9/11 conspiracy theories
From The Black Vault Encyclopedia Project
| Sept. 11, 2001 attacks |
| Timeline |
|---|
| Background history |
| Planning |
| September 11, 2001 |
| Rest of September |
| October |
| Aftermath |
| Victims |
| Survivors |
| Foreign casualties |
| Hijacked airliners |
| American Airlines Flight 11 |
| United Airlines Flight 175 |
| American Airlines Flight 77 |
| United Airlines Flight 93 |
| Sites of destruction |
| World Trade Center |
| The Pentagon |
| Shanksville |
| Effects |
| World political effects |
| World economic effects |
| Detentions |
| Airport security |
| Closings and cancellations |
| Audiovisual entertainment |
| Response |
| Government response |
| Rescue and recovery effort |
| Financial assistance |
| Memorials and services |
| Perpetrators |
| Responsibility |
| Organizers |
| Miscellaneous |
| Communication |
| Tower collapse |
| Slogans and terms |
| Conspiracy theories |
| Opportunists |
| Inquiries |
| U.S. Congressional Inquiry |
| 9/11 Commission |
| Discussions |
| The War on Terrorism Forum |
A number of Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have proposed alternative theories and explanations about the events surrounding September 11th and assert the existence of a cover-up in the investigation. Much of this research has been organized, debated and presented in public venues through the efforts of 9/11 Truth Movement, which has highlighted numerous Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report. What follows in this page is an examination of alternative theories and analysis of the anomalies of that day, all of which question the 9/11 Commission Report and the mainstream media account, summarized as follows:
Nineteen al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial aircraft on the morning of September 11, 2001. Two of these planes crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one flew into the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense at the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, and the final plane crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to over-power the hijackers.
History challenged
As the sun began to set on the evening of 11 September2001 alternate theories of the 9/11 attacks were emerging to explain what had occurred. A history of events emerged from the mainstream media, further known in this article as the common account or official story.
Before United States retaliation began for the attacks, the first book surfaced promulgating alternative theories about 9-11. French author, Thierry Meyssan published 9/11: The Big Lie which focused mainly on the Pentagon attack. Since then, a number of books, websites, and videos have surfaced to challenge the mainstream account of this terrorist event.
While those who accept the 9/11 Commission Report dismiss alternative hypotheses 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. Professor of philosophy of religion and theology David Ray Griffin has written, "we can say that we accept all those conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all those that we believe to be false."
Organizations and groups have come together to assert these theories and highlight certain aspects of the attack. The variety of these theorists’ views is widespread, and not all of them share the same opinion. The common trait they do share is the belief that at least one, if not all, of the explanations for September 11th are wrong. The external links section provides an extensive list of sites in support of many of the theories below.
Overview
As with most major historical events, a wide variety of theories exist about those which occurred on 9/11. Alternative theories to the common account surrounding this subject are generally placed in one or more of the following classifications:
- Individuals from both within the U.S. government and the private sector are covering up key details of the attacks as well as stonewalling an honest, exhaustive, independent investigation into the events.
- Individuals both within the U.S. government and private sector had foreknowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to prevent them.
- Individuals both within the U.S. government and private sector orchestrated the attacks.
- Individuals within the government of Israel and other countries had foreknowledge of, or were involved in the attacks.
Government foreknowledge
The first theory mentioned here is the idea that individuals within the United States Government and private sector knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. This theory does not necessarily suggest that individuals within the US Government actually conducted the operation, but rather, that there was enough information in the hands of the government that should have prevented the attack.
The skepticism involved runs from doubt about basic intelligence failures to the idea that there was a conscious effort not to act. In the aftermath of the disaster, the intelligence world was looked upon to explain what went wrong within its own community. Theorists building a case for government foreknowledge often draw upon the following reports and articles for support:
Intelligence Issues
Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton stated he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for September.
- 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 ahold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns."
- It is unclear exactly what warnings he is thought to have received from the FBI, but 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. [1]
- 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." [2]
Two of the 9/11 hijackers from United Flight 77 had lived with an FBI asset months prior to September 11th.
- According to CBS News, "The CIA sent out an alert Aug. 23, 2001, naming the two as possible terrorists - but the FBI didn't know the names of the two houseguests, who had moved out months earlier." [3]
- The Administration also could not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant, “citing concerns about adverse impact on FBI efforts to recruit future informants.” Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. [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, it identified no new data. An extensive search of US files in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
- 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 concerning an investigation pertaining to an incident that 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]
Suggested Warnings or Hidden Motives
Four days before the attack, Florida Governor John Ellis Bush signed an executive order[7] that some interpreted as allowing Bush to declare martial law while others have stated it was a routine training order. [8]
- Daniel Woodring, Bush's assistant general counsel, responded to these allegations in a press release stating "While Governor Bush has taken appropriate steps to deal with this terror attack, he has not in any shape, form or fashion instituted martial law in Florida."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told talk show host Larry King that at eight o'clock on the morning of the attacks he was meeting with Congressmen. During the meeting, Mr. Rumsfeld says that he stated to the group "sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department." [9]
- This meeting took place in the conference room adjacent to Mr. Rumsfeld’s office at the Pentagon. Terrorism was one of the topics of the meeting that morning, and within 15 minutes of adjourning; the building was struck by American Airlines Flight 77.
CBS News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines in July of 2001 because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. [10]
- The Attorney General did fly at least two more times commercially after the assessment was given, and responded to this report in his 9-11 Commission testimony, “ I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.” [11]
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco mayor Willie Brown received a warning "advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel."
- The mayor stated that the advisory came from "security people at the airport." The article went on to note, "Mike McCarron, assistant deputy director at SFO, said the Federal Aviation Administration 'routinely' issues security notices about possible threats. He said two or three such notices have been received in the past couple of months." [12]
Wall Street and Finance
Many theorists turn to the activities of the stock market and certain financial transactions to highlight claims of foreknowledge.
Larry Silverstein, backed by a number of investors, signed a 99-year lease for the World Trade Center complex seven weeks before the World Trade Center was destroyed. Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center at the time. Silverstein Properties was awarded an insurance payment of five billion dollars in settlement.[13]
- This story takes a look at the financial situation with respect to Silverstein Properties for the destruction of the complex.
- Silverstein's personal investment was only a fraction of the value of the properties - approximately $14 million [14] - as the total value of the deal was settled at $3.2 billion, which closed on July 24th, 2001.
- After extensive litigation, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers. [15]
- It will cost Silverstein and investors an estimated $8 billion to rebuild the structures where the World Trade Center complex once stood. [16]
- Meanwhile, court fees and a required annual lease payment of $120 million continue to draw funds from the insurance payment. The Port Authority has questioned whether the real estate developer can afford to pay for the construction of the Freedom Tower and other structures while continuing to pay the bi-state agency rent. [17]
- In March of 2006, during talks about the future of the WTC site and the division of roles in the re-development for the Port Authority and Silverstein, New York State officials charged that Silverstein's greed was responsible for the breakdown in talks just minutes before a midnight deadline[18]. The Port Authority described Silverstein’s last-minute proposal as “outrageous.”
Following the attack, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt said the SEC was examining all unusual trading activity of stocks most severely affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. [19]
The most notable reference concerns the option market where a high volume of put options were purchased in the days before 9/11 on both American and United Airlines. The number of put options purchased was more than six times higher than normal.
- According to CNN, "Between August 10 and September 10, the NYSE says short sales of UAL Corp. increased 40 percent, American parent AMR Corp increased 20 percent, and aircraft manufacturer Boeing Corp. increased 37 percent. CNN stated: "Short-sellers with advance knowledge of the attack could have made millions."[20]
- CNN also reported in September of 2001 the industry had been on unstable ground throughout the year, and there were a number of put option spikes well before the attacks. [21].
- Former Security and Exchange Commission enforcement chief William McLucas told Bloomberg News that regulators would "certainly be able to track down every trade," however, no arrests ever occurred.
- Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee[22], in her statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003 noted of the put options placed on United and American Airlines:
- "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."[23]
- The 9-11 Commission examined this activity with the conclusion these trades were coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading, however, they provided no explanation for how trading on a worldwide basis could have been examined and determined to be innocuous. For example, in regards to the AMR put options purchases, the Commission noted, “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.”
- The San Francisco Chronicle reported in October of 2001 that the SEC had undertaken an unprecedented action of essentially “deputizing” hundreds of private officials in its investigation[24]. The SEC asked the industry to designate senior personnel and provide them with their names, titles, phone numbers and e-mail addresses. According to the article, these chosen 'point people' would "eventually receive access to a "control list" containing confidential information about transactions, individuals, relationships and entities identified by the FBI and other law- enforcement agencies in the probe."
Put options were also purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories in the World Trade Center, Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw a 1200% increase in put options bought in the four days preceding 9/11, and Munich Re of Germany, the world's biggest reinsurance company, was also examined.
- National Review Online examined many of these trades as well, including the Munich Re reference. The article explained, “Munich Re stock had been dropping since the beginning of September, and a week before September 11, two brokerages cut their ratings on the firm owing to their concerns about deterioration in the capital markets.”[25] However, numerous Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 express doubts that the Commission was actually able to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks[26],[27]
On September 10 Amr "Anthony" Elgindy, an Egyptian-born financial analyst, tried to liquidate his children's $300,000 trust account."
- Although this report doesn't indicate US involvement, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen has stated that this could have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. [28]
World Trade Center towers
- See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center
The destruction of the World Trade Center towers was undoubtedly one of the most documented events in recent history. Alternative theories surrounding the destruction of the Twin Towers have evolved into one main idea: that planted explosives brought down the structures. Much of the support for this claim comes from differing interpretations of video footage capturing the collapse. 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:
Claims regarding the actual collapse
It has been observed the Twin Towers [29] fell straight down, at close to [30] free-fall speed.
- This is a similar characteristic of a controlled demolition. A consensus has yet to be reached as to the exact duration of the fall; the most widely used number floats around 10 seconds. Steven E. Jones asks, "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis"[123]
The dust cloud and its make up are considered uncharacteristic of a gravity-driven collapse [31].
- This description refers to the unusually massive and dense clouds of dust which formed after nearly all of the materials in the buildings were pulverized. Much of the clouds were composed of micron-sized particles which later spread for vast distances. Professor Steven E. Jones states, "Rather than a piling up with shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling."[124] It is unclear as to how much gravitational energy was stored in the buildings or its ability to cause such pulverization since very few studies have been done in order to obtain a conclusive answer for any theory regarding the dust cloud.
- Environmental Health Perspectives conducted a detailed analysis [32] of selected dust samples; the samples were all collected from three sheltered locations protected from rain on September 15th that had washed away dust in other exposed areas.
- A USGS study showed the elemental composition of a number of dust samples collected from outdoor and indoor locations [33].
- No study has been done to determine if explosive residues were present.
Many witnesses, including numerous firefighters and building employees retold the event with the use of words such as "bomb" or "explosion" to describe what they heard during the attack up to the subsequent collapse. [34]
- The following quotes are examples of statements made by witnesses to the collapses:
- "It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions,"
- Rich Banaciski, Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
- "It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions."
- Craig Carlsen, Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
- ". . . there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."
- Frank Cruthers, Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander][35]
It is often pointed out that no steel building before or since the 9-11 attack has collapsed as the result of fire.
- This historical reference is cited because fire has never induced a total collapse as was seen on September 11th. 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. The following examples of highrise fires which did not result in collapses are generally cited in regards to this claim:[36]
- the Caracas Tower (2004) - 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 (2004) - burned for nearly 24 hours resulting in a partial collapse of the steel sections of the structure, which included concrete members.[37]
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. [38] 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."[39]. 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. [40] Critics question Jones' credibility on the subject by pointing out that he does not have a structural engineering background. [41]
- The FEMA and NIST reports have yet to resolve all disagreements among engineers. Although not advocating a controlled demotion, 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 at the following link: [42]
- 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. However 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."[43]
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.” [44]
Claims in reference to the aftermath or debris field
In addition to the observation of the collapse, theorists draw upon the post collapse elements surrounding the World Trade Center. The compilation of the following is put forward by opponents of the official story to further the idea of a controlled demolition as well as government involvement.
The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse [45].
- This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives. A handful of individuals working 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:
- Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y described "literally molten steel" at the WTC.
- The observation of [46] 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."
- 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, recalled in the late fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." [47]
- Obtaining a conclusive answer to these molten metal arguments is difficult for a lack of documented research on the issue. 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 [48] since this type of remote sensing captures only the temperatures on the surface of a debris pile. 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.
- It is important to recognize the longest beam surrounding the towers was no greater than 38 feet. [49]
- Ground Zero actually took more than eight months to remove all of the debris. [50]
- 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."[51] NIST has numerous sections of steel from both Towers as well as WTC 7.[52]
The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack.
- While it is still publicly unknown if any of the black boxes were recovered intact from the wreckage, a recent [53] report has quoted an unnamed source claiming to have knowledge of the black boxes recovery saying they "were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB." The Chicago Tribune reported that experts believed the recorders would not be found simply because of the massive scope of the damage and debris. NTSB and FBI have both publicly stated the recorders were never recovered.
On September 16th, 2001, several news agencies reported authorities finding "the passport of a suspected hijacker" which they described to be that of Satam al Suqami. [54]
- Without noting the other personal artifacts recovered from the debris pile, this statement is generally presented to promote the idea of its sheer impossibility. [55]
Individual viewpoints on the collapse
As the above theories were generated, individuals questioning the collapse were highlighted. The following individuals have expressed concern or doubts on the common account regarding the fate of the Twin Towers:
- 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." [56]
- In a letter [57] 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 [58] briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail 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 [59] fired from his job.
- 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 [60] 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).
- 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. Some have doubted this individual's credibility because he also questioned the involvement of commercial jets stating that "North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767." [61]
- 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 argues on the fact that since WTC 2 collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower, makes the collapse 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.
- Recently, Charlie Sheen has come out publicly stating that he agrees with many of the 9-11 theories, including the controlled demolition. Sheen told talk radio host, Alex Jones, the collapse resembled an implosion. He recalled asking his brother on the day of the attacks, “Did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?” [62]
- Before his death in February, 1986, Minoru Yamasaki, architect and designer of the WTC, stated, "We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes."
- This statement is seen on many conspiracy websites with the idea simply being: if the building was designed to withstand an aircraft impact, it should have. It is important to note here, however, the situational condition of the aircraft was part of the design as well.
- Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center. [63] 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.
Structural and Civil Engineers Respond
As 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. Numerous aspects of the collapse have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community. [64] 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 provide what the world observed. [65]
The following are a few examples of the structural engineering response to 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. [66]
- 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. [67]
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. [68]
World Trade Center Seven
- Main article: 7 World Trade Center
World Trade Center Seven collapsed at 5:20 pm EST in the evening of Sept 11, 2001.
Similar to the Towers One and Two theories, 9/11 researchers have proposed the idea Building Seven collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. The basis for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse. Advocates for this theory will point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. The building came down in just under seven seconds.
The collapse of WTC 7 was an event that baffled structural engineers. [69] Building Seven was not struck by an aircraft nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. [70] The common working hypothesis suggests Building 7 collapsed as the result of structural damage from the collapsing Towers in addition to prolonged fires throughout sustained by fuel stores 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 crimp or kink 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. Although the collapse was not as tidy as sometimes thought; the building just to the north of WTC 7 took considerable damage during its collapse. [71]
Dust and smoke exiting the falling building are compared to explosive puffs emerging from deliberate building implosions. [72]
Photgraphs taken of World Trade Center Seven before and during the collapse:
The Damage and Fire
According to supporters of the controlled demolition theory, one of the primary unanswered questions surrounding Building Seven concerns the severity of both the damage and the fires. The controlled demolition theorists maintain neither were severe enough to initiate a collapse. Very few photographs or video provide a clear image of the full damage to the building. Dr. Steven E. Jones, a proponent of the controlled demolition theory, speculates 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."[73]
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."[74]
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 is was, in fact, moving. A collapse zone was set up at that time, and WTC 7 collapsed about an hour and a half later at 5:20 pm. [125]
- 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. [75]
- The following are just a few of the documented impressions of authorities on the scene:
- "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center....It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations...and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
- Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." - Firehouse Magazine, 8/02
- "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone....Finally they pulled us out....They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street....Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
- "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." - Chief Cruthers
- "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there....So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed." - William Ryan
The Silverstein Quote
The demolition theory was further fueled by a quote within a PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002. Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for Building Seven and insurance policy holder for the World Trade Center Complex was quoted during the film as he recalled the events of that morning:
- "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 we watched the building collapse."
Some suggest this statement could only have been referring to demolition as theorists allege "pull" to be a standard industry term used at the moment a collapse is triggered.
- Critics of this theory argue the term "pull" was in reference to evacuating the firefighting team from the building, though it is difficult to explain the pronoun "it" in this way in the context of the quote itself on tape.
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later attempted to clarify:
- "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."
Mr. McQuillan has commented that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
As mentioned in the previous section, NIST is also conducting an investigation into the structural failures of World Trade Center Seven. The final report is scheduled for release sometime in 2006. [76] In draft copies of that document, NIST states that they have "seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."
The Pentagon
Two main theories exist regarding the Pentagon among Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11: that Flight 77 did hit the building, and that Flight 77 did not hit the building.
Based primarily on photographic evidence, French researcher Thierry Meyssan, an early proponent of the idea that a Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon, suggested that a truck bomb or missile caused the damage. Other theories of what did crash at the site have ranged from military aircraft, such as the A-3 Skywarrior, to cruise missiles.
In contrast, other researchers studying the crash believe that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon [126],[127],[128] and suggest Meyssan’s theory is a distraction functioning to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, particularly to the 9/11 families. Most of these researchers cite anomolies such as why the hijackers chose to hit the most unoccupied and yet most reinforced area of the building, rather than targetting high level officials, and how the plane managed to penetrate all US defenses.
The observations below are highlighted by those questioning the official account of the Pentagon attack:
Flight 77 flew in the direction of the DC area for approximately 40 minutes without interception.
- This is considered unusual given the Pentagon's close proximity to Andrews Air Force Base and the well-established standard operating procedures for intercepting aircraft which go off course or lose communication[129], i.e., between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.[130] Thus, 9/11 researchers suggest that routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th. Officials state that only two airfields in the north sector of the U.S. had aircraft available for scramble: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.
There are claims that anti-missile batteries at the Pentagon should have intercepted Flight 77.
- Evidence of the existence of such batteries, let alone their purpose, has yet to be provided.
- CNN reported in September 2002 that for the "first time since the Cuban missile crisis almost 40 years ago, armed missile launchers will be protecting the nation's capital by day's end Tuesday." [77]
Those supporting a theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon consider photographic evidence of plane wreckage lying on the grounds of the Pentagon to be ambiguous and unconvincing citing a visual lack of burnt metal, human remains, passenger's luggage or seats.
- As a response to this claim, others point to similar crashes where the entire aircraft was converted to small, unrecognizable confetti-like debris. The following crash is an example of such a case: [78].
- Most of the photographic evidence of the plane was taken [79] inside the building by search teams and investigators.[80].
CNN released frame of the explosion at the Pentagon as captured by a surveillance camera.
In March of 2002, the Associated Press published a series of 5 frames captured by a Pentagon surveillance camera. [81]
- The resolution of the image is less than desirable to determine with any degree of accuracy what caused the explosion and the images were not released officially, but were leaked. The incorrect time and date have added to the speculation.
The FBI confiscated a video from a nearby gas station attended by Jose Velasquez, and from the Sheraton Hotel roof. These videos have not yet been released. [82]
- 9/11 researchers call for the release of all information regarding the crash and suggest that the withholding such information is government secrecy. FBI documents describing the collection of evidence explain this particular video did not capture the impact[83], however none of the other videos have been released either.
The Pentagon was struck in a newly renovated and reinforced section.
- Wedge 1, as the area is referred to, began renovation in 1998. A phased move-in of tenants began in February 2000, with the last tenant move-in completed February 6, 2003.
- The aircraft struck the northern edge of Wedge 1, and some speculate this location to be indicative of insider involvement, noting it as a possible attempt to reduce casualties.
Initial [84] damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is thought by those supporting a theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon to be inconsistent with a large aircraft.
- Others argue that given the reinforced strength of the building in comparison to the relative light weight material that made up the aircraft, considerable damage was made. The impact point did fit the dimensions of the 757 flight-deck and fuselage -- minus the jet engines, tail, and wings.
The preponderance of eye-witness testimony at the scene reported an aircraft fitting the description of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the side of the building. [85]
United Flight 93
Claims cell phone calls were impossible
During the flight of United 93 passengers are said to have made a number of calls to both family and emergency personnel. It is argued that connecting a cell phone to a tower's signal would have been near to impossible from the air. Based on this information, some theorists suggest the calls were fabricated or never made at all.
- In 2003 a Canadian team conducted experiments[86] to determine if cell phones could be used from civilian aircraft flying at cruising speeds and altitudes. Their findings concluded the probability of a typical cell phone making a stable connection to a cell on the ground is less than 1%. Anecdotal evidence provided to the team by airline passengers in other parts of the US and the world corroborates their findings.
- It is unclear what the various altitudes of the aircraft were during the short journey from hijacking to crashing, increasing or decreasing connection odds. In addition, each seat in the plane had a built in phone which could have been used at any point during the flight. Determining whether the calls received were from the GTE Airfones or cell phones has been a difficult task to document.
- It is known that in the final moments of the flight Edward Felt dialed 911 from his cell phone from the lavatory of the aircraft which was answered by dispatcher John Shaw. Felt was able to tell the dispatcher about the hijacking before the call was out of range and subsequently disconnected. [87]
Claims United Flight 93 was shot down
Doubting the common account of the airplane crashing as a result of an attempted cockpit invasion, some have speculated United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by US fighter jets.
- This idea was fueled by former theology and philosophy professor David Ray Griffin in The New Pearl Harbor where he cited research by Paul Thompson. Thompson cites a number of mainstream media reports that fighter jets were actually much closer to Flight 93 at the time of the crash than stated in the official record. [88] He mentions witnesses who noticed a small white jet near the impact site soon after the crash.[89] There was however, a business jet requested by ATC to investigate the crash area; the aircraft descended to an altitude around 1500 ft in order to survey the impact.
- Mr. Thompson adds that pieces of Flight 93 were found far from the crash site. He claims this to be evidence of a shoot-down. NTSB investigators have found no evidence the plane was shot down. Debris exploding away and landing far from the crash scene is not a unique occurrence in commercial airline accidents.
- Donald Rumsfeld, in an address to U.S. troops, referred to "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." While the Pentagon said Rumsfeld misspoke, and "has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists," some believe Rumsfeld's slip was based on truth.[90]
Claims United Flight 93 landed safely
In the moments immediately following a major event, confusion envelops the media as well as the general population. There are reports that flight 93 landed safely in Ohio after a suspected bomb threat. The Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder from Flight 93 have not been released to the general public. Some claim this is because the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually not United 93. [91]
The following points help to clarify a few misunderstandings:
- A 1990 Congressional Law prohibits the “public disclosure [of the] cockpit voice recorder recordings and transcriptions, in whole or in part, of oral communications by and between flight crew members and ground stations…” [92]
- On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings. [93] This was made possible only because the FBI controlled the investigation, as opposed to the NTSB as in typical air disasters. [94]
- WCPO, a local Cincinnati ABC news affiliate, released a preliminary AP story on United Flight 93’s safe landing at a Cleveland airport. [95] It was later learned Delta Flight 1989 was the plane confused with Flight 93. WCPO has since retracted the story noting its earlier factual inaccuracies. [96]
Questions about war games on the morning of 9/11
- Main article: War games in progress on September 11, 2001
In addition to the above theories, some 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[97][98]:
- 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. There is no evidence that these exercises impeded the reaction of NORAD or that ATC was even aware of any exercise at the time of the hijackings. McKinney has twice questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about these 9/11 war games during his testimony before Congress [99].
The President's behavior
During times of national crisis the behavior of the President will undoubtedly be analyzed by critics and supporters alike. Regarding 9/11, the President's supporters argue he did an excellent job in displaying an image of strength and calm while surrounded by an unfolding chaos, while conspiracy theorists suggest his behavior points to more sinister events. Theories have surfaced that link President Bush's behavior to the idea the government was well aware of what was happening.
Promoting the passage of his education plan, President Bush was at Emma E Booker Elementary School on the morning of September 11th.
- The President's location at the school in Sarasota, Florida was publicized in the local press.
- After the President was notified at 9:05-7 am of the second plane hitting the WTC, he remained seated for 7-9 minutes. Critics of the President suggest he should have left the area immediately, a point discussed at length in the film Fahrenheit 9/11.
- He spoke a few words to the nation about the attacks at 9:30 am. His motorcade left for the airport at 9:35 am.
- Paul Thompson and Allan Wood have provided a thorough analysis of Bush's actions that morning in their research piece "An Interesting Day."[100]
Inconsistent explanations
The military's account of its own response to the 9/11 attacks has been inconsistent over time:
- Initially the military reported that no fighters were sent up to intercept the hijacked planes until after the Pentagon was hit.
- Later that week the military revised its statement saying it had sent up fighters earlier than previously stated. As a result of the delay in communication between the military and the FAA the planes arrived too late.
- The 9/11 Commission reported a slightly different version: FAA gave the military insufficient warning of the first hijacked airline and no warning of the other hijackings until after they had crashed.
- Some government officials have remarked that prior to 9/11, it was unimaginable that hijacked planes would be used as suicide weapons. Intelligence officials had received information outlining a terrorist desire to use planes as weapons on at least 12 occasions in the seven years prior to September 11, 2001. (9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03) Lack of inter-agency communication is thought to be one of the major faults of investigators prior to the attack.[101] A similar fictional scenario had even been described in a popular novel, the New York Times Best Seller Debt of Honor (1994) by Tom Clancy.
- episode 1-the lone gunmen aired june 2001 which the scenario was a rouge element of the government hijacked, via remote control, an airliner and tried to crash it into the WTC to bring about a plan of martial law in america.
- escape from new york-1970's film where a terrorist group managed to infiltrate the flight crew of airforce 1 and crashed it into lower manhatten.
The 9/11 Commission
See also: Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report
Just over a year after the attacks, the US Congress was tasked with addressing the events that surrounded September 11th. Conspiracy theorists often reference information in or about the Commission's report in support of their hypotheses.
- Vice President Dick Cheney initially opposed a congressional commission into the 9/11 attacks, suggesting it would take vital resources and personnel away from the war on terrorism.
- The 9/11 Commission investigation began 411 days after the attacks, whereas the investigations into the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK began after only 9 and 7 days, respectively.
- The commission was given a startup appropriation of only $3 million and made a subsequent funding request for $11 million in order to meet its target date for completion. As a point of comparison, $50 million was set aside to investigate the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia, and $40 million was set aside to investigate Bill Clinton's lying about his indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky.
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, Wayne Madsen and several others[102].
- A September, 2000 document by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC; cofounded by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle), entitled [103] states the following:
- To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs.
- Further, the process of military 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.
- In a Zogby International poll commissioned by [104], 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." [105]
- The FOX TV series The Lone Gunmen aired their opening episode "Pilot" six months before 9/11 which depicted a secret U.S. government agency behind a plot to simulate a foreign terrorist airline attack (a Boeing 727 flying into 2 World Trade Center by a powerful computer via remote control) to further a larger political agenda.
- The declassified Operation Northwoods document by the United States Department of Defense that was never implemented proposed a series of false flag terrorist operations on U.S. soil, such as destroying US aircraft, which were to be blamed on Cuba, in order to rally American public opinion to support the launching of a U.S. war against Cuba (Operation Northwoods). "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
- 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 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 confirmed this theory in her book 'Reflections' also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired. 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 [106]. Marvin Bush was on a subway under Wall Street when the attacks happened [107].
Motives
Conspiracy theories explaining September 11 would not be complete without a motive. 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:
- A simple move in a plan for a new world order or as a simple move in a plan for a New World Order. This particular takes roots 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. [108]. Another reference to a similar statement made by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: 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. See also above PNAC reference.
- To expand the power of the federal government. Rep. Ron Paul has written "The 9-11 Commission report is several hundred pages worth of recommendations to make government larger and more intrusive." He has not endorsed any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
- To justify increased defense spending during an indefinitely long "War on Terrorism" and provide financial payback to many companies that supported the Republicans in the 2000 election (e.g. Halliburton).
- To gain the support of U. S. citizens for the invasion of countries of the Middle East in order to control petroleum reserves in response to a peaking of global oil production.
- To justify the passing of certain legislation, including the USA PATRIOT Act, argued to be restrictive of certain civil rights.
- To allow the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party to seize and maintain power through increased popularity, war, and the stifling of dissenting opinions. (See PNAC reference, above.)
- To ready the public to fight a global existential conflict between Islamic Fundamentalism and Western Civilization that neoconservatives believed was already underway but that most people were unaware of. (See PNAC reference above)
- To destroy embarrassing or incriminating materials located inside of World Trade Center Seven. According to an [109] in the December 7-13 2005 issue of The Village Voice, the CIA, the Secret Service, the New York City Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney all had offices located in that building, and other government agencies had offices in the other 6 World Trade Center buildings (FBI, Customs, etc.)
Whistleblowers
Depending on how many of the above theories one believes, the list of collaborators needed can grow or shrink. Opponents of these theories say that one weakness of the conspiracy claims is the absence of credible whistleblowers.
While many researchers in opposition to the above conspiracy theories suggest that a conspiracy would require silencing a vast number of individuals, the proponents of those theories tend to disagree. On speculation alone, author David Ray Griffin has argued that many of the people involved would likely not know the full extent of the plot. Griffin theorizes so few individuals have come forward out of fear from threats, possibly in regards to family or employment. In an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent, Griffin states: "You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, 'If you go public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family.' Griffin does not cite any examples of this occurring.
Griffin also argues that many would likely feel they have little incentive to come forward, given the lack of interest on the part of the mainstream media thus far. "You might just be denounced as a conspiracy kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look into your past and find that you had done some things you're not so proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut." In spite of these supposed repercussions, he claims a number of whistleblowers such as Kevin Ryan, Sibel Edmonds, and David Schippers have chosen to speak out.
Claims related to the Saudi Royal Family and other Saudi Government Officials
Of the increasing instances in which 9/11 conspiracy theories have been [110] discussed in the mainstream media, two instances occurred in 2004 involved 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 be