World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Criticism of the NIST Report: fix citation copied from Jones, who is quoting the DRAFT report |
Revert disruptive editing. Can't find a source? Try looking at the first page that comes up in a search that returned 10 pages. |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
==History== |
==History== |
||
Controlled demolition conspiracy theory proponents cite mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks that suggested explosions and secondary devices.<ref>[http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.html 9-11 Research: Notable Retractions]</ref> Journalists and experts commenting on the events as they happened mentioned that the World Trade Center collapses looked like those caused by intentionally planted explosives. [[ABC News]] anchor [[Peter Jennings]] said "Anybody who ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110954-1036 |title=Internet Archive: Details: ABC Sept. 11, 2001 9:54 am - 10:36 am |publisher=Archive.org |date= |accessdate=2008-10-30}}</ref> Some of these suggestions would later be retracted or revised. |
Controlled demolition conspiracy theory proponents cite mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks that suggested explosions and secondary devices.<ref>[http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.html 9-11 Research: Notable Retractions]</ref> Journalists and experts commenting on the events as they happened mentioned that the World Trade Center collapses looked like those caused by intentionally planted explosives. [[ABC News]] anchor [[Peter Jennings]] said "Anybody who ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110954-1036 |title=Internet Archive: Details: ABC Sept. 11, 2001 9:54 am - 10:36 am |publisher=Archive.org |date= |accessdate=2008-10-30}}</ref> While watching footage of the collapse of WTC 7, [[CBS News]] anchor [[Dan Rather]] said "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."<ref>[http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2948e9ba-df6a-4785-9ba2-180a4720e918 The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower] [[Calgary Herald]] [[March 26]], [[2007]]</ref> Some of these suggestions would later be retracted or revised. |
||
In a notable example, the Albuquerque Journal quoted Dr. Van D. Romero, an engineer who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that "some explosive devices inside ... caused the towers to collapse". Remero speculated that the collision of the planes into the towers was a diversionary attack as part of a common terrorist strategy intended to attract emergency personnel to the scene, followed by the detonation of "a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points" of the towers as the primary attack.<ref>{{cite news |first= Olivier |last= Uyttebrouck |title=Use Of Explosives Believed |url=http://www.abqjournal.com/terror/anniversary/pmvan09-21-01.htm |work=Extra |publisher=Albuquerque Journal |page=A2 |date=2001-09-11 |accessdate=2007-11-01}}</ref> He soon withdrew this assessment<ref>{{cite news |first=John |last=Fleck|title=Expert Now Thinks No Explosives in Towers |url=http://www.abqjournal.com/terror/anniversary/pmvan09-21-01.htm|publisher=Albuquerque Journal |page=A5 |date=2001-09-22 |accessdate=2007-11-01 }}</ref> and later said he had been misquoted: "I only said that that's what it ''looked'' like." On September 22, 2001, the Albuquerque Journal printed a retraction.<ref name="popmechanics">{{cite journal| |
In a notable example, the Albuquerque Journal quoted Dr. Van D. Romero, an engineer who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that "some explosive devices inside ... caused the towers to collapse". Remero speculated that the collision of the planes into the towers was a diversionary attack as part of a common terrorist strategy intended to attract emergency personnel to the scene, followed by the detonation of "a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points" of the towers as the primary attack.<ref>{{cite news |first= Olivier |last= Uyttebrouck |title=Use Of Explosives Believed |url=http://www.abqjournal.com/terror/anniversary/pmvan09-21-01.htm |work=Extra |publisher=Albuquerque Journal |page=A2 |date=2001-09-11 |accessdate=2007-11-01}}</ref> He soon withdrew this assessment<ref>{{cite news |first=John |last=Fleck|title=Expert Now Thinks No Explosives in Towers |url=http://www.abqjournal.com/terror/anniversary/pmvan09-21-01.htm|publisher=Albuquerque Journal |page=A5 |date=2001-09-22 |accessdate=2007-11-01 }}</ref> and later said he had been misquoted: "I only said that that's what it ''looked'' like." On September 22, 2001, the Albuquerque Journal printed a retraction.<ref name="popmechanics">{{cite journal| |
||