Jump to content

9/11 conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Santa Sangre (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 21 July 2006 (→‎Media Reaction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|June 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.
 Template:Sep11 A number of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding September 11th and assert the existence of a cover-up in the investigation.

Origins

File:CNN911scrn.jpg
CNN broadcast of September 11 destruction when the second plane struck the south tower of the WTC.

Before the United States retaliation began for the attacks, books and Web sites surfaced promulgating alternative theories about 9/11. While alternative hypotheses are often described as conspiracy theories, there are individuals, groups and organizations who say the official story of events can likewise be referred to as a conspiracy theory.

Main categorizations

These theorists hold a wide variety of views, rather than sharing one opinion. The common trait they do share is the belief that at least one, if not all, of the official accounts for September 11th are wrong.

According to Nick Levis, of 911truth.org, the range of views on 9/11 can be categorized into four types[1]:

*The Official Story:(also known as "The Official Conspiracy Theory") The received Bushian line: Osama, nineteen freedom-haters with box cutters, etc. As White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, there was "no warning."

  • The Incompetence Theory: A variation of the Official Story, this adds failure on behalf of the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. to heed ample warnings. This line was advanced in The 9/11 Commission Report.
  • LIHOP ("Let It Happen on Purpose"): Primarily suggests that elements of the U.S. government and the private sector were aware of the hijackers' plans and, recognizing that 9/11 suited their policy goals, did nothing to stop it.
  • MIHOP ("Made It Happen on Purpose"): The U.S. government, elements within the U.S. government, another entity or entities, or foreign governments, possibly assisted by private forces, planned and executed the attacks.

Government foreknowledge

File:WTC1 on fire.jpg
The World Trade Center on fire. The plume of smoke escaping the Twin Towers is seen for miles.

One theory is that individuals within the United States government and private sector knew of the impending attacks and purposefully did not act on that knowledge. Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher suggested this possibility.[2] The theory does not necessarily suggest that individuals within the US Government actually conducted the operation, but rather that they had enough information to have prevented the attack.

Intelligence issues

Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan. "Interview with David Schippers". Alex Jones Infowars.com. Retrieved 2006-05-02.

  • According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers, Ashcroft responded that they do not start investigations at the top.
  • Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.[3]
  • Author William Norman Grigg furthered the Schippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."[4]

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. (Able Danger was a SOCOM exercise.)

  • The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI, but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00, 8/9/2005)
  • Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks. [5]
  • FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid 2001 after an undisclosed source leaked information to the New York Times about an investigation into an incident that had occurred 13 months earlier. He was then recruited to be chief of security at the World Trade Center. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble. [6]

Possible early warning

  • On September 12, 2001, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that San Franscisco Mayor Willie Brown may have gotten an early warning of the attack, because Brown had said a phone call from his airport security eight hours before the attacks advised him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. He did not cancel his flight plans until he became aware of the attacks.[7]
  • Of the call, Brown said it "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement. It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."[1]

Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge

News accounts in the aftermath reported a suspicious pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines [2]as well as Morgan Stanley and [3]and other unusual market activity [4].

"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account." [5]

However, according to the 9/11 Commission, the SEC and FBI examined each trade, the trades were innocuous, and no evidence of a connection was found:

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades (page 51 of the Commission Report, PDF).

World Trade Center towers

See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center

Some alternative theories of the collapse of the Twin Towers propose that planted explosives brought down the structures. Much of the support for this claim comes from interpretations of videos and photographs. Several eyewitnesses also reported seeing, hearing and feeling multiple explosions, and explosions in sequence. Many researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have highlighted the following as evidence for the theory that planted explosives brought down the WTC towers:

Controlled-demolition theory

The NIST report did not analyze the actual pattern of the WTC's collapse; the scope of the investigations was limited to the events leading up to the collapse: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. [This report] includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."[8] The FEMA report, some say, also did not analyze the actual pattern of the collapse. (For further information on these reports, see 'Government Inquiry' below)

Skeptics of the progressive collapse theory, however, say that there is ample evidence to at least suggest that the towers did not collapse due solely to gravity. Jim Hoffman, a researcher and software engineer, suggests that the telltale signs of the controlled demolition of the WTC are:[9]

  • Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetrically in all directions.
  • Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free fall in a vacuum.
  • Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
  • Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
  • Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
  • Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
  • Molten metal: A stream of liquid metal was videotaped[8] flowing out of the corner of WTC2 moments before collapse, and eyewitnesses observed and reported pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles.

Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, with no engineering credentials, and Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer at Clemson University, whose expertise is "Nonlinear Mechanical Properties of Dentin", say that without the use of explosives, the fall of the towers violates conservation of momentum.[10] In addition, Dr. Jones says the angular momentum of the top of the South Tower as it began to collapse could not simply disappear, unless the center of mass of the top was somehow shattered and destroyed.[11] In addition, he says that the rapid descent of the towers at near free-fall speeds indicates that the undamaged central core below the collapse lost its structural integrity almost instantly and provided almost no resistance whatsoever to the falling debris. According to Jones, official theorists have explained this near free-fall collapse either by the "pancake" theory, in which multiple falling floors progressively collapse on top of one another, or by the "piledriver" theory, in which the kinetic energy of the falling tower is simply too great and the steel columns below the impact simply shatter without resistance.[12]

Molten metal

In addition to the characteristics of the collapse, eyewitnesses reported pools of molten metal in the rubble of WTC 1, 2 and 7 for several weeks after the collapse.[13] According to reports by FEMA[9] and NIST,[10] molten metal (visible on video [14]) dripped out of the South Tower just before it collapsed. Having analyzed the color of the molten metal, which is an indicator of its temperature, Dr. Jones believes the metal was at least 1000°C. Adherents of the official theory say the molten metal may simply be aluminum from the aircraft, which melts at about 650°C. Dr. Jones rejects this theory since molten aluminum is a poor emitter of black body radiation and thus molten aluminum appears silvery-gray under daylight conditions.[15] (The metal in the video is bright yellow.) According to Jones, the presence of molten metal at 1000°C would contradict the official story, which says that fires in the buildings reached temperatures high enough to weaken the steel, but not to melt it.

In addition to the molten metal, the initial FEMA investigation team did find unusual sulfide on parts on the structural steel in the towers and WTC 7.[11] FEMA was unable to find the source of sulfer, and the NIST report does not mention it. Researchers including Steven Jones believe this sulfide may have been caused by the use of a thermite reaction to melt and destroy the steel within the structure.

Thermite reactions can reach temperatures of up to 4500°F (2500°C), well beyond the temperature (approximately 1500°C) high enough to melt the steel within buildings, and with the addition of sulfur can cause an eutectic reaction within such steel.[16] Such a eutectic reaction was observed at WTC and according to professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. was "capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."[12] Thermite would also explain the presence of the aforementioned molten metal seen dripping out of the South Tower. Dr. Jones believes this metal is actually molten iron, a byproduct of the thermite reaction.[13]

Symmetry and alleged squibs

WTC 1, 2, and 7 also fell straight down, with remarkable symmetry, according to researchers. Without explosives, they say, this symmetry would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Collapse theorists also point to photographs and videos of what they believe are demolition "squibs", which are tightly focused horizontal plumes of smoke and debris being ejected from the twin towers during the collapse. Official theorists propose that the squibs were merely the ejection of material due to the evacuation of air as the floors collapsed; the plumes, however, appear approximately 10 stories below the area of main destruction and are ejected only from the centers of the towers.[17] These plumes appear in both towers, at regular intervals, and from multiple camera angles. Researchers say the presence of these squibs indicate secondary explosive devices, activated just ahead of the collapsing material, removing the structural support and allowing total collpase. It is also believed that squibs were seen in the destruction of WTC 7, running rapidly up the Southwest corner of the building[18]. Similarly, while a possible theory is that the WTC 7 squibs simply result from the floors collapsing, the time between the events is much too rapid to be due to gravitational acceleration.[19]

Alleged demolition waves

As evidence of controlled demolition, conspiracy theorists point to the use of words such as "bomb" or "explosion" by witnesses (including firefighters) to describe various events before the collapse of the towers. They also cite testimony from witnesses who specifically describe seeing explosions or the result of explosions before the planes hit the towers, during the evacuation, and immediately prior to the collapse of the towers.[20][21]

Some 9/11 theorists also allege that no study has been done to ascertain the presence of explosive residues in Ground Zero or the released dust, though many environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including a study by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue.[22] [23].

Pulverization

Software engineer Jim Hoffman suggests that gravity alone exerts too little energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, or to explain the pyroclastic cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions[24].

Comparison to other buildings struck by fire

Furthermore, theorists allege the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are anomalies, since no steel hi-rise building has suffered a total collapse as the result of fire before or since the 9-11 attack. The WTC towers burned for less than 102 min (WTC 1) and 56 minutes (WTC 2), during which both towers were stable after the impacts. Theorists consider the following hi-rise fires to be the most similar for comparative purposes: [25]

  • the "Torre Este de Parque Central" (Central Park's East Tower) (2004) (Caracas - Venezuela) - burned for more than 17 hours, spread to over 26 floors.
  • One Meridian Plaza (1991) - burned for 18 hours, gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building.
  • First Interstate Bank (1988) - burned for 3 1/2 hours, gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower.
  • 1 New York Plaza (1970) - burned for more than 6 hours.
  • The Madrid Windsor Tower (2005) - a partial collapse of building began with the steel sections of the structure after slightly more than 90 minutes [26], [27], while the concrete framework prevented a complete collapse [28].

Theorists say these fires are particularly relevant to WTC7, which was not struck by planes and which suffered damage only from fires and falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

However, the Caracas Tower, First Interstate Bank [29] and 1 New York Plaza were constructed using the conventional steel girder system consisting of a grid of steel columns and trusses connecting the columns. The Windsor Tower was constructed with concrete columns and a concrete core for the first 16 floors, steel girder and concrete core for the floors above that, and two additional concrete slabs to provide additional strength [30], [31]. Unlike those buildings, WTC 1 and WTC 2 were constructed using a "steel perimeter frame-tube system". The load of the building was carried by steel beams in the central core and by perimeter columns on the exterior of the building. The core was connected to the perimeter columns via steel trusses. Except for the core, the floors were open space unobstructed by columns. Supporters of the official theory say that significant damage to the exterior of the building, to the trusses, or to both could and did cause a total failure of the system.

File:H2705.jpg
The corner of Ronan Point collapses following a gas explosion on the 18th floor.

Researchers have also compared the WTC collapses to the Ronan Point disaster [32], in which one corner of Ronan Point collapsed after a gas explosion [33]. Although Ronan Point was found to be structurally unsound (unsafe) [34] [35], the building did not totally collapse.

Government inquiry

Following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three year $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures. [36] The study included in-house technical expertise and drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions for aid to include:

  • Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
  • Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
  • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
  • American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
  • Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)
  • Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)

Opponents of the demolition theory cite this government report which presented evidence on how and why the buildings collapsed. The report also noted that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."[37] Though this report said there was no such evidence, professor Steven E. Jones (See individual viewpoints below), as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis. [38]

  • The FEMA and NIST reports have yet to resolve all disagreements among engineers. Although not advocating the theory that a controlled demolition occurred, New Civil Engineer published several articles regarding the collapse. One such article, Row Erupts Over Why Twin Towers Collapsed, cites one party claiming "the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact". Another quote from the same article states, "World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers…Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.” Additional articles on the subject can be found here.
  • In addition to the above articles, other theorists continue to point out critical aspects of the NIST report in the engineering community. In 2005 fire engineers B. Lane and S. Lamont stated: "This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. There is no evidence in NIST's preliminary report that this is backed up by structural modeling in response to fire. It appears that only heat transfer modeling considering different levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and stiffness only. Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described as yet." [39]

Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the institute’s Trade Center report, recently addressed many of the issues 9-11 conspiracy theorists have with the study. Dr. Sunder replied, "Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.” [40]

The debris

File:Wtcdebris.jpg
A section of fuselage rests in the ruins of the World Trade Center.

In addition to the observation of the collapse, theorists draw upon the remnants of the collapse of the World Trade Center. Opponents of the official story cite the following in support of the controlled demolition theory.

The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse. [41]

  • This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives. Several observers in and around the debris field utilized phrases containing the words “molten metal” or “molten steel” to describe the devastation. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done. The following are some of the more common statements seen:
  • The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers in a second hand account by James Williams who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
File:Lobby damage and cloud.jpg
The lobby of one of the towers was partially destroyed (broken windows and marble panels) and a dust cloud can be seen rising from the ground during the moments of collapse.
  • Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, stated in the Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." [42]
  • Obtaining a conclusive answer to these molten metal reports is difficult because of the lack of debris remaining. While NASA's satellite images of Ground Zero do show large hot spots well after 9/11, they do not provide an exact measure of temperatures within the rubble pile since this type of remote sensing captures only the temperatures on the surface of a debris pile. [43] Independent scientific investigation into what sort of metal, if any, was liquefied has yet to be conducted.

Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft (10 m) long and large sections of steel destined for recycling were quickly sent to areas in SE Asia.

  • This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence.
  • The longest beam surrounding the towers was no greater than 38 feet. [44]
  • It took more than eight months to remove all of the debris from Ground Zero. [45]
  • Furthermore, Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, responded to this notion and the evaluation of evidence, "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples." [46] NIST has numerous sections of steel from both Towers as well as WTC 7. (Images of the debris sorting.)

The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack.

Individuals questioning aspects of the collapse

The following individuals have expressed scepticism or doubt regarding the official theory:

  • In a research report, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones writes, "The 'explosive demolition' hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated." ("Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones)
  • In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. [47] That fact should be of a great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention of the steel failing at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." UL is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. Kevin Ryan was subsequently fired from his job. [48]
  • Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, a major authority on explosions' effects on buildings, has said, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." Romero has since retracted his belief, later stating, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001).
  • Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the common account in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."
  • In The New Pearl Harbor, former theology and philosophy Professor David Ray Griffin presents a litany of observations he says are consistent with controlled demolition, including sudden onset, straight down symmetry, pulverization, horizontal ejection, dust clouds, squibs, and molten metal. He says that since WTC 2 collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower, the mechanism of collapse is questionable. Additionally, he argues the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, suggesting less fuel would have burned in the central support area.
  • On June 13, 2005, the Washington Times reported that former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the common account of the WTC collapse is "bogus" and suggests a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. He also questioned the involvement of commercial jets stating that "North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767." [49]
  • Jimmy Walter, who believes that 9/11 was the work of a government conspiracy and has run ads in New York requesting that the investigation into 9/11 be reopened- suggests that, "[the] aircraft were robot planes; the passengers were mainly military contractors; the aircraft were only 10 to 25 per cent full, while all other planes that day were booked out."[50][51]
  • Recently, actor Charlie Sheen gave an interview on GGN Radio Network's "The Alex Jones Show," in which he suggested that the federal government was covering up what "really" happened. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with boxcutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions," Sheen said. He also expressed disbelief over how American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and said the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like a "controlled demolition."[14]

Structural and civil engineering research

While the above individuals have supplied fuel for the demolition theory, the mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. The jet crashes and fires have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community. [52] The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to initiate collapse. [53].

The following are a few examples of the structural engineering research done on the collapse:

  • According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle.
  • Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down. [54][55]
  • Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure. [56]
  • Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash, because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."[57]
  • Although some note that there is a large difference between the Boeing 707, which was popular when the WTC was built, and the Boeing 767s that hit the WTC, others describe the details which show this point to be irrelevant. While the 707 weighs around 330,000 [15] pounds including fuel, the Boeing 767 is about 20 % heavier; however the fuel capacity is about the same for both aircraft. Still, the significant differences in cruise speeds suggests that a 707 in would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.[58]
  • Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center. [59] Robertson notes, “It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”
  • Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated. [60]

Critics of the demolition theory also point out the in-depth planning, preparation, and production involved in a controlled demolition. This labor-intensive task leaves clear signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers. [61]

7 World Trade Center

File:WTC7.jpg
Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume along the South face of WTC 7, looking from the World Financial Plaza.

7 World Trade Center was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the WTC complex. It was not hit by any plane and collapsed at approximately 5:20 p.m. EDT on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. According to experts, no building like WTC7, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.[16]

The official report of the 9/11 Commission does not address the collapse of WTC7. The FEMA report says that its proposed explanation of the collapse of WTC7 has only a small probability of being correct. NIST has several times postponed the issue date of its report on the collapse of WTC7. Some 9/11 researchers say these examples show that an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 is quite difficult, unless controlled demolition is introduced to explain it.

9/11 researchers have proposed the idea Building Seven collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. Support for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances, and the reports of molten & partly evaporated steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. The building came down in just under seven seconds.

Early tests conducted on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators from NIST stated[62] Building Seven was not struck by an aircraft nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. [63] The official working hypothesis is that Building 7 collapsed as the result of structural damage from the collapsing Towers in addition to prolonged fires throughout sustained by fuel stored for emergency generators. Further discussion of the intensity and severity of the fires is mentioned below. Engineers refer to this type of destruction as a "progressive collapse."

A kink or crimp near the center of the building is identical in appearance to many that have occurred when implosion professionals have made buildings collapse inwards to minimize damage of the surrounding structures.

  • This observation appears to support the demolition idea which suggests that a carefully calculated fall took place. The collapse was not as tidy as sometimes thought; the building just to the north of WTC 7 took considerable damage during its collapse. [64]

The damage and fire

According to the controlled demolition theory, among the primary questions unanswered by the official theory regarding Building Seven are the severity of both the damage and the fire. The controlled demolition theorists maintain neither were severe enough to initiate a collapse. Dr. Steven E. Jones, a proponent of the controlled demolition theory, stated on Building Seven:

"The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires."[65]

Dr. Jones also points to concluding notes in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."[66]

Opponents to the controlled demolition theory recognize testimony provided by firefighters and EMT personnel about the severity of the damage to WTC 7. Firefighters used transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure and were surprised to discover that it was, in fact, moving. [67] A collapse zone was set up at that time, and WTC 7 collapsed about an hour and a half later at 5:20 p.m..

  • New York Fire Department personnel on the scene described the damage inflicted to the south face of WTC 7. Several statements were given by firefighters and other first responders emphasizing the critical condition of Building Seven. [68]

The FEMA report provides a timeline of the collapse and photographs of the major events leading up to it. Mechanical penthouses are shown to have collapsed in succession during a 30-second window before the building itself collapsed. The east mechanical penthouse is shown to collapse first. Photographs also show a visible "kink" in the east side of the roofline as the building fell.

The release of NIST's final report on its investigation into the structural failures of World Trade Center Seven has been twice postponed and is scheduled for release sometime in 2006. [69] In a New York Magazine interview in March 2006[70], Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said that NIST has "had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." In draft copies of the report, NIST states that it has "seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."

The Silverstein statement

File:Debris.JPG
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1 located between WTC 7 (left) and the Verizon building (right).

Within the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for Building Seven and insurance policy holder for the WTC Complex, recalled the collapse of WTC7:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse. [71]

Many critics of the official theory have said that the term "pull" is industry jargon for planned demolition and that Silverstein's remark exposes his assent to demolishing the building. [72]

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later explained:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

McQuillan said that by "it" Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

Researcher Jim Hoffman disputes the assertion that "pull" is industry jargon. A Google search, he says, fails to uphold the assertion. For this and other reasons, he says, the case built from Mr. Silverstein's statement is "extremely weak." He concludes: "While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for demolition based on the physical characteristics of the collapse. . ." [73]

Pentagon

File:757engine.jpg
Boeing 757 engine with humans for size comparison.
Security camera image showing American Airlines Flight 77 (far right) just before impact.
American Airlines Boeing 757

Some dispute the claim that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something significantly smaller than a Boeing 757 (most commonly a missile) have been raised based on photographs in which there is a lack of debris or pieces of a commercial aircraft within the immediate impact area, and a lack of damage to the building or the lawn, often in the context of larger conspiracy theories of US government culpability. Some say that no physical mechanism is known by which the impact of a 100 tonne, 114 foot wide, 44 foot high Boeing 757 could have caused the observed damage to the building (such as the 54 foot wide impact zone or 27 foot diameter exit hole). Those who believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 point to security camera footage[74][75] from a nearby Citgo gas station and from the Virginia Department of Transportation that were confiscated by the federal government, as well as dramatic contradictions between the accounts of different witnesses of the attack. The security camera footage has also been requested as part of Judicial Watch's FOIA request. [17], in addition to the video footage released by the Department of Defense on May 16, 2006.

On the morning of 9/11, 50 minutes before Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, the National Reconnaissance Office, who are responsible for operating US reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles from Dulles airport[18]. At 9:25 an order had been issued by the Federal Aviation Agency grounding all aircraft, including military and law enforcement aircraft[19]. Conspiracy theorists suggest that this might have been done to thwart any attempts to prevent the attack on the Pentagon or identify the flying object as something other than Flight 77.[citation needed]

Questions about war games on the morning of 9/11

Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 assert that government and military exercises point to a cover-up. There were a number of drills being performed on the morning of 9-11. US Rep. 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 following war games and training events were being conducted by USAF, NORAD, CIA, NRO, FAA and FEMA: [76] [77]

  • Northern Vigilance: a yearly Air Force drill simulating a Russian attack, in which defense aircraft normally patrolling the Northeast are re-deployed to Canada and Alaska.
  • Vigilant Guardian: a NORAD exercise posing an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide with a simulated air war and an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States.
  • National Reconnaissance Office emergency response drill of a small aircraft crashing into its own headquarters.
  • Tripod II, a FEMA drill simulating a biowarfare attack in New York City, was to take place on September 12th. FEMA set up a command post for this exercise at Pier 29 on September 10th.

It is theorized that with these multiple training scenarios being carried out that NORAD, FAA and other military personnel would have been confused in the event of a real attack. McKinney has twice questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about these 9/11 war games during his testimony before Congress. [78]

The President's behavior

File:BushTold11th.jpg
Chief of Staff Andrew Card informs President Bush of a second airplane crash into the World Trade Center.

President Bush was promoting the passage of his education plan at Emma E. Booker Elementary School on the morning of September 11th.

Allan Wood and Paul Thompson have questioned the President's behavior after being told that the nation was under attack[79]. They think it's likely that he would have been taken to safety at once, presuming that he too would be a possible target of a terrorist attack. He remained in the classroom for another 5 minutes. Some have cited this as an indication that his security staff was informed in advance about the specifics of the attacks, and was therefore not worried about the President's safety.[citation needed]

Did George W. Bush see the first plane hit?

In response to a question by a child, George Bush responded that he saw a plane hit the tower on TV prior to entering the classroom where he was notified of the attacks. Some have pointed out that George Bush could not have seen the first plane hit the tower live on television, as it was a surprise attack and no television station was covering that area when the first plane hit. This quote has made some suggest that George Bush has access to footage the general public does not, especially about the September 11th attacks.[80], [81]. A White House spokesperson said that the president's comment was "just a mistaken recollection" [20].

See also the morning of September 11th.

Other points of interest

  • US Representative Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing on July 23, 2005, into "what warnings the Bush administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." Panelist and former CIA official Melvin Goodman was quoted as saying "Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian and I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom." Many 9/11 researchers testified at the hearing, including Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, Wayne Madsen and several others. [82]
  • In an August 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by 911truth.org, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall believe the US Government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." [83]
  • In a May 2006 Zogby International poll commissioned by 911truth.org, 44% of Americans believe Bush exploited the Sept. 11th attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq; 42% of Americans believe the US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up certain events of 9/11; 43% of Americans are not aware that WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11; 45% of Americans believe "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success"; 45% of Americans believe the US's media are doing a negative job, "including their coverage of victim families' unanswered questions" [84]
  • Between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother was a principal in a company that provided security for both The World Trade Center and United Airlines. According to an article by David Ray Griffin "from 1999 to January of 2002 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO "[85] . According to its president CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down". This last statement has been used by some conspiracy theorists to say that the contract "expired" on September 11, 2001. Barbara Bush allegedly confirmed this theory in her book Reflections (ISBN 0743223594) also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired. However, no specific quote is provided to support this allegation, and a search for the words "contract" or "expired" yields no results. Mr. Bush was also a former director and now is an advisor to the board of directors to a firm HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc that had what it called a small participation in the World Trade Center property insurance coverage and some of the surrounding buildings. [86] Marvin Bush was on a subway under Wall Street when the attacks happened. [87]
  • Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a letter to President Bush said, “September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?” He also wrote, “Some believe that the hype paved the way-- and was the justification-- for an attack on Afghanistan”[88][89].
  • Although it had distanced itself from their brother and former company employee, The Saudi Binladin Group's corporate website, [90], expired on September 11, 2001, the same day as the attacks in the United States. Several websites cited in this article use this fact to suggest foreknowledge of the attacks.
  • George W. Bush's father, former President George Herbert Walker Bush, was at one time head of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is highly distrusted by conspiracy theorists (particularly those of the opposing political party to the one in power at any given time).

Claims that some of the supposed hijackers are still alive

Initial news reports shortly after 9/11 indicated that some of the supposed hijackers were alive, fueling speculation that others were responsible [91].

The BBC News reported on September 23, 2001, that some of the people named by the FBI as hijackers, killed on the crashes, were actually alive and well.

One of the supposed hijackers was Waleed al-Shehri, and he was supposedly found in Casablanca, Morocco.

  • However, the al-Shehri's father says he hadn't heard from his sons in ten months prior to September 2001.[92] An ABC News story in March 2002 repeated this, and during a report entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC on Aug 25, 2002, NBC's reporter John Hockenberry traveled to 'Asir, where he interviewed the third brother Salah who agreed that his two brothers were dead and claimed they had been "brainwashed".
  • Furthermore, another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.[93]

Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other supposed hijackers, were also supposedly reported to be living in the Middle East.

  • A man with the same name as Abdulaziz Al Omari turned up alive in Saudi Arabia, saying that he had studied at the University of Denver and his passport was stolen there in 1995. The name, origin, birth date, and occupation were released by the FBI, but the picture was not of him. "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list", he said. "They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." [94][95][96] This individual was not the same person as the hijacker whose identity was later confirmed by Saudi government interviews with his family, according to the 9/11 Commission Report.[citation needed]
  • On 23 September, 2001, the BBC and The Telegraph [97] reported that a person named Saeed al-Ghamdi was alive and well. His name, birth date, origin, and occupation were the same as those released by the FBI, but his picture was different. He says that he studied flight training in Florida flight schools from 1998 to 2001. The journalist involved with the story later admitted "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time."[98]
  • After the attacks, reports began emerging saying that al-Mihdhar was still alive. On September 19, the FDIC distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive. The Justice Department says that this was a typo.[99][100]

The BBC and The Guardian have since reported that there was evidence al-Mihdhar was still alive and that some of the other hijackers identities were in doubt. This was commented on by FBI director Robert Mueller.[101]

Motives

Theories as to why members of the U. S. government would have allowed the attacks to occur, perpetrated the attacks, and/or obstructed the investigation generally involve one or more of the following:

  • Michel Chossudovsky in an article entitled "The Criminalization of the State" suggests a simple motive in a plan for a New World Order. This particular theory takes root in a David Rockefeller Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994: We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. [102]
  • An article on whatreallyhappened.com entitled "The 9/11 Reichstag Fire" suggests that the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) may have been responsible.[103] It cites as evidence a statement from page 51 of a document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by PNAC: Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.[104]
  • The Web site OilEmpire.us proposed that 9/11 was arranged by the U.S. government in order to benefit the arms manufacturing and oil industries [105].
  • The Web site 9-11 Review listed several other benefits of the attacks as possible motives, including Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and President Bush's surge in popularity, Halliburton's defense contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a $3.6 billion insurance payout to the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein [106].
  • The controversy regarding the 2000 Presidential Election threatened to permanently scar Bush's approval rating and continue to pose a risk to his claim to the Presidency. The best way to get the American public to rally behind a Republican President was to confront the American people with a foreign threat force (Republicans are considered to be more effective in combative situations against foreign belligerence).

Of the increasing instances in which 9/11 conspiracy theories have been discussed in the mainstream media, two instances occurred in 2004 involving Howard Dean and Michael Moore. Howard Dean, who was then the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President stated that he had heard of some people theorizing that the Saudi Royal family were behind the attacks. Though he made the comments somewhat sympathetically, he did state that this was not his personal belief. Later, he would also comment that he believed Osama Bin Laden needed to be "proven guilty" in a court of law, a remark some saw as a subtle indication Dean did not presently believe Osama's guilt was self-evident. Such 9/11 statements were often cited as an important reason for the failure of his candidacy.

Also in 2004, filmmaker Michael Moore released the controversial documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11, in which many aspects of September 11th were discussed from a point of view skeptical of the official story. The film suggests that the business relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud led to a conflict of interest, if not an outright conspiracy which hindered both the prevention of the attack and the investigation of it.

An article in the December 7-13 2005 issue of The Village Voice reported "The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, which was released in late 2002, included 28 pages that were blanked out, apparently concerning the possible role of Saudi government officials". Another article from the same issue discussing the 9/11 Commission reported "The Joint Inquiry traced the flow of money from the Saudi royal family and government institutions to a Saudi spy in California who had contact with the hijackers. The commission found Saudi Arabia blameless although behind closed doors the staff is said to have demanded an airing of the situation."

Some Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on 9/11

This claim made by Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah, has been repeated by a wide variety of other sources, such as Amiri Baraka. The original Al-Manar claim was:

"With the announcement of the attacks at the World Trade Center in New York, the international media, particularly the Israeli one, hurried to take advantage of the incident and started mourning 4,000 Israelis who worked at the two towers. Then suddenly, no one ever mentioned anything about those Israelis and later it became clear that they remarkably did not show up in their jobs the day the incident took place.

No one talked about any Israeli being killed or wounded in the attacks. Arab diplomatic sources revealed to the Jordanian al-Watan newspaper that those Israelis remained absent that day based on hints from the Israeli General Security apparatus, the Shabak, the fact which evoked unannounced suspicions on American officials who wanted to know how the Israeli government learned about the incident before it occurred, and the reasons why it refrained from informing the U.S authorities of the information it had." (from the English language version of the Web site of Lebanon's Al-Manar Television posted September 17, 2001, cited ADL)

It is unclear whether al-Watan made these claims or who (if anyone) the alleged "Arab diplomatic sources" were. No independent confirmation has been produced for this claim; and much of it has been proven to be factually inaccurate (see below).

In some versions of the story circulated on the Internet, the title was changed to "4,000 Jewish Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack" from its original "4000 Israeli Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack", spawning a further rumor that not only Israeli but all Jewish employees stayed away. On September 12 an American Web site called "Information Times" published an article with the headline "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," which it credited to "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." According to Slate.com, "The '4,000 Jews' page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message's rapid dissemination."[107] The rumour was also published; according to the United States Department of State "Syria's government-owned Al-Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the "4,000 Jews" claim... its September 15th edition falsely claimed 'four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions.' "[108]

There were a total of 5 Israeli deaths in the attack (Alona Avraham, Leon Lebor, Shay Levinhar, Daniel Lewin, Haggai Sheffi), of which 3 were in the World Trade Center and 2 were on the planes. (4 are listed as American on most lists, presumably having dual citizenship.)

Early estimates of Israeli deaths, as of the total death toll and the death toll for other countries' citizens (e.g. India) proved substantially overestimated. George W. Bush cited the figure of 130 in his speech on September 20th.

The number of Jewish victims was considerably higher, typically estimated at around 400;[109][110] according to the United States Department of State

A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%. This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.[111]

The figure "4,000" was probably taken by Al-Manar from a Jerusalem Post article of September 12 (p. 3) which said "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack." This number was obviously not (as Al-Manar claimed) restricted to employees; in fact, Tsviya Shimon, minister of administrative affairs for the Israeli consulate and mission in New York, said on September 14 "that there might have been up to 100 Israeli citizens working in the World Trade Center". [112]

Furthermore, many Orthodox Jews left for work later than usual that day due to Selichot (additional prayers recited around the time of Rosh Hashanah).[113]

Sharon was warned by Shabak to stay away from New York

Al-Manar the official television station of Hezbollah, also made related claims that then-prime minister Ariel Sharon was warned to stay away from New York:

Suspicions had increased further after Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot revealed that the Shabak prevented Israeli premier Ariel Sharon from traveling to New York and particularly to the city's eastern coast to participate in a festival organized by the Zionist organizations in support of Israel. Aharon Bernie, the commentator at the newspaper, brought up the issue and came up with a negative conclusion, saying "no answer". He then asked about the clue behind the Shabak's position in preventing Sharon's participation, and again without giving an answer.

Detractors claim that this theory does not hold up to examination. A pro-Israel rally led by the United Jewish Communities, expected to include 50,000 people, had been planned for September 23, 2001. Ariel Sharon had been scheduled to speak there, [114] but it was canceled on September 12. [115] According to The Forward, Sharon was still scheduled to speak there at the time of cancellation. [116]

There was no article in Yediot Aharonot that contains the information cited by Al-Manar, nor was there a columnist named Aharon Bernie. There is an Israeli reporter named Aharon Barnea of Israel's Channel 2 News whose wife Amalia works for Yediot Aharonot; [117] it has been speculated that "Aharon Bernie" arose as a misspelling of this name. [118]

Mossad connection to filming of 9/11 attacks with "puzzling behavior"

This claim formed part of the Al-Manar report mentioned above. The claim is that:

For its part, the Israeli Ha'aretz' newspaper revealed that the FBI arrested five Israelis four hours after the attack on the Twin Towers while filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building. The FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior". They are said to have been caught videotaping the disaster in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. [119]

This claim was substantially correct. Yossi Melman had reported to that effect in Haaretz on September 17 2001, [120] using the words "puzzling behavior" and "what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery." Several mainstream Western media groups researched this. On June 21, 2002, ABC published a report that five Israelis seen filming the events of September 11 in New York and looking "happy" were subsequently arrested, claiming (on The Forward's authority) that the "FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives" but had no advance knowledge of 9/11.

The Forward had reported the five as a possible Mossad surveillance operation conducted not against the US but against "radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism." Mossad was known to have been infiltrating Al Qaeda at the time. Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari, the five Israelis who were kept in custody in the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Sunset Park for approximately two months were eventually deported back to Israel on November 20-21, 2001. [121] Ellner and others in the prison have complained of abuse by prison guards. [122]

The claim was revived by the Scotland-based Sunday Herald's article (Nov 2, 2003.)

Israel advance knowledge

An ambiguous claim was made that the Mossad had been shadowing the perpetrators and had advance warning of these attacks but failed to share it. [123]

Supporters of this claim sometimes cite a Washington Post article of September 28, 2001, according to which "Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks." CNN also reported this but added that "Alex Diamandis, vice president for sales and marketing with Odigo Inc., said there was nothing specifically about the attacks in the message, but he said it was suspicious in nature, especially because of its timing." The Israeli newspaper Haaretz also published reports regarding these warnings. [124]

The first major Western source to explicitly make this claim was Fox News, in a four-part series by Carl Cameron in December 2001. [125] This story which "alleges that Israeli intelligence officials failed to share what they knew about September 11 with their American counterparts prior to the attacks" was condemned by Israeli officials. Soon afterwards Fox pulled it from its Web site without explanation.

Mossad blames the Iraq-Osama connection in advance

Israeli officials claim that within the week prior to 9/11, they had warned both the FBI and CIA in August of an imminent large-scale attack, as well as pretty much all other secret services of Egypt, Germany, UK, France etc. [126] [127]

"They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."

No evidence for Iraqi involvement has since been found, and an FBI representative reported there was no evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. [128]

Less common theories

Media Reaction

File:LeMond-9-11FrontPage.png
Le Monde Diplo Norway July 2006

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

In the July 2006 edition of the Norwegian version of Le Monde diplomatique, the headline story asked, "11 September : An Inside Job?" and recensed the various theories discussing the official US version of 9/11, withholding any truth judgment on them [133].

Prevalence

A 2004 Zogby poll indicated that nearly half of New York City residents believed the United States government had some level of foreknowledge of the attacks. [21]

Criticism

Critics of these alternative theories claim they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003).

The German magazine Der Spiegel summarily dismissed all skeptical accounts of the 9/11 attacks 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."[22]

Both Scientific American [134] and Popular Mechanics [135] published articles that claim to debunk various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

See also

Videos

References

  1. ^ Nanos, Janelle (2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine - News and Features. New York Magazine Holdings LLC. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  2. ^ Meacher, Michael (2003). "This war on terrorism is bogus". The Guardian Unlimited - Comment. Guardian Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  3. ^ Crogan, Jim (2002). "Another FBI Agent Blows the Whistle". LA Weekly News. LA Weekly, LP. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  4. ^ Grigg, William Norman (2002). "Did We Know What Was Coming?". The New American magazine. American Opinion Publishing Incorporated. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  5. ^ The Associated Press (2005). "More remember Atta ID'd as terrorist pre-9/11". MSNBC News - US Security. MSNBC.com. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  6. ^ Kirk, Michael (2002). "The Man Who Knew". Transcript of Frontline program #2103. WGBH Educational Foundation. Retrieved 2006-06-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ "Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel". Matier and Ross. San Francisco Chronicle. 2001. Retrieved 2006-06-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ "Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing" (Macromedia Flash video). CameraPlanet 911 Archive/Google Video. 2001.
  9. ^ McAllister, Therese, ed. (2002). "World Trade Center Building Performance Study" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-07-03. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34.
  10. ^ ShyamSunder, S. (2003). "Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster" (pdf). National Institute of Standards and Technology.Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43, cited in Greening, Frank (2006), unpublished. Available at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-06.
  11. ^ Barnett, Jonathan (2002). "Limited Metallurgical Examination" (pdf). FEMA 403 -- Appendix C.6, Suggestions for Future Research. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Retrieved 2006-07-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear expianation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
  12. ^ Killough-Miller, Joan (2002). "The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel". WPI Transformations. Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved 2006-07-04. - "Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? 'We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up,' Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. 'All of these things have to be explored,' he says."
  13. ^ Toreki, Rob (2006). "The Thermite Reaction". The General Chemistry Demo Lab. Interactive Learning Paradigms Incorporated. Retrieved 2006-07-04.
  14. ^ anonymous (2006-03-23). "Sheen: What 9/11 Hijackers?". The New York Post. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. p. 10. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ McAllister, Th. (2002). "World Trade Center Building Performance Study" (pdf). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). p. 19. Retrieved 2006-07-04.
  16. ^ Glanz, James (2001). "Diesel suspected in 7 WTC collapse". Across the nation. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2006-07-06.
  17. ^ "FOIA request" (PDF). Judicial Watch.
  18. ^ "Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building". Associated Press.
  19. ^ "The Day the FAA Stopped the World". Time.
  20. ^ Paltrow, S. (2004) "Day of Crisis: Detailed Picture of U.S. Actions on Sept. 11 Remains Elusive." Wall Street Journal March 22
  21. ^ Zogby International: of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
  22. ^ Cziesche, Dominik (2003). "Panoply of the Absurd". Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Books

Final report of the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (9-11 Commission), chaired by Thomas H. Kean
Cynthia McKinney's July 2005 Congressional Briefing on 9/11
June 1, 2001, directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff changing rules on intercepting hijacked planes
Descriptions of and evidence for various conspiracy theories

Skeptical of or debunking conspiracy claims

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&oldid=65079816"