9/11 conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted 1 edit by; Please dont revert at random. (TW))
Line 7: Line 7:
Published reports by the US [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis <ref>[[2008|As of 2008]]. However, the NIST studies did not include evaluation of the global collapses of the twin towers. The NIST investigations included only time lapsed from plane impact to the initiation of collapse (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provide-full.html). Final scientific reports by structural engineers regarding the collapse of [[WTC7#Collapse|WTC 7]] are still pending, although an [http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf progress report] and [http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf approach summary] have been published.</ref><ref name="purdue">{{cite news | title = Simulation finds 9/11 fireproofing key | last = Hermann | first = Steve | publisher = Associated Press | url = http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun20/0,4670,AttacksSimulation,00.html | accessdate = July 29, 2007}}</ref> Most U.S. government officials, mainstream journalists and independent researchers<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-06-20-fireproofing-wtc-collapse_N.htm Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings]</ref>generally accepted the conclusion that [[Al Qaeda]] is solely [[Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks|responsible for the attacks]] and the resulting destruction, and most [[civil engineer]]s generally accept the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.<ref>Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in ''Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE'', Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "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..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).</ref>
Published reports by the US [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis <ref>[[2008|As of 2008]]. However, the NIST studies did not include evaluation of the global collapses of the twin towers. The NIST investigations included only time lapsed from plane impact to the initiation of collapse (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provide-full.html). Final scientific reports by structural engineers regarding the collapse of [[WTC7#Collapse|WTC 7]] are still pending, although an [http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf progress report] and [http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf approach summary] have been published.</ref><ref name="purdue">{{cite news | title = Simulation finds 9/11 fireproofing key | last = Hermann | first = Steve | publisher = Associated Press | url = http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun20/0,4670,AttacksSimulation,00.html | accessdate = July 29, 2007}}</ref> Most U.S. government officials, mainstream journalists and independent researchers<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-06-20-fireproofing-wtc-collapse_N.htm Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings]</ref>generally accepted the conclusion that [[Al Qaeda]] is solely [[Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks|responsible for the attacks]] and the resulting destruction, and most [[civil engineer]]s generally accept the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.<ref>Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in ''Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE'', Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "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..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).</ref>
It has been established that 90% of 9/11 conpsiracy theorists are regular crack users,unemployed,suffering from severe acne,impotent,male,uneducated and spend 6 to7 hours a day masturbating over goats.
== Origins and reception ==
== Origins and reception ==

Revision as of 11:46, 23 January 2008


Many conspiracy theories have emerged that contradict the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists identify as part of the "9/11 Truth Movement," and their claims often suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge, or that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out by high-level officials in the U.S. government with the intention of stirring up the passions and winning the allegiance of the American people in order to facilitate military spending, garner support for Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, the restriction of civil liberties, and/or a program of aggressive and profitable foreign policy.

Most members of the 9/11 Truth Movement claim that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition and/or that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon; this position is debated within the 9/11 Truth Movement, with many who believe that AA Flight 77 did crash there, but that it was allowed to crash via an effective stand down of the military.[1]

Published reports by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis [2][3] Most U.S. government officials, mainstream journalists and independent researchers[4]generally accepted the conclusion that Al Qaeda is solely responsible for the attacks and the resulting destruction, and most civil engineers generally accept the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[5]

It has been established that 90% of 9/11 conpsiracy theorists are regular crack users,unemployed,suffering from severe acne,impotent,male,uneducated and spend 6 to7 hours a day masturbating over goats.

Origins and reception

Template:911tm Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a number of websites, books, and films have challenged the mainstream account of the attacks. Although mainstream media report that al-Qaeda conspired to carry out the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, 9/11 conspiracy theories assert the mainstream accounts are inaccurate or incomplete. Many groups and individuals challenging the mainstream account of events (referred to by the conspiracy theorists as the "OCT," or "Official Conspiracy Theory," a term coined by Dr. David Ray Griffin) identify as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.[6]

Initially, 9/11 conspiracy theories received little attention in the media. In an address to the United Nations on November 10, 2001, United States President George W. Bush denounced the emergence of "outrageous conspiracy theories ... that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."[7] Later, as media exposure of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11 increased, US government agencies and the Bush Administration issued responses to the theories, including a formal analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to questions about the collapse of the World Trade Center,[8] a revised 2006 State Department webpage to debunk the theories,[9] and a strategy paper referred to by President Bush in an August 2006 speech, which declared that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."[10]

A number of 9/11 opinion polls have been conducted to try and establish roughly how many people have doubts about the mainstream account, and how prevalent the conspiracy theories are. Just prior to the fifth anniversary of the attacks, mainstream news outlets released a flurry of articles on the growth of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[11] Time Magazine stated, "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."[12] Mainstream coverage generally presents these theories as a cultural phenomenon and is often critical of their content.

The mainstream account

Immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. government stated that nineteen terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes by using knives, box cutters, pepper spray and fake explosives. At 8:46 a.m. and 9:03am, Flights 11 and 175 crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, causing them to collapse soon after. 7 World Trade Center collapsed later in the day from fires started by debris from the collapse of the North Tower. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. and Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m. after the passengers stormed the cockpit. US government intelligence sources identified the hijackers and linked them to the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden, which later claimed sole responsibility for the attacks.

The two terms 'mainstream account' and 'official account' both refer to:

The 9/11 Commission Report disclosed prior warnings of varying detail that al-Qaeda would attack the United States. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administration with “failure of imagination”. Most members of the Democratic party and the Republican party endorsed the commission's report.

Some criticisms of the mainstream account focus on how the government formed and operated the 9/11 Commission, and allege omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report.

Main forms

Most 9/11 conspiracy theories generally originate from dissatisfaction with the mainstream account of 9/11.[24] The weakest form of the theory is that incompetence or negligence from U.S. personnel was covered up the official reports. Additionally, some claim that the involvement of a foreign government or organisation, other than al Qaeda, has been covered up.[25] But the most prevalent forms are "inside job" theories, which can be broadly divided into two main forms:

  • LIHOP ("let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or even actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.[26]
  • MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with, or framed al-Qaeda in carrying them out. There is a range of opinions about how this might have been achieved.[27]

Claims that US defenses were deliberately disabled

Central to many 9/11 theories alleging government involvement is the idea that the US air defense system, NORAD, was deliberately stood down or rendered ineffective. This idea usually originates with disbelief in the 9/11 Commission Report account of the actions taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NORAD and other military personnel with some noting that "FAA standard procedures (for Norad interception of off course or ceased responding aircraft) were activated on 67 occasions in the period from September 2000 to June 2001 and in 129 cases in the year 2000" but failed to do so that day. Some theorists also suggest that the war games being conducted on September 11 were deliberately planned to coincide with the attacks to create confusion. United States Representative Cynthia McKinney, economist Michel Chossudovsky, and publisher/editor Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness are a few of the individuals who have questioned these exercises.

The 9/11 Commission Report timeline of events in the FAA and NORAD contradicts the timeline released by NORAD shortly after the event. The Washington Post reported in its August 3, 2006 edition that

"For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances... Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial account of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public... Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted".[28]

Since the 9/11 Commission places the primary blame on communication failures within the FAA, Prof. David Ray Griffin, who has written several books alleging that the 9/11 conspiracy was considerably larger than the government claims, has questioned why the US military would lie to cover up the mistakes made by that agency.[29]

There were a number of war games and military exercises taking place during the attacks, including Northern Vigilance, a NORAD operation which involved deploying fighter aircraft to locations in Alaska and northern Canada to respond to a war game being conducted by Russia; Global Guardian, an annual command-level exercise organized by United States Strategic Command in cooperation with Space Command and NORAD; and Vigilant Guardian, a semiannual NORAD Command Post Exercise (CPX) (meaning it is conducted in offices and with computers, but without actual planes in the air) involving all NORAD command levels in which one scenario being run on September 11 was a simulated hijacking. Additionally, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11 in which the event a small aircraft crashing into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters, was to be simulated, and the Office of Emergency Management were preparing for Operation Tripod, a bioterrorism exercise due to take place on September 12.

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement question whether the story that such an array of war games and exercises were due to take place on that day by coincidence, is plausible.[30] Jim Hoffman and Michael Ruppert, among others, have suggested that the war games may have been specifically organised to coincide with the attacks, in order to help disable the air defence system.[31] Webster Tarpley, in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA claims that the war games were the "perfect cover for conducting the actual live fly components of 9/11 through a largely non-witting military bureaucracy. Under the cover of this confusion, the most palpably subversive actions could be made to appear in the harmless and even beneficial guise of a drill."[32]

The 9/11 Commission ignored the public testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in producing its report. He said that at around 9:20 he entered the Presidential Emergency Operation Command in the bunker underneath the White House where Dick Cheney was in command. He describes the following exchange, between Cheney and a "young man", as taking place sometime between him entering the bunker and the time the Pentagon was hit at 9:37:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?[33]

It has been suggested that the orders spoken of must have been an order to not shoot down the plane that was approaching the Pentagon on the basis that the expected action would be to shoot down the approaching plane, and the unusual nature of the order explains the young man's disbelief.[34] Although Mineta later clarified that he believed the order being discussed was indeed a shoot down order, the 9/11 Commission found that "A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania".

Advanced-knowledge debate

The issue of whether anyone outside al Qaeda were aware that the attacks were going to take place has been a subject of some debate. Among the issues debated are: whether the Bush Administration or military knew about the threat of planes being used as missiles; how much the intelligence agencies knew about al Qaeda activities inside the United States; whether the put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines, and other questionable trades, indicate foreknowledge; whether the warnings from foreign countries were specific enough to have warranted action; whether intelligence information gathered about imminent al Qaeda attacks was specific enough to have warranted action; the extent to which the alleged hijackers were under surveillance prior to the attacks; and whether agents of the Mossad or the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence were aware that the attacks were going to take place.

It has been claimed that action or inaction by U.S. officials with foreknowledge was taken to ensure that the attacks took place successfully.

World Trade Center collapse as controlled demolition

Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis believe that the collapse of the World Trade Center was due to the use of explosives. The controlled demolition hypothesis plays a central, albeit non-essential, role in the 9/11 conspiracy theories that assert that the US government is responsible for the attacks.[35]

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Report of 2002 and the later National Institute of Standards and Technology report of 2005 regarding the reconstruction of the collapse events of the Twin Towers and Seven World Trade Center both contradict the controlled demolition hypothesis in its conclusion that the available evidence shows that pre-positioned explosive charges caused the collapse of buildings 2 WTC, 1 WTC and then 7 WTC and furthermore that only such controlled demolition could have caused the collapses as observed. [36]

The Pentagon

The disputed first of the five video frames leaked in 2002 showing the Pentagon just before impact.[37][38]
The Pentagon, after collapse of the damaged section.
Aircraft debris scattered near the Pentagon.

Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something other than the Boeing 757 of Flight 77 have been raised, based on photographs taken after the attack, in which there appears to be a lack of expected debris or damage in and around the impact area, along with the FBI seizure and refusal to release nearby security camera footage which, it is assumed, would have captured the attack on video.[39][40] The first proponent of the "No Boeing" theory was Thierry Meyssan through his book 9/11: The Big Lie and website Hunt the Boeing![41]. His claims have been further popularized by the Internet videos Loose Change and "911 In Plane Site".

On March 8, 2002, following the publication of this book, five video frames captured by a security camera at the Pentagon were leaked. Only the first frame preceded the impact: this frame shows what may be an object heading for the Pentagon. Some have claimed that this object is a missile, others have suggested the image may have been tampered with; many believe that this evidence is inconclusive. On May 16, 2006, the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch's FOIA request.[42][43] However, due to a low number of frames per second, the videos are also inconclusive, thus keeping the "No Boeing" theory alive. Security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station, from a local Doubletree Hotel, and from the Virginia Department of Transportation, was swiftly confiscated by the FBI. The footage from both the gas station and the hotel were later released following successful Freedom of Information Act Requests, but neither captured the impact.[44][45][46]

Additional photographs were released in 2006 after the Zacarias Moussaoui trial and several Freedom of Information Act requests.[47] Some show large aircraft parts and human remains, but no content that could prove the location is the Pentagon at the correct time. One photo shows a rotor frequently cited as too small to be a 757's engine rotor, even with all the compressor blades ripped off. No public photos show seats, luggage, cockpit machinery, or windows.

In an interview on October 122001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to "the missile to damage [the Pentagon]".[48] Some have interpreted this as a faux pas admission that it was not Flight 77 that hit the building. Others have suggested that the word may have been carefully chosen disinformation, designed to "trap 9/11 skeptics," citing this as the real reason why photographs and video footage have not been forthcoming. Jim Hoffman states:

"Experts at psychological operations, the perpetrators could have anticipated that skeptics would divide into two groups: those persuaded by eyewitness evidence that a 757 had crashed, and those persuaded by physical evidence that one had not. The ongoing controversy could then be exploited by the perpetrators to several ends: 1) to keep the skeptics divided, 2) to divert skeptics' resources from other more productive lines of inquiry and 3) to provide a bizarre-sounding theory with which to tar the entire 9/11 Truth Movement."[49]

Hoffman and other members have produced essays examining the "No Boeing" claims and have concluded that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.[50][51] Several researchers have argued that the wings would cause less damage than the plane's main body, that photographs of large amounts of wreckage and debris matching a 757 have become available, that the appearance of the size of the hole is typically misrepresented; and that the actual fuselage diameter of 12 feet is a much more relevant dimension for the deepest parts of the hole than the overall 44-foot height of the 757's tail.[52][53] They also emphasize reports from numerous eyewitnesses, including commuters on nearby roads,[54] nearby apartment buildings,[55] and other surrounding locations. Many witnesses saw the aircraft close up as it approached the Pentagon and described it as an American Airlines Boeing 757.[56][57][58]

United Airlines Flight 93

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania as a result of an attempted cockpit invasion. Neverthelesss, there have been claims that it was actually shot down by US fighter jets.[59]

This idea is promoted by author David Ray Griffin in his book The New Pearl Harbor, who cites Paul Thompson. Thompson notes that a half-ton piece of engine was reportedly found over a mile away: the Philadelphia Daily News called this fact "intriguing" because "the heat-seeking, air-to-air Sidewinder missiles aboard an F-16 would likely target one of the Boeing 757's two large engines."[60]. Other debris from Flight 93 was found up to eight miles from the crash site, and there are also some eyewitness reports of debris falling from the sky like confetti.[61][62] However, Popular Mechanics argued that debris exploding away and landing far from the crash scene is not a unique occurrence in commercial airline accidents.[63]

Thompson also examined a number of mainstream media reports and says that fighter jets were actually much closer to Flight 93 at the time of the crash than stated in the official record.[64] He mentions witnesses who noticed a small white jet near the impact site soon after the crash.[65] However, government agencies such as the FBI assert this was a Dassault Falcon business jet asked to descend to an altitude of around 1500 ft to survey the impact.[66] Ben Sliney, who was the FAA operation manager on September 11, 2001, says no military aircraft were near Flight 93.[67] Thompson has questioned whether it is plausible that the military did not know about Flight 93 being off-course and out of contact, and suggests that his claim shows that they were aware and had sent jets to investigate and possibly shoot it down.[68]

Jim Hoffman notes a three-minute discrepancy in the cockpit voice recording immediately prior to the flight's crash.[69] The cockpit voice recorder transcripts end at 10:03 a.m., but Cleveland Air Traffic Control reported that Flight 93 went out of radar contact at 10:06 a.m., and FAA radar records also note a time of 10:06 a.m.[69] Seismologists record an impact at 10:06:05 a.m., +/- a couple of seconds.[70] Despite this, the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the crash occurred at 10:03 a.m.

Conspiracy theorists also seized on a quote by the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in which he referenced Flight 93 as "the plane they shot down over Pennsylvania." A Pentagon official later said that Rumsfeld had misspoken.[71]

Some internet videos, such as Loose Change, speculate that Flight 93 safely landed in Ohio, and a substituted plane was involved in the crash in Pennsylvania.[72] Often cited is a preliminary news report that Flight 93 landed at a Cleveland airport;[73] it was later learned that Delta Flight 1989 was the plane confused with Flight 93, and the report was retracted as inaccurate. Several websites within the 9/11 Truth Movement refute this claim, citing the wreckage at the scene, eyewitness testimony, and the difficulty of secretly substituting one plane for another.[74][75]

The President's behavior

President Bush was promoting the passage of his education plan at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida on the morning of September 11. He was already aware of the first plane impact before he entered the school, believing it to have been a "horrible accident".[76] He was sitting in a classroom reading The Pet Goat with the children when, at 9:05am, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card whispered in his ear that "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."[77] That the president chose to stay in the classroom for an additional 10 minutes, without asking for additional information from his staff, and that those staff did not volunteer any additional information or take him to a place of safety, has led to allegations that he knew that the attack was taking place and knew he was not a target.[78][79] A response is that Bush's intention was to "project strength and calm," i.e., that he did not want to cause more panic by fleeing the room, as the footage would likely have been replayed over and over on news coverage.[80]

President Bush also made statements on two separate occasions, in late 2001 and early 2002, in which he said he saw the first plane hit the World Trade Center and that he assumed it was an accident. He could not have seen the first plane hit the tower live on commercial television, since no television stations were broadcasting footage from the area when the first plane hit.[81][82] The only known footage of the first plane crashing was captured by filmmaker Jules Naudet while making a documentary about a new firefighter.[83] The video was first broadcast on CNN later in the day and was later released as the documentary film "9/11". The White House explained his remarks as "a mistaken recollection"[84] and some critics insisted that President Bush was referring to the aftermath and not the actual jetliner impact at 8:46 a.m.

Claims relating to the hijackings

Some of the events that took place on the planes prior to their impacts have been disputed.

Claims that the planes were flown into their targets by computer

Jim Hoffman and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice are among those who have said the Flight Management Computer Systems on board Flights 11, 175 and 77 could have been loaded with a preset route that guided the planes to their targets.[85] Boeing has confirmed that this is possible.[86] Hoffman claims that this is a more likely scenario than the mainstream account of the hijackings of Flights 11, 175 and 77, and also how Flight 77 performed the unusual maneuver it made on its approach to the Pentagon.[87] He notes Flight 93 appears to be an exception, citing the high distribution of phone calls from Flight 93 compared to the other three flights.[88]

Some theories suggest that, rather than having preset routes entered into the planes' on-board computers, the planes were flown by remote control. The controllers of the planes may have been on the ground or, as in the "doomsday plane" theory, in another aircraft. This theory argues that a blurry white object seen in the sky in videos of the World Trade Center, was a plane containing the remote controller of Flights 11 and 175, and that an aircraft that flew away from the Pentagon after that impact contained the remote controller of Flight 77.[89] The aircraft at the Pentagon was later identified as a E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) plane, a militarised version of a Boeing 747-200, taking part in the Global Guardian exercise.

Claims relating to the hijackers

The BBC and the Daily Telegraph reported on September 23 that some of the people named as the hijackers by the FBI were actually "alive and well".[90][91] One of them was Waleed al-Shehri, who they said they had found in Casablanca, Morocco. Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other hijackers, were all said to be living in the Middle East. On September 19, the FDIC even distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive (the Justice Department later said this was a typographical error). These reports have led to claims that the names of the hijackers may be incorrect, or that the hijacking scenarios outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report may not be the truth.

All of the reports have since been acknowledged as cases of mistaken identity by the publications involved and by other news organisations such as the New York Times.[92][93][94] The BBC said that confusion may have arisen because the FBI names were common Arabic and Islamic names.[95] In 2002, Saudi Arabia asserted that the names of the hijackers were correct.[96]

Attention has also been given to news reports that might indicate that the named hijackers were not typical Islamic extremists, nor typical suicide terrorists. For example, Mohammad Atta reportedly ate pork, drank alcohol, gambled in casinos and went to strip clubs.[97]

Claims relating to the cell phone calls

Mathematician A.K. Dewdney, based on a study conducted in Canada in 2003, suggested that the chance of successful connections for the number of cell phone calls made from the planes used in the 9/11 attacks "can only be described as infinitesimal".[98] Based on this, economist Michel Chossudovsky suggests that at least part of the 9/11 Commission Report chapter on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.[99] According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight undetermined). There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77 which American Airlines later confirmed did not have airphones fitted; only two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11. Various anomalies have been claimed relating to the nature of the phone call transcripts.[100]

Claims relating to the World Trade Center plane impacts

Some conspiracy theorists have made claims relating to the nature of the planes that were seen hitting the World Trade Center Towers. These claims range from a modification of the Boeing planes (in the form of a 'pod' on the underside), to claims that different planes were involved or that nothing hit the Towers at all ('No Boeing Theories' or 'No Plane Theories'). Many prominent members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have debunked all of these claims[101] and the majority believe that Flights 11 and 175 hit the Towers as in the mainstream account.[102][103]

One theory, being promoted by internet-only videos, asserts that this shot of the second impact, taken from a news helicopter, depicts a superimposed CGI image.

The claim that there was a "pod" of some sort on the underside of Flight 175 has been propagated by internet videos such as 911: In Plane Site, based on photographic evidence. Referring to a photograph supposedly used to support this claim, Popular MechanicsDebunking 9/11 Myths quotes Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University, who said that “the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear”.[104] Supporters allege that Popular Mechanics deliberately used a different photo that did not show the pod. Those promoting the pod theory are often referred to disparagingly as "pod people" by the truth movement.[105][106] This claim is often combined with the claim that there was an anomalous flash as the plane hit the South Tower,[107] to support the theory that a bomb was detonated on the impact place just prior to impact.

Morgan Reynolds, former Labor Department chief economist, who admits that he is the "black sheep" of the 9/11 Truth Movement,[108] believes that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could not have impacted the Towers. He has proposed that there may have been a 'plane swap' or there may have been no impacts at all, with 'video fakery' used to depict the plane crashes in news reports. The idea of computer animation being involved has been promoted by the internet-only videos 9/11 Octopus and September Clues. All such theories have been widely denounced by certain members of the 9/11 Truth Movement[109] but there is still some debate.[110][111]

Allegations of cover-up

Conspiracy theorists say they detect a pattern of behavior on the part of officials investigating the September 11 attack meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that might contradict the mainstream account.[112][113][114] They associated news stories from several different sources with that pattern.[115][116][117][118][119][120]

Cockpit flight and voice recorders

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the cockpit voice recorders (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR), or "black boxes", from Flights 11 and 175 were not recovered from the remains of the WTC attack; however, two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center say they helped federal agents find three of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners:[121][122]

"At one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three."[123]

Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, remarked that "It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders."[124]

Except for the CVR from Flight 93, the black boxes from Flights 77 and 93 were either never recovered or were said to be too damaged to yield data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.[125] In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. Some conspiracy theorists do not believe that the black boxes were damaged and that instead there has been a cover up of evidence.

In June 2007, researcher Calum Douglas, of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, presented an analysis of (allegedly) Flight 77 black box data.[126] Douglas says he obtained the data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) after issuing a petition via the Freedom of Information Act. He concludes that the approach path and altitude on the Flight Path Animation differs from the mainstream account of the path of Flight 77, yet the NTSB has apparently declined to comment.

Bin Laden tapes

A series of audio and videotapes have been released since the 9/11 attacks that have been reported to be from Osama Bin Laden. At first the speaker denied responsibility for the attacks but over the years has taken increasing responsibility for them culminating in a November 2007 videotape in which the speaker claimed sole responsibility for the attacks and denied the Taliban and the Afghan government or people had any prior knowledge of the attacks. The Central Intelligence Agency has confirmed the speaker was or was likely to be Osama Bin Laden, a view disputed by several independent studies[who?]. There is growing doubt about the authenticity of that tape in the Muslim World.[127] Steve and Paul Watson of Infowars.net claim that the organization handling the tapes is a Pentagon front and conclude that the tapes are "highly suspect."[128][129]


"Pax Americana"

In suggesting motives for the US government to have carried out the attacks, Professor David Ray Griffin claims that a global "Pax Americana" was a dream held by many members of the Bush Administration. This dream was first articulated in the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, a document that has been called "a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony"[130] and has been echoed in the writings of the neoconservatives. In his lecture, "9/11: The Myth and the Reality," Griffin states that:

"Achieving this goal (American global hegemony) would require four things.

1. One of these was getting control of the world's oil, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East, and the Bush-Cheney administration came to power with plans already made to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. A second requirement was a technological transformation of the military, in which fighting from space would become central.

3. A third requirement was an enormous increase in military spending, to pay for these new wars and for weaponizing space.

4. A fourth need was to modify the doctrine of preemptive attack, so that America would be able to attack other countries even if they posed no imminent threat.

These four elements would, moreover, require a fifth: an event that would make the American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies."[131]

Some of the most widely cited writings of the neoconservatives come from the think-tank the "Project for a New American Century". This group contained numerous members of the Bush Administration including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. A document published in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" called for increased spending in order to transform the military. It goes on to say:

"This process of transformation... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."[132][133]

In his book "The Grand Chessboard" (1997), geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration, sets out to formulate "a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy... it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America."[134] Later in the book he states that:

"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."[135]

The War on Terror is seen by many as the pretext for achieving the goals of the neoconservatives. Jim Hoffman is among those who claim that a key motive for 9/11 may have been to create a "perpetual threat", terrorism, to function in a similar way to communism during the Cold War.[136] He cites an article in the Washington Post in which Dick Cheney says of the War on Terror: "It may never end. At least, not in our lifetime."[137]

Since 9/11, the US government have introduced numerous acts of congress which, some people say, is an invasion of their civil liberties and are "in direct contradiction with the US constitution". These claims normally refer to the PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Bill, the militarisation of the police force, the nullification of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the changes in laws relating to rights of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.[138]

The New World Order

The perpetrators of the attacks are sometimes thought to be a "shadow government" controlling the White House and both major political parties. They are also said to control certain foreign governments, global corporations and the mainstream news media, and are referred to as the "New World Order". Some of the individuals believed to be working for this group are members of such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group.[139] The term itself gained popularity following its use in the early 1990s, first by President George H W Bush when he referred to his "dream of a New World Order" in his speech to congress on September 11, 1990, and second by David Rockefeller in a 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."[140]

The concept of this shadow government pre-dates 1990 and they are accused of being the same group of people who, among other things, created the Federal Reserve Act (1913), supported the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), and supported the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany, all for their own agenda. Indeed, the domestic agenda of the Bush Administration since 9/11 has been compared to that of the Nazi Party following the Reichstag Fire of 1933.[141] The World Bank and national central banks are said to be the tools of the New World Order; war generates massive profits for central banks, as government spending (hence borrowing at interest from the central banks) increases dramatically in times of war.[142]

Oil and corporate profits

Michael Ruppert, a former narcotics officer, is the creator of the alternative news organization "From the Wilderness", which reports primarily on the "Peak Oil" crisis. In his lecture "The Truth and Lies of 9/11" he asserts that the primary motive for 9/11 and subsequent wars was the need for a pretext to launch a war for the last remaining sources of oil. He also highlights the importance and value of the drug trafficking industry to the global economy, estimating it to be worth almost $600 billion to Wall Street and U.S. banks which launder the money generated by the industry. Ruppert speculates that the Afghanistan opium industry, which the Taliban had practically eliminated in 2000-2001, may have been a reason that country was chosen as the starting point for "oil wars" in the Middle East.[143]

The War on Terror, particularly the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, generates massive profits for the oil, security, weapons, insurance and defense contracting industries. Military, intelligence and security budgets have soared since 9/11. Additionally, it is alleged that drug traffickers and money launderers have benefited greatly from the invasion of Afghanistan and its opium fields. It is thought that all these factors may be significant in explaining the success of the operation and its continued cover-up.[144][145]

It has also been suggested that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center, may have benefited from the insurance payouts. Silverstein purchased a 99-year lease on the complex in July 2001. Following the attacks, he sought a $7.1billion payout, claiming that the two plane impacts were two separate attacks.[146][147] The World Trade Center also contained a large amount of asbestos that was required to be removed; some claim that the cost of carrying out this task would have been in excess of $1 billion. It has also been claimed that the office space within the building was unprofitable and the area was in need of urban renewal.

Plans for invasions

There are claims that the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was being planned before 9/11. On June 26 2001, the Indian public affairs magazine News Insight revealed plans for a joint US-Russian invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government. It reported that India and Iran would 'facilitate' the invasion.[148] The BBC reported on September 18 2001 that Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.[149] MSNBC reported on May 16 2002 that President Bush received plans to begin a worldwide war on al-Qaeda on September 9 2001, two days before the 9/11 attacks.[150]

Conspiracy theorists have questioned whether 9/11 provided the United States and the United Kingdom with a reason to launch a war they had wanted for some time, and suggest that this gives them a strong motive for either carrying out the attacks, or allowing them to take place. Tony Blair said to the Commons Liaison Committee in July 2002 that "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11"[151].

It has also been suggested that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was on President Bush's 'to-do' list from the time he was elected into office and even before. Although the pretext for the war was that Saddam was in possession of 'weapons of mass destruction,' some say that 9/11 was part of a plan to create a 'climate of fear' to win support for an invasion, followed by a long period of occupation. Paul O'Neill, George Bush's first Treasury Secretary, reported that in a meeting in January 2001, the president discussed an invasion and occupation of Iraq. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" O'Neill told CBS.[152]

Suggested historical precedents

Conspiracy theorists sometimes bring up historical examples of where a government has either overtly, or allegedly, carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks — often false flag operations. The media, such as Time Magazine, and academics often also draw parallels between events which inspired past conspiracy theories and those which inspire 9/11 conspiracy theories — such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[12] Conspiracy theorists, such as those associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement, argue that the similarities between the motives between the attacks and the examples they cite, indicate that they are both plausible and operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda.[153] Some examples which have been used include the attack on USS Maine, the Reichstag fire, the attack on Pearl Harbor (specifically, the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate), Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the "Kuwaiti incubator baby hoax".[153]

Theories involving foreign governments

There are allegations that individuals within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence may have played an important role in financing the attacks. There are also claims that other foreign intelligence agencies, such as the Israeli Mossad, had foreknowledge of the attacks, and that Saudi Arabia may have played a role in financing the attacks. The theory that such foreign individuals outside of al Qaeda were involved is often part of larger "inside job" theories, although it has been claimed that, while al Qaeda deserve most of the responsibility, the alleged role played by Pakistan, Israel or Saudi Arabia was deliberately overlooked by the official investigation for political reasons. Some 9/11 opinion polls have also found that a significant minority of the American public believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible.

Theories of Jewish involvement

Some conspiracy theories hold that Israel had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks. Other theories proposed by some right wing groups go further in claiming that Israel played a role in carrying out the attacks and that 9/11 was part of an international Zionist conspiracy. According to the Anti-Defamation League, "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have not been accepted in mainstream circles in the U.S.," but "this is not the case in the Arab and Muslim world."[154] The Anti-Defamation League has published a paper, Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, identifying the claims made and responding to them.

One of the most popular claims in these theories is that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the WTC on September 11. This was first reported on September 17 by the Lebanese Hezbollah-owned satellite television channel Al-Manar and is believed to be based on the September 12 edition of the Jerusalem Post’s claim that 4,000 Jews were missing in the WTC attack. Both turned out to be incorrect; the number of Jews who died in the attacks is variously estimated at between 270 to 400.[155][156][157][158] The lower figure tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area and partial surveys of the victims' listed religion. Five Israeli citizens died in the attack.[159]

Several websites of the 9/11 truth movement have worked to debunk the anti-Semitic claims and expose websites and individuals engaging in anti-Semitism, along with Holocaust denial.[160][161][162]

Media reaction

While discussion and coverage of these theories is mainly confined to internet chat sites and conversation, a number of mainstream news outlets around the world have covered the issue.

The Norwegian version of the July 2006 Le Monde diplomatique sparked interest when they ran, on their own initiative, a three page main story on the 9/11 attacks and summarized the various types of 9/11 conspiracy theories (which were not specifically endorsed by the newspaper, only recensed).[163] The Voltaire Network, which has changed position since the September 11 attacks and whose director, Thierry Meyssan, became a leading proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theory, explained that although the Norwegian version of Le Monde diplomatique had allowed it to translate and publish this article on its website, the mother-house, in France, categorically refused it this right, thus displaying an open debate between various national editions.[164] In December 2006, the French version published an article by Alexander Cockburn, co-editor of CounterPunch, which strongly criticized the endorsement of conspiracy theories by the US left-wing, alleging that it was a sign of "theoretical emptiness."[165][166]

An article in the September 11 2006 edition of Time Magazine comments that the major 9/11 conspiracy theories “depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses”, and enjoy continued popularity due to the fact that “the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting”. It concludes that “conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events” and constitute “an American form of national mourning.”[167]

The Daily Telegraph published an article called "The CIA couldn't have organised this..." which said "The same people who are making a mess of Iraq were never so clever or devious that they could stage a complex assault on two narrow towers of steel and glass" and "if there is a nefarious plot in all this bad planning, it is one improvised by a confederacy of dunces". This article mainly attacked Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of scientists which was, at the time, led by Professor Steven E. Jones. They said "most of them aren't scientists but instructors... at second-rate colleges".[168]

In 2006, South Park aired an episode entitled "The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" that was highly critical of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Eric Cartman, singing a song professing his belief in the theories, says at one point, "I can't base my logic on proof." At one point in the episode, a cartoon George W. Bush explains, "One fourth of America is retarded...They need to believe that everything is caused by intricate conspiracies." On several occasions in the episode, Kyle Broflovski refers to 9/11 conspiracy theories and people who believe in them as "retarded".

A major Australian newspaper "The Daily Telegraph", published an article in May 2007 that was highly critical of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[169]

The History Channel aired a documentary regarding 9/11 Conspiracy on August 20th 2007. The documentary was critical of the conspiracy theories.[170]


Critics of these alternative theories say 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). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "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."[171] Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.

Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."[172]

Scientific American,[173] Popular Mechanics,[174] and The Skeptic's Dictionary[175] have published articles that attempt to debunk various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is cousin of Michael Chertoff — current head of Homeland Security.[176] However, U.S News says no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.[177] Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.[178] Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."[179] David Ray Griffin has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory[180], and Jim Hoffman has written an article called 'popular mechanics assault on 9/11 truth." where he attacks the methods popular mechanics uses in forming their arguments. [181]

Court cases related to conspiracy theories

A number of court cases have been filed which use certain conspiracy theories as a central argument in the litigation. These qui tam cases, filed against private contractors, airlines, and the US government allege negligence, deception, or complicity in the 9/11 attacks.[182] Ellen Mariani, the widow of a 9/11 victim, filed suit in 2001 against United Airlines and President George W. Bush, seeking "the truth of what happened on Sept. 11", and claiming damages under the RICO act, and for negligence.[183][184] Former Dole chief of staff, Stanley Hilton, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 400 families of 9/11 victims, alleging that "George W. Bush allow[ed] the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 to take place, [...] in order to rally the country into a frenzy...",[185] but it was dismissed in 2004.


  1. ^ The 9/11 Stand Down
  2. ^ As of 2008. However, the NIST studies did not include evaluation of the global collapses of the twin towers. The NIST investigations included only time lapsed from plane impact to the initiation of collapse (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provide-full.html). Final scientific reports by structural engineers regarding the collapse of WTC 7 are still pending, although an progress report and approach summary have been published.
  3. ^ Hermann, Steve. "Simulation finds 9/11 fireproofing key". Associated Press. Retrieved July 29, 2007. 
  4. ^ Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings
  5. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "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..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  6. ^ Griffin, David Ray. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 156656686X. 
  7. ^ Bush, George Walker (November 10 2001). "Remarks by the President To United Nations General Assembly". White House.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions". NIST. 
  9. ^ "The Top [[September 11]] Conspiracy Theories". Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. 28 August, 2006.  Check date values in: |date= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  10. ^ "Strategy for Winning the War on Terror". White House. September 2006. 
  11. ^ Wolf, Jim (September 2, 2006). "U.S rebuts 9/11 homegrown conspiracy theories". Reuters. 
  12. ^ a b Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away". Time Magazine. 
  13. ^ "World Trade Center Building Performance Study". 
  14. ^ Meigs, James (October 13, 2006). "The Conspiracy Industry". Popular Mechanics. 
  15. ^ Behind Purdue’s computing simulation on the 2001 World Trade Center attack ZDNET June 20, 2007
  16. ^ Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings
  17. ^ "Osama claims responsibility for 9/11". Times of India. 2006-05-24. 
  18. ^ "Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11". CBC (Canada). 
  19. ^ "America's Day of Terror". BBC. 
  20. ^ "Depuis le 11-Septembre, la menace terroriste est devenue permanente". Le Monde. 
  21. ^ "Sept. 11: One Year Later". Deutsche Welle. 
  22. ^ "Bin Laden tape shown days before 9/11 anniversary". ABC. 
  23. ^ "Korean's Memories of 9/11 Still Fresh Five Years On". The Chosun Ilbo. 
  24. ^ Sales, Nancy Jo. Click Here For Conspiracy, Vanity Fair July 9, 2006
  25. ^ [1]
  26. ^ Sales, Nancy Jo. Click Here For Conspiracy, Vanity Fair July 9, 2006
  27. ^ Sales, Nancy Jo. Click Here For Conspiracy, Vanity Fair July 9, 2006
  28. ^ 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon August 2, 2006
  29. ^ David Ray Griffin. "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-page Lie". 
  30. ^ [2]
  31. ^ [3]
  32. ^ Webster Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, 3/05 [4]
  33. ^ National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States May 23, 2003
  34. ^ Dick Cheney: Cover Stories of the People in Charge 2006-12-28
  35. ^ See Michael Ruppert's, "The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11", From the Wilderness, 2003.
  36. ^ Dr. Steven E. Jones (2006, September). "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse" (PDF). Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 3.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  37. ^ Videos Released Of Plane Crashing Into Pentagon May 17, 2006
  38. ^ Pentagon releases 9/11 attack videos May 18, 2006
  39. ^ "Our Presentation from the American Scholars Symposium". Louder Then Words.  - forward to 43 minute and 06 seconds for Bob Pugh's footage of The Pentagon minutes after the attack
  40. ^ Government Responds to Flight 77 FOIA Request
  41. ^ "Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!". 
  42. ^ "FOIA request" (PDF). Judicial Watch. 
  43. ^ "Defense Department Releases Two Videos of Flight 77 Crashing Into Pentagon". Judicial Watch. 
  44. ^ "CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack". 
  45. ^ "FBI Releases New Footage of 9/11 Pentagon Attack". KWTX News. December 5, 2006. 
  46. ^ "Flight77.info's FOIA Release: Doubletree Hotel 9/11". Flight77.info/ YouTube. 
  47. ^ Government Responds to Flight 77 FOIA Request
  48. ^ "DoD News: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parada Magazine". Parade Magazine (republished by Defense Department). October 12, 2001. 
  49. ^ Jim Hoffman The Pentagon No-757-Crash Booby Trap
  50. ^ Jim Hoffman The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows March 28, 2006
  51. ^ "Pentagon missile hoax: the "no Boeing" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity". 
  52. ^ "911 Myths - Pentagon". 
  53. ^ Mikkelson, Barbara & David P. "Hunt the Boeing!" at Snopes.com: Urban Legends Reference Pages.
  54. ^ "Extensive Casualties' in Wake of Pentagon Attack". The Washington Post. September 11, 2001. 
  55. ^ Sheridan, Mary Beth (September 12, 2001). "Loud Boom, Then Flames In Hallways". The Washington Post. 
  56. ^ America Under Attack: Eyewitness Discusses Pentagon Plane Crash September 11, 2001
  57. ^ "Pentagon - Witness accounts". 
  58. ^ "- Analysis of Eyewitness Statements on 9/11 American Airlines Flight 77 Crash into the Pentagon". 
  59. ^ The Crash of Flight 93: Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Was Shot Down 2006-12-20
  60. ^ Philadelphia Daily News, November 15, 2001 (cited by David Ray Griffin in The New Pearl Harbor)
  61. ^ The Crash of Flight 93: Crashing Plane Leaves Debris Field Miles Wide 2006-05-05
  62. ^ Eyewitness Reports: Many Eyewitnesses Saw Flight 93 2006-04-16
  63. ^ Debunking The 9/11 Myths Mar. 2005
  64. ^ "Context of '(Before 10:06 a.m.)'". 
  65. ^ "Context of '(Before and After 10:06 a.m.)'". 
  66. ^ Carlin, John (2002-06-13). "Unanswered questions". The Independent. 
  67. ^ 60 Seconds: Ben Sliney October 4, 2006
  68. ^ "Was Flight 93 Shot Down?". 
  69. ^ a b The Crash of Flight 93: Crashing Plane Leaves Debris Field Miles Wide 2006-05-05
  70. ^ Kim, Won-Young and Gerald R. Baum. "Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack (pdf)" (PDF).  Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help)
  71. ^ Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash December 27, 2004
  72. ^ "Physics911 Frequently Asked Questions section". 
  73. ^ "Archived version of the story". 
  74. ^ "ERROR: 'Flight 93 Didn't Crash in Shanskville, PA'". 
  75. ^ The Crash of Flight 93: Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Was Shot Down 2006-12-20
  76. ^ [5]
  77. ^ [6]
  78. ^ George W. Bush: Cover Stories of the People in Charge 2007-07-28
  79. ^ "An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11". 
  80. ^ Achenbach, Joel. On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence." Washington Post, Saturday, June 19, 2004, Page C01.
  81. ^ President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting 2001-12-04
  82. ^ President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California 2002-01-05
  83. ^ WTC film-makers still positive 4 September, 2002
  84. ^ Paltrow, S. (2004) "Day of Crisis: Detailed Picture of U.S. Actions on Sept. 11 Remains Elusive." Wall Street Journal March 22
  85. ^ "Programmed Flight Control". 
  86. ^ "Boeing 757-200 Background Information". 
  87. ^ Jim Hoffman. "'ERROR: Pentagon Attack Maneuvers Preclude a 757'". 
  88. ^ | Title=Flight 93| Author=Jim Hoffman
  89. ^ "Doomsday plane" CNN Video
  90. ^ Hijack 'suspects' alive and well 23 September, 2001
  91. ^ Revealed: the men with stolen identities 23/09/2001 David Harrison
  92. ^ After the Attacks: Missed Cues; Saudi May Have Been Suspected in Error, Officials Say September 16, 2001
  93. ^ 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, by Steve Hermann, BBC Editor
  94. ^ Panoply of the Absurd September 08, 2003
  95. ^ 9/11 conspiracy theory, BBC News Online - The Editors
  96. ^ Saudis Arabia Admit Hijackers of Sept. 11 Attacks were Citizens February 06, 2002
  97. ^ "Strange behaviour of Mohammad Atta". 
  98. ^ "Project Achilles Report". 
  99. ^ More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls 10 August 2004
  100. ^ "Phone Call Oddities". 
  101. ^ A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories, and Letters to the Journal of 911 Studies (look under No Planes Hit Towers?)
  102. ^ "ERROR: 'A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane'". 
  103. ^ Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims%5d "9 September 2004
  104. [[#cite_ref-104|^]] [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=2 "Popular Mechanics, Debunking the 9/11 Myths"]. 
  105. [[#cite_ref-podpeople_105-0|^]] [http://www.oilempire.us/pod.html Pod People hijack the 9/11 truth movement" Check |url= value (help).  line feed character in |title= at position 24 (help); External link in |title= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  106. ^ "The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon". 
  107. ^ "911 In Plane Site, Debunking the Debunkers". 
  108. ^ "Reynolds Booted from No Plane Club Inducted into 'Dirty Liars Club'". 
  109. ^ "A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories". 
  110. ^ "A Critical Review of Eric Salter's Rebuttal". 
  111. ^ "A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories. (updated)". 
  112. ^ ""9/11 Cover-up Two-Page Summary" WantToKnow.info". 
  113. ^ ""The Coverup", 911review.com". 
  114. ^ ""9/11 Commission: The official coverup guide", 911truth.org". 
  115. ^ "Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes" CNN.com
  116. ^ "Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel" CBS News
  117. ^ "Whistleblower Complains of FBI Obstruction" FOX News
  118. ^ "9-11 Commission Funding Woes" Time.com
  119. ^ "Bush: Documents sought by 9/11 commission 'very sensitive'" CNN.com
  120. ^ "9/11 commission finishes Bush, Cheney session" MSNBC
  121. ^ "9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI". A CounterPunch Special Report - Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?. CounterPunch. 2005-12-19. Retrieved 2006-10-07. 
  122. ^ Jones, Steven E. (2006). "FAQ: Questions and Answers" (pdf). Journal Of 9/11 Studies.  External link in |publisher= (help) page 181.
  123. ^ Swanson, Gail (2003). Ground Zero, A collection of personal accounts. TRAC Team.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  124. ^ "Voice recorders could provide crucial 9/11 clues". USAToday. 
  125. ^ Families hear tape from hijacked Flight 93 April 18, 2002
  126. ^ Calum Douglas (June, 2007). "Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files". Google Video.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  127. ^ US urged to detail origin of tape Guardian December 15 2001
  128. ^ Bin Laden urges Europe to quit Afghanistan Reuters UK November 29, 2007
  129. ^ New Bin Laden "Confession" Tape: Fake Like The Rest? PrisonPlanet.com November 29, 2007
  130. ^ [Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 44]
  131. ^ [7]
  132. ^ 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' September 2000
  133. ^ The 9/11 Reichstag Fire
  134. ^ [8]
  135. ^ [9]
  136. ^ [10]
  137. ^ [11]
  138. ^ Senate Reaches "Compromise" on Habeas Corpus that Could Still Strip Guantanamo Detainees of any Trial
  139. ^ The Criminalization of the State Michel Chossudovsky 3 February 2004
  140. ^ The Criminalization of the State Michel Chossudovsky 3 February 2004
  141. ^ [12]
  142. ^ The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control Of America
  143. ^ [Michael Ruppert Lecture "The Truth & Lies of 9/11"]
  144. ^ The Motive for the 9/11 Attack 2006-12-29
  145. ^ 9/11: the American Reichstag Fire
  146. ^ The Motive for the 9/11 Attack 2006-12-29
  147. ^ Gov. Pataki, acting gov. DiFrancesco laud historic Port Authority agreement to privatize World Trade Center July 24, 2001
  148. ^ [13]
  149. ^ US 'planned to attack Taleban' (BBC)
  150. ^ [14]
  151. ^ [15]
  152. ^ "Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?". CBS News. 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-19. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11
  153. ^ a b Hoffman, Jim (2005-10-25). "Historical Precedents for 9/11/01". 9-11 Review. Retrieved 2007-12-24. 
  154. ^ "Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories." New York: Anti-Defamation League, 2003. p. 1
  155. ^ A survey of the 1,700 victims whose religion was listed found approximately 10% were Jewish indicating around 270 in total. A survey based on the last names of victims found that around 400 (15½%) were possibly Jewish. A survey of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who had public memorials (out of the 658 who died) found 49 were Jewish (12½%). According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, New York State's population was 9% Jewish. Sixty-four percent of the WTC victims lived in New York State.
  156. ^ The Mitzvah To Remember (09/05/2002) Gary Rosenblatt, August 3, 2007
  157. ^ The Resuscitation of Anti-Semitism: An American Perspective: An Interview with Abraham Foxman 1 October 2003
  158. ^ The 4,000 Jews Rumor: Rumor surrounding Sept. 11th proved untrue January 2005
  159. ^ Cashman, Greer Fay (2002-09-12). "Five Israeli victims remembered in capital". The Jerusalem Post. The Jerusalem Post. p. 3. Retrieved 2006-10-17. 
  160. ^ "Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth". 
  161. ^ ""No Planes and No Gas Chambers"". 
  162. ^ "Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth". 
  163. ^ 11.September - an innsidde jobb?, Norwegian edition of Le Monde diplomatique, July 2006. See also English translation: Kim Bredesen, Was 9/11 an inside job? and other links
  164. ^ * (in French) Pour le Monde diplomatique norvégien, le 11 septembre est un complot intérieur US, Voltaire Network * (in Spanish) El 11 de septiembre fue un complot interno estadounidense, estima la prensa noruega
  165. ^ *(in English) Distractions from awful reality - US: the conspiracy that wasn’t, by Alexander Cockburn in Le Monde diplomatique, December 2006 *(in French)Scepticisme ou occultisme? Le complot du 11-Septembre n’aura pas lieu, by Alexander Cockburn in Le Monde diplomatique, December 2006 *Template:Ir icon Iranian translation *(in Portuguese) PODERES IMAGINÁRIOS - A "conspiração" das Torres Gêmeas
  166. ^ Debunking the Myths of 9/11, by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch, November 28, 2006
  167. ^ Grossman, Lev. (2006) Time.com – Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
  168. ^ The CIA couldn't have organised this... 08/09/2006
  169. ^ The Daily Telegraph "Virgin's 9/11 Farce"[16]
  170. ^ The History Channel "9/11 Fact or Fiction"[17]
  171. ^ Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09. 
  172. ^ Shermer, Michael (2005). "Fahrenheit 2777". Skeptic. Scientific American, Inc. Retrieved 2006-10-13. 
  173. ^ Shermer, Michael (June, 2005). "Fahrenheit 2777, 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories". Scientific American.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  174. ^ "Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story". Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  175. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd (March 30, 2006). "Mass Media Bunk - 9/11 conspiracies: the war on critical thinking". The Skeptic's Dictionary. 
  176. ^ Bollyn, Christopher (March 4, 2005). "9/11 and Chertoff". Associated Free Press. 
  177. ^ Sullivan, Will (September 3, 2006). "Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll". Us News. 
  178. ^ "Debunking The 9/11 Myths blog". Popular Mechanics. 
  179. ^ Cziesche, Dominik, Jürgen Dahlkamp, Ulrich Fichtner, Ulrich Jaeger, Gunther Latsch, Gisela Leske, and Max F. Ruppert (September 8, 2003). "Panoply of the Absurd". Der Spiegel. 
  180. ^ Griffin, David Ray. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 978-1566566865. 
  181. ^ http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
  182. ^ "Madness or truth?". Victoria Advocate. 2006-03-08. 
  183. ^ Slobodzian, Joseph (2003-09-23). "Sept. 11 Widow Sues President Bush, Alleges Airport Security Negligence.". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 
  184. ^ Ramer, Holly (2001-12-21). "Sept. 11 widow sues United Airlines". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-12-23. 
  185. ^ Newlin, Ethan (2004-09-22). "You haven't seen a 9/11 conspiracy theory like this". Iowa State Daily. 


  • Begin, Jeremy (2007). Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs). Trine Day Press. ISBN 978-0-9777953-3-8. 
  • Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23805-2. 
  • Broeckers, Mathias (2006). Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, and the Secrets of 9/11. Progressive Press. ISBN 0930852230. 
  • Divided We Stand: A Biography of New York's World Trade Center. 
  • Griffin, David Ray (2007). Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1566566865 Check |isbn= value: checksum (help). 
  • Griffin, David Ray (2006). 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1566566592. 
  • Griffin, David (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1566565847. 
  • Laurent, Eric (2004). La face cachée du 11 septembre. Plon. ISBN 2-259-20030-3. 
  • Marrs, Jim (2006). The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty. Disinformation Company. ISBN 1932857435. 
  • Morgan, Rowland. 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Paul, Don. Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City. ISBN 0-943096-10-3.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Ruppert, Michael. Crossing the Rubicon. 
  • Ridgeway, James. The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11. 
  • Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. 
  • Williams, Eric D. (2006). 9/11 101: 101 Key Points that Everyone Should Know and Consider that Prove 9/11 Was an Inside Job. Booksurge Publishing. ISBN 1419624288. 
  • Wright, Lawrence (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Knopf. ISBN 037541486X. 

External links

Supporting conspiracy theories




Opposing conspiracy theories

Official documents