World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Main towers: Adding "conventional" to avoid confusion.
→‎Reaction of the engineering community: Restored valid content. We're supposed to present the mainstream viewpoint, remember?
Line 82: Line 82:
World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Richard Gage, leader of the group ''[[Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth]]'' said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?".<ref name="NYT-Lipton-2008"/> James Quintiere, professor of [[fire protection engineering]] at the [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]], who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives." Quintiere said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/september11.usa | title=World Trade Centre building seven not destroyed by explosives, says US study |accessdate=2009-04-24}}</ref>
World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Richard Gage, leader of the group ''[[Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth]]'' said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?".<ref name="NYT-Lipton-2008"/> James Quintiere, professor of [[fire protection engineering]] at the [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]], who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives." Quintiere said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/september11.usa | title=World Trade Centre building seven not destroyed by explosives, says US study |accessdate=2009-04-24}}</ref>


==Reaction of the engineering community==
==Reaction ==

The controlled demolition theory has been dismissed in the structural engineering literature.<ref name="bazant07"/><ref>[[9/11 Commission Report]]</ref>{{page needed}} [[Northwestern University]] Professor of [[Civil Engineering]] Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.<ref>http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm</ref> Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition conspiracy theory assumes).<ref name="bazant07"/>
The controlled demolition theory has been dismissed in the structural engineering literature.<ref name="bazant07"/><ref>[[9/11 Commission Report]]</ref>{{page needed}} [[Northwestern University]] Professor of [[Civil Engineering]] Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.<ref>http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm</ref> Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition conspiracy theory assumes).<ref name="bazant07"/>


Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]], also dismissed the controlled demolition conspiracy theory.<ref name="Chronicle">{{cite web |last = Gravois |first = John | date = June 23, 2006 | url = http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm |title = Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories| work = |publisher = The Chronicle of Higher Education | accessdate =2007-01-24 |quote=Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.}}</ref> Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse [[scientific method]].' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."<ref>{{cite web|last = Walch|first = Tad|year = 2006|url = http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645200098,00.html|title = Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones|work = Utah news|publisher = Deseret News Publishing Company|accessdate = 2006-09-09}}</ref>
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]], also dismissed the controlled demolition conspiracy theory.<ref name="Chronicle">{{cite web |last = Gravois |first = John | date = June 23, 2006 | url = http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm |title = Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories| work = |publisher = The Chronicle of Higher Education | accessdate =2007-01-24 |quote=Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.}}</ref> Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse [[scientific method]].' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."<ref>{{cite web|last = Walch|first = Tad|year = 2006|url = http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645200098,00.html|title = Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones|work = Utah news|publisher = Deseret News Publishing Company|accessdate = 2006-09-09}}</ref>

Stuart Vyse, a psychology professor at [[Connecticut College]], said of the controlled demolition theory: "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash&nbsp;[...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"<ref name="Abel">{{cite news|last=Abel|first=Jennifer|date=Jan. 29, 2008|title=Theories of 9/11|journal=Hartford Advocate|url=http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546|accessdate=May 25, 2009}}</ref>


==External links==
==External links==

Revision as of 22:22, 16 September 2009

Aerial view of the debris field of the North Tower, 6 WTC, and 7 WTC (upper right)
See also: 9/11 conspiracy theories

The World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory is the hypothesis that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused by the plane crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, nor by resulting fire damage, but by explosives installed in the buildings in advance.[1] The conspiracy theory was first suggested in late 2001. Though central to 9/11 conspiracy theorists,[2] it is rejected by the mainstream media and the mainstream engineering community.

Demolition theory proponents, such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin, argue that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures. Jones has presented the hypothesis that thermite or superthermite was used to demolish the buildings.[3][4][5][6]

Many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility.[7] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[8][9][10]

History

Controlled demolition conspiracy theories were first suggested in October 2001.[1] Eric Hufschmid's book Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, in which the controlled demolition theory is explicitly advocated, was published in September 2002.[1] David Ray Griffin and Steven E. Jones are the two most prominent advocates of the theory.[1] Griffin's book[11] The New Pearl Harbor, published in 2004,[12] has become a reference work for the 9/11 Truth movement.[13] In the same year, Griffin published the book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, in which he argues that flaws in the commission's report amount to a cover-up by government officials and says that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.[14]

Steven E. Jones has become the leading academic voice of the proponents of the theories.[15] In 2006, he published the paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?".[3] Brigham Young University responded to Jones's "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September, 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[16] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[9][17]

David Ray Griffin has questioned the "pancake collapse" theory suggested in the Building Performance Study produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).[18] NIST's report on the collapse of the WTC towers rejected the theory in favor of the column failure theory.[19] In its final report, NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001"[20] and posted a FAQ about related issues to its website in August 2006.[19] The major elements of the theory have been rebutted in mainstream engineering scholarship,[21] where its proponents are considered "outsiders".[8] The journal Popular Mechanics challenged the theories in the special report "Debunking the 9/11 Myths".[22]

The internet and homemade videos have contributed to the growth of the movement associated with the conspiracy theory that explosives had been planted in the three buildings of the World Trade Center, and the theory is often associated with allegation that the U.S. government had planned the destruction of the WTC in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.[23] The theory features prominently in the movies Loose Change[24]. The two-hour movie 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, which is popular in the 9/11 Truth movement, is based on a presentation by San Francisco-area architect Richard Gage,[25] a leading proponent of the theories.[citation needed]

In 2006, the magazine New York reported that a "new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day."[26] The theory has been cited by popular actors, musicians and politicians, including Charlie Sheen,[27][28] Willie Nelson,[29] former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura,[30] and talkshow host Rosie O'Donnell.[31]

A 2006 poll found that 6 percent of Americans considered it "very likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings", another 10% found it "somewhat likely", and 77% found the demolition theory "unlikely".[32][33][34]

Main towers

File:WTC Tower 2 collapse.jpg
Collapse of the South Tower (2 WTC).

On September 11, the North Tower (1 WTC) was hit by American Airlines Flight 11 and the South Tower (2 WTC) was hit by United Airlines Flight 175, both Boeing 767 aircraft. The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after the impact, and the North Tower collapsed 102 minutes after.[35] An investigation by NIST concluded that the collapse was caused by a combination of damage to support columns and fire insulation from the aircraft impacts and the weakening of columns and floors by jet fuel ignited fires.[19] NIST also 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".[36]

Steven Jones has claimed that anecdotal evidence[21] of molten steel found in the rubble of the collapse[3][37] and a stream of molten metal that poured out of the South Tower before it collapsed[9] are evidence of temperatures beyond those produced by the fire (which was not expected to be hot enough to melt steel). Jones has argued that the molten metal may have been elemental iron, a product of a thermite reaction. NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[19] A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that conventional thermite was unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.[38]

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes "progressive collapse" inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was at least ten times greater than that which the lower section could support.[8]

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.[8][39] Controlled demolition of a building requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[3][40] Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[3]

Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts[41] of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.[12][42] There are many causes of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[43] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[44] Puffs of dust and debris which were ejected from the towers as they collapsed have been taken as evidence that explosives were used.[45][46] NIST attributes these puffs to pressure exerted by the falling mass of the building.[47]

7 World Trade Center

File:WTC7.jpg
Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume along the South face of 7 WTC, looking from the World Financial Plaza.
The position of 7 WTC in relation to the other WTC buildings. WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.

7 World Trade Center was a 47-story skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the main part of the World Trade Center site. Though not hit by a plane, it was hit by debris from the WTC towers and damaged by fires which burned for seven hours, until it collapsed about 5:20 p.m. on the evening of September 11. Several videos of the event exist in the public domain thus enabling comparative analysis from different angles of perspective.

Some proponents of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories suggest that 7 WTC was demolished because it served as an operational center for the alleged conspiracy, while others believe the government also wanted to destroy key files held there about corporate fraud. According to a statement reported by the BBC, Dylan Avery thinks the building was suspicious because it had some unusual tenants such as a CIA field office and several government agencies. The former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the President, Richard Clarke, does not think that 7 WTC is mysterious, and said that anyone could have rented floor space in the building.[48]

No steel frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire.[49] BBC News reported the collapse of 7 WTC twenty minutes before it actually fell. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of 7 WTC on the day of the attacks.[50] Jane Standley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.[51]

Steven Jones says the debris contained sulfuric compounds, suggesting that thermate, a mixture of thermitic materials and sulfur, might have been used to destroy the building.[52][53] He asserts that videos show a yellow molten substance, which he identifies as iron, splashing off the side of the South Tower about 50 minutes after the airplane's impact. According to Jones, pictures also show white ash of aluminium-oxide, another product of the thermite reaction.[4] Professor Richard Sisson of Worcester Polytechnic Institute thinks the sulfur came from gypsum in the wallboards.[48] The NIST's question and answer page for the 7 WTC investigation also mentions the presence of sulphur in the gypsum wallboard, and states that an analysis of the steel for thermite or thermate would therefore not necessarily be conclusive.[54]

In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC Complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.[48][55][56]

In 2002 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus first on the collapse of the Twin Towers.[54] A draft version of its final report on the collapse of 7 WTC was released in August 2008. The agency has blamed the slowness of this investigation on the complexity of the computer model it used, which simulated the collapse from the moment it begins all the way to the ground; and NIST notes that the time taken on the investigation into 7 WTC is comparable to the time taken to investigate an aircraft crash.[54] The agency also notes another 80 boxes of documents related to 7 WTC were found and had to be analyzed. These delays fueled suspicion the agency was struggling to come up with a plausible conclusion.[56]

Following a three year investigation NIST released its final report on the collapse on November 20, 2008.[57] Investigators used videos, photographs and building design documents to come to their conclusions. The report concluded that the building collapsed due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives. It concluded that a blast event did not occur and that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[58] The investigation noted that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, even though it would have been audible at a level of at least 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. The theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.[54]

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?".[23] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives." Quintiere said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[59]

Reaction

The controlled demolition theory has been dismissed in the structural engineering literature.[8][60][page needed] Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[61] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[8]

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled demolition conspiracy theory.[9] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[62]

Stuart Vyse, a psychology professor at Connecticut College, said of the controlled demolition theory: "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[63]

External links

United States government sources
Engineering publications
  • Banovic, S.W.; et al. "The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse". {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  • Eagar, Thomas. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation".
  • Popular Mechanics: Debunking the 9/11 Myths.
Proponents of controlled demolition conspiracy theories
Debunkers of controlled demolition conspiracy theories

References

  1. ^ a b c d Clarke, Steve. "Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development". Episteme, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2007, pp. 167-180.
  2. ^ Feuer, Alan (June 5, 2006). "500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
  3. ^ a b c d e Jim Dwyer (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  4. ^ a b Dean, Suzanne (April 10, 2006). "Physicist says heat substance felled WTC". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved May 7, 2009.
  5. ^ Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  6. ^ "Great Day Talks To Architect Richard Gage About 9/11". KMPH Fox 26. Retrieved May 28, 2009.
  7. ^ "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. 2006-08-06. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
  8. ^ a b c d e f Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). J Engrg Mech. 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved 2007-08-22. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...] {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ a b c d Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2007-01-24. Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.
  10. ^ Asquith, Christina (2006-09-07). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
  11. ^ Reid, Sue (February 9, 2007). "An explosion of disbelief — fresh doubts over 9/11". Daily Mail. Retrieved May 14, 2009.
  12. ^ a b Powell, Michael (September 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2009. The loose agglomeration known as the '9/11 Truth Movement'
  13. ^ Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  14. ^ "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions". Book TV on C-SPAN2. Top Nonfiction Authors Every Weekend. July 3, 2005. Retrieved May 15, 2009.
  15. ^ Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ McIlvain, Ryan (2005-12-05). "Censor rumors quelled". BYU NewsNet. Retrieved 2009-08-25.
  18. ^ Griffin, David Ray (September 10, 2006). "David Ray Griffin interview". CBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2009.
  19. ^ a b c d NIST (2006-08). "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions". Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Retrieved 2006-01-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  20. ^ Sunder, Shyam (2005). "Consideration of Public Comments" (PDF). NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  21. ^ a b Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2007-05-27). "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?" (PDF). 2007-06-22. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA. Structural Engineering Report No. 07-05/C605c. Retrieved 2007-09-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ Potocki, P. Joseph (August 27, 2008). "Down the 9-11 Rabbit Hole". Bohemian. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  23. ^ a b Eric Lipton (August 22, 2008). "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says". New York Times.
  24. ^ Pilkington, Ed (January 26, 2007). "'They're all forced to listen to us'". The Guardian. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  25. ^ Moskowitz, Eric (November 29, 2007). "Airing of 9/11 film ignites debate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  26. ^ Mark Jacobson (2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  27. ^ "CNN.com - Transcripts". Transcripts.cnn.com. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
  28. ^ "Charlie Sheen doesn't buy 9/11 spin". The Boston Herald. 2006-03-23. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  29. ^ Fox News
  30. ^ Ventura Regrets Not Being More Skeptical Over 9/11. Retrieved on April 8, 2008.
  31. ^ Dwyer, Jim (May 30, 2007). "A Notion From 9/11 Is Kept Alive". New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2009.
  32. ^ "Question VAR 29". Scripps Survey Research Center. July 6, 2006. Retrieved May 16, 2009.
  33. ^ Hargrove, Thomas (2006-08-02). "Anti-government anger spurs 9/11 conspiracy belief". Scripps Howard News Service. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  34. ^ Aaronovitch, David (April 29, 2009). "9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet". The Times.
  35. ^ "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers". NIST. September 2005. pp. liv. Retrieved 2009-04-28.
  36. ^ "NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower". NIST. September 2005. pp. xxxviii. Retrieved 2009-05-03.
  37. ^ "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust" (PDF). Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Open Chemical Physics Journal. 2008. Retrieved 2009-08-25. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  38. ^ "9/11: Science and Conspiracy". National Geographic. Retrieved 2009-09-16.
  39. ^ "NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | PBS". Pbs.org. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
  40. ^ Wilkinson, Tim (2006-01-14). "World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects". University of Sydney School of Civil Engineering. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
  41. ^ Hunt, H.E. (November 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved May 30, 2009. Many witnesses - including firemen, policemen and people who were inside the towers at the time - claim to have heard explosions below the aircraft impacts (including in basement levels) and before both the collapses and the attacks themselves.
  42. ^ Asquith, Christina (September 5, 2006). "Who really blew up the twin towers?". The Guardian. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  43. ^ Blanchard, Brent (2006). "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint" (PDF). implosionworld.com. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
  44. ^ "Seismic Spikes". Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report. Popular Mechanics. 2005. Retrieved 2008-09-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  45. ^ Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away". Time.
    • the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion
  46. ^ "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Puffs Of Dust". Popular Mechanics. March 2005. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  47. ^ Gross, John L. (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers". NIST. p. 320. Retrieved 2009-03-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  48. ^ a b c "Q&A: The Collapse of Tower 7". BBC. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
  49. ^ FEMA. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p. 4.
  50. ^ Porter, Richard. "Part of the conspiracy? (2)" March 2, 2007. The Editors, BBC.
  51. ^ The Weekend's TV: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower The Independent July 6, 2008
  52. ^ Pope, Justin (2006-08-07). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". Associated Press Online. Retrieved 2009-04-25.
  53. ^ Walch, Tad (2006-09-09). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City). Retrieved 2009-04-25.
  54. ^ a b c d "Questions and Answers about the NIST 7 WTC Investigation". NIST. 2008-08-21. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
  55. ^ "Identifying Misinformation: 9/11 Revealed?". usinfo.state.gov (as recorded by www.archive.org). 2005-09-16. Retrieved 2009-04-30.
  56. ^ a b Barber, Peter (2008-06-07). "The Truth Is Out There - Part III". Financial Times. p. 14. Retrieved 2008-08-22.
  57. ^ "NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7". NIST. November 2008. Retrieved 2009-04-25.
  58. ^ "Questions and Answers about the NIST 7 WTC Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)". NIST. Retrieved 2009-04-29.
  59. ^ "World Trade Centre building seven not destroyed by explosives, says US study". Retrieved 2009-04-24.
  60. ^ 9/11 Commission Report
  61. ^ http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm
  62. ^ Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
  63. ^ Abel, Jennifer (Jan. 29, 2008). "Theories of 9/11". Hartford Advocate. Retrieved May 25, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories&oldid=314433958"