gourley and Jones was published in the Environmentalist.[95] In October 2008, an essay describing what the author considers fundamental errors in a Bažant and Verdure paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by member James R. Gourley.[96] And in April 2009, as reported by major Danish newspapers,[97] Danish chemist and STJ member Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors, some also STJ members, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[98] The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite are present in the samples of the dust.

9/11 CitizensWatch

Main article: 9/11 Citizens Watch

The group was formed in 2002 by John Judge and Kyle Hence and, along with the Family Steering Committee, played an active role in calling for the establishment of the 9/11 Commission, and monitoring the commission closely.[99]

William Rodriguez at American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda in Los Angeles, California, June 24/5, 2006.

Hispanic Victims Group

Main article: William Rodriguez

The Hispanic Victims Group is a group created after the 9/11 attacks, founded by William Rodriguez,[100] an adherent of the 9/11 Truth movement. The group was one of the key forces behind the creation of the 9/11 Commission.[99] William Rodriguez, as founder of the group, was a member of the Families Advisory Council for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.[101]

We Are Change

The We Are Change, founded by 9/11 Truth activist Luke Rudkowski, is a grassroots organization based out of New York City that has chapters worldwide. The group stages street protests and confronts people they suspect have knowledge of or involvement in the attacks and has organized 9/11 anniversary events . [citation needed] In addition to 9/11 truth activities the group has lobbied for legislation aiding and raised money for sick first responders. [citation needed] Several politicians and entertainers have actively supported the group. [citation needed] The organization staged a protest march at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The group filmed protests in an effort to catch illegal action by protesters or police.[102]

Conferences

Members of the 9/11 truth organizations, such as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, regularly hold meetings and conferences to discuss alternative theories about 9/11 and to strategize about how best to achieve their goals. Many of these conferences are organized by 911truth.org, and some have been covered by the international media.[103]

Internal critique

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals within the United States government (but not necessarily the government as a whole) are responsible for the attacks, alternative theories differ about what may have happened. There have been a number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the methods and theories of other members, often in a scholarly format, as in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[104]

While Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice states that they advocate the use of the scientific method and civil research activities over public debate,[105] Jim Fetzer's group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has said that the scientific method is unnecessary and that any imaginable theory is worthy of advocating to the public. For example, reporting on a conference involving Fetzer's group, a Madison Times article stated: "By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never existed at all."[106]

Major media

Books

Authors of 9/11 Truth movement literature is theologian David Ray Griffin. His two books, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (March 2004), which outlined a methodical, deductive framework for researching 9/11, and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (October 2004), became best-sellers. His Debunking 9/11 Debunking (May 2007) looks at the way magazines such as Popular Mechanics have sought to debunk the alternative 9/11 theories. His most recent work, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the cover-up, and the exposé (2008), was written to update his original book, The New Pearl Harbor, reflecting information and insights from five major developments that have occurred since his original publication.

In September 2004, the interactive "Complete 9/11 Timeline" website by Paul Thompson, which is a collection of mainstream media reports presented chronologically, was made into the book The Terror Timeline.

Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (October 2004) identified potential key insider suspects in the 9/11 attacks and provide an examination of their context: petroleum, geopolitics, narco-traffic, intelligence and militarism. Webster Tarpley's Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (2005) described a link between 9/11 and previous accusations of false flag state-sponsored terrorism such as Gladio or the Red Brigades.

Films

Films made by the 9/11 Truth movement include: Loose Change:Final Cut (2007) by Korey Rowe, Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (2005) by Alex Jones, 911 Mysteries: Demolitions (2006), The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw (2004) by Barrie Zwicker, and 9/11: Blueprint for Truth (2007) and updated 2008 Edition (2008) by Richard Gage.

These documentaries present a range of alternate theories about how the attacks might have been carried out.

9/11 Press for Truth (2006) documents the struggle by the Jersey Widows to open a full investigation of the events, and their frustration while monitoring the 9/11 Commission as part of the Family Steering Committee. The film, partly based on The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson, also looks at warnings received by the US government prior to September 11 and instances during the US invasion of Afghanistan where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda managed to escape from US forces and flee into Pakistan.

Alex Jones, 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorists are the subject of a documentary New World Order directed by Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel that debuted on the Independent Film Channel on May 26, 2009. The documentary, while not endorsing the movement, is described as the giving the movement "more sympathetic, or less critical, airing than they've yet had (except among the converted)".[107][108]

Mainstream media coverage

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to 9/11 Truth movement.

References

  1. ^ a b c d Feuer, Alan (June 5, 2006). "500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11". The New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2009. the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists Cite error: The named reference "Feuer" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  3. ^ a b c d e Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009. an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
  4. ^ a b c Powell, Michael (September 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The loose agglomeration known as the '9/11 Truth Movement'
  5. ^ a b Barry, Ellen (September 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 30, 2009. a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement
  6. ^ a b c Hunt, H.E. (November 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved May 30, 2009. A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement
  7. ^ a b Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The '9/11 Truth Movement,' as it is now commonly called
  8. ^ Morales, Frank (2009-06-11). "9/11 Truth comes home; Pols back new investigation". The Villager. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
  9. ^ a b Olivier, Clint (2009-05-26). "Controversial Group Re–Examines 9/11 In Clovis". KMPH Fox News. Retrieved 2009-05-28. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ Lake, Eli (2008-04-10). "U.N. Official Calls for Study Of Neocons' Role in 9/11". The New York Sun. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
  11. ^ "Citizens Petition New York Attorney General to Open 9-11 Inquiry". Environment News Service. 2004-10-29. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
  12. ^ Siegel, Jefferson (2008-06-18). "'Pentagon Papers senator' calls for new 9/11 probe". The Villager. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
  13. ^ a b "Sen. Karen Johnson's floor speech about 9/11". East Valley Tribune. 2008-06-10. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
  14. ^ a b c Bunch, Sonny (September 24, 2007). "The Truthers Are Out There". The Weekly Standard.
  15. ^ a b Sullivan, Will (September 3, 2006). "Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll - You won't believe what the conspiracy theorists are claiming-or will you?". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  16. ^ Burchell, David (September 15, 2008). "They're out there, plotting against us all". The Australian. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  17. ^ a b c Manjoo, Farhad (June 27, 2006). "The 9/11 deniers". Salon.
  18. ^ White, Roland (2006-09-10). "Rebel MI5 agent says 9/11 planes were holograms". The Sunday Times (London). {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  19. ^ Weinberg, Paul (2009-06-10). "POLITICS: 9/11 Sceptics Hold Inquiry". Inter Press Service News Agency. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
  20. ^ Silverman, Justin (2006-09-01). "9/11 skeptics challenge WTC findings". amNewYork. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
  21. ^ Kennedy, Gene (September 8, 2006). "BYU Professor on Paid Leave for 9-11 Theory". KSL TV. Jones is a physics professor involved in what's called the "9-11 Truth Movement."
  22. ^ a b c Molé, Phil (2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement Perspective". Skeptic. 12 (4). Retrieved June 2, 2009. a larger coalition known as the "9/11 Truth Movement,"
  23. ^ Sales, Nancy Jo (August 2006). "Click Here for Conspiracy". Vanity Fair. Retrieved June 2, 2009. a nationwide collection of doubters known as the "9/11 Truth" movement
  24. ^ a b c d Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away". Time.
  25. ^ a b c Harvey, Adam (September 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted". Courier Mail.
  26. ^ Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  27. ^ a b c d "Conspiracy theories: The Speculation". CBC. October 29, 2003. Retrieved June 2, 2009.
  28. ^ a b c d Curiel, Jonathan (September 3, 2006). "The Conspiracy to Rewrite 9/11". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved June 2, 2009.
  29. ^ Hodapp, Christopher (2008-03-31). Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies. For Dummies. p. 153. ISBN 9780470184080. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ Jacobson, Mark (2006-03-27). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll; A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York's most terrible day". New York Magazine. Mossad MIHOP easily morphs into Zionist MIHOP or Jewish MIHOP, leading to the charges of anti-Semitism that have dogged the 9/11 Truth movement. 'Do I believe Israel has undue influence over U.S. foreign policy?' asks one activist. 'Absolutely. But there are people in this movement who are fucking Nazis. You have to draw the line at Holocaust denial.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  31. ^ "Statements Against Violence and Racism". Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.
  32. ^ a b "Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth". 9-11 Research.
  33. ^ "TruthMove's 2008 Declaration:Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth". Truthmove.
  34. ^ Gross, Terry (June 18, 2009). "Extremism, Conspiracy Theory And Murder". npr.org. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)
  35. ^ Robert Fisk at Sydney Ideas 2006Robert Fisk, ABC News Australia, Sunday 26 March 2006
  36. ^ Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11Robert Fisk, The Independent, August 2007
  37. ^ a b Jacobson, Mark (March 20, 2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine. Retrieved June 2, 2009.
  38. ^ Manjoo, Farhad (August 7, 2008). "The Anthrax Truth Movement". Slate.
  39. ^ Tobin, Hugh (May 21, 2008). "Conspiracy theory lunacy". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
  40. ^ Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
  41. ^ Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11
  42. ^ Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy Saudi Arabia And The Failed Search For Bin Laden
  43. ^ Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, and the Secrets of 9/11
  44. ^ Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste
  45. ^ Bush Did It: Pictures From 9/11 Protest in Oakland, by Z, September 14 2002, San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia website.
  46. ^ Rossmeier, Vincent (September 11, 2009). "Would you still sign the 9/11 Truth petition?". Salon. Retrieved September 11, 2009.
  47. ^ Keating, Joshua; Downie, James (September 10, 2009). "The World's Most Persistent Conspiracy Theories". Foreign Policy. Retrieved September 13, 2009.
  48. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/08/08greenwire-embattled-van-jones-quits-but-czar-debates-rage-9373.html
  49. ^ Jim Dwyer (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  50. ^ Walch, Tad (September 8, 2006). "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2009-01-04. Sullivan, Will (September 11, 2006). "BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor". U.S. News & World Report. www.usnews.com. Retrieved April 26, 2009. "BYU Professor Who Believes WTC Brought Down by Explosives Resigns". Fox News. October 21, 2006. Retrieved May 15, 2009. Walch, Tad (October 22, 2006). "BYU professor in dispute over 9/11 will retire". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved May 15, 2009. "Steven E. Jones. Retired Professor". Brigham Young University. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  51. ^ Ruethling, Gretchen (August 1, 2006). "A Skeptic on 9/11 Prompts Questions on Academic Freedom". New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2009.
  52. ^ "Wisconsin academic: 9/11 report a fraud". CNN. November 20, 2006. Retrieved May 7, 2009.
  53. ^ Asquith, Christina (September 5, 2006). "Who really blew up the twin towers?". The Guardian. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  54. ^ Diffalah, Sarah (July 23, 2009). "11/09 : le crash du Pentagone toujours contesté". Nouvel Observateur. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  55. ^ "Group calls for renewed Sept. 11 probe". United Press International. Aug. 10, 2009. Retrieved Aug. 12, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  56. ^ de Vries, Lloyd (2004-07-20). "9/11 Report: The Open Question". CBS News. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
  57. ^ The Family Steering Committee
  58. ^ Lawmaker asks McCain to talk with 9/11 theorists Arizona Republic June 3, 2008
  59. ^ McCain doesn't want to impeach Bush The Raw Story June 26, 2008
  60. ^ "Why did the World Trade Center collapse? - A simple analysis".
  61. ^ "World Trade Center Building Performance Study (FEMA)".
  62. ^ KPFA 94.1, Guns and Butter - September 28, 2005
  63. ^ Walch, Tad (2006-09-08). "BYU places "9/11 truth" professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News.
  64. ^ Sullivan, Will (2006-09-11). "BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor". US News & World Report.
  65. ^ Request for Correction
  66. ^ Communication re Information Quality Request #07-06
  67. ^ Lev Grossman (2006-09-03). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away". Time Magazine.
  68. ^ Taibbi, Matt (2006). "The Low Post: I, Left Gatekeeper". Politics. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2006-09-29.
  69. ^ Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
  70. ^ William M. Arkin (2006-05-26). "9/11 Truth? I Don't Think So". The Washington Post.
  71. ^ "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act..." Zogby International. 2004-08-30.
  72. ^ "Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Explanations; "Young and Restless" Star Weighs in on Political Topics". CNN. 2006-03-22.
  73. ^ "911truth.org "About Us"".
  74. ^ "American Thinking Toward The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks". Zogby International. 2006-05-24.
  75. ^ "Zogby Poll (May 2006)".
  76. ^ a b Beam, Christopher (April 8, 2009). "Heated Controversy". Slate. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  77. ^ Sutcliffe, Thomas (July 7, 2008). "Yet more tall stories with no foundation". Independent Extra. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  78. ^ "Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!". Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  79. ^ "Un arquitecto estadounidense presenta en Madrid su versión alternativa al 11-S". Telecinco. November 8, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  80. ^ Mounir, Roderic (November 13, 2008). "Les attentats du 11-Septembre: «une démolition contrôlée!»". Le Courrier. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  81. ^ Moskowitz, Eric (November 29, 2007). "Airing of 9/11 film ignites debate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  82. ^ Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  83. ^ Jim Dwyer (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  84. ^ Glanz, James (March 29, 2002). "Towers Fell as Intense Fire Beat Defenses, Report Says". New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  85. ^ Potocki, P. Joseph (August 27, 2008). "Down the 9-11 Rabbit Hole". Bohemian. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  86. ^ Beam, Alex (Jan. 14, 2008). "The truth is out there . . . Isn't it?". The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  87. ^ "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice". Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
  88. ^ "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice".
  89. ^ hsgsj (February 27, 2007). "Dr. James Fetzer and his "Lying Eyes"". 911blogger.com.
  90. ^ Arabesque (February 28, 2007). "9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples". 911blogger.com.
  91. ^ Dem Bruce Lee Stylez! (March 15, 2008). "ALERT: FETZER SPEAKING AT RON PAUL MARCH!! Von Kleist to MC". TruthAction.org.
  92. ^ Victoria Ashley (August 13, 2007). "Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11, James Fetzer". 911Research.com.
  93. ^ STH911 Members
  94. ^ Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley (2008). "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction". Bentham Science Publishers.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  95. ^ Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, Steven E. Jones (2008). "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials "". Springer Netherlands, The Environmentalist, Online First.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  96. ^ 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.
  97. ^ Politiken: Konspirationsteorier om 9/11 får nyt liv, Jyllands Posten: Forskere: Sprængstof i støvet fra WTC, Ekstra Bladet: Mystik om WTC: Nano-termit i tårne, Kristeligt Dagblad: Dansker genopliver konspirationsteori om 11. september, Videnskab: Dansk forsker: Eksplosivt nanomateriale fundet i støvet fra World Trade Center. The journal Videnskab is sponsored by the Danish Ministry for Science and Technology.
  98. ^ Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". Retrieved 2009-04-03.
  99. ^ a b c The Christian Science Monitor - A key force behind the 9/11 commission
  100. ^ Senior, Jennifer. "«The Memorial Warriors»". New York magazine. Retrieved Aug. 14, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  101. ^ "Chairman Whitehead Announces LMDC Advisory Councils". Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. 2002-01-31.
  102. ^ Afternoon march focuses on 9/11 attacks Rocky Mountain News August 25, 2008
  103. ^ a b Canada National Post: A theory that just won't die
  104. ^ Journal of 9/11 Studies: Letters
  105. ^ Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice: About
  106. ^ 9/11 doubters doubt each other, too by Ben Popper, Madison Times
  107. ^ Doc Hangs with Conspiracy Theorists in New World Order Village Voice May 19, 2009
  108. ^ Movie Review New World Order (2009) The New York Times May 26, 2009
  109. ^ Jennifer Senior (2006-09-15). "The Memorial Warriors". New York Magazine.
  110. ^ Nancy Jo Sales (August, 2006). "Click Here for Conpiracy". Vanity Fair. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  111. ^ Jonathan Curiel (2006-09-03). "The Conspiracy To Rewrite 9/11". San Francisco Gate.
  112. ^ "Who really blew up the twin towers?". The Guardian. 2006-09-05.
  113. ^ Jaya Narain (2006-09-06). "Fury as academics claim 9/11 was "inside job"". Daily Mail.
  114. ^ The Truth Is Out There - Part I Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008
  115. ^ The Truth Is Out There - Part II Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008
  116. ^ The Truth Is Out There - Part III Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_truth_movement&oldid=314432097"