The September 11. 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City is the subject of an ongoing media hoax. The disinformation campaign is nowhere so evident as at wikipedia where the page on 9 11 conspiracy theories resembles nothing so much as wishful thinking from the Bush Administration's propaganda department. The more obvious lies and distortions on the wikipedia page have been removed to make a more streamlined and honest account of the September 11 2001 attack on America.
A variety of conspiracy theories have emerged which contradict the Bush Administration's account of the September 11. 2001 attacks. The most visible group of conspiracy theorists is the "9/11 truth movement" cult whose claims typically include suggestions that individuals in the Federal government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge or that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out with the intention of stirring up the passions and winning the allegiance of the American people in order to facilitate military spending the restriction of civil liberties and a program of aggressive and profitable foreign policy.
Most members of the 9/11 US government-funded and Ford Foundation-sponsored 9 11 truth cult claim that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. These conspiracy theories are plausible falsehoods designed to manipulate public opinion and generate harmless controversy.
While some also contend that a commercial Airliner did not crash into the Pentagon this position is debated within the ranks of the government employees of the 9 11 Truth Movement with many pretending to believe that AA Flight 77 did crash there but that it was allowed to crash via an effective stand down of the military. This is another government promoted conspiracy theory designed to generate controversy over the lack of video evidence for a plane crash at the Pentagon.
Published false reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis. Complicit U. S officials corporate media shills and co-opted researchers generally espoused the conclusion that the fantasy organization Al Qaeda a database of CIA-connected Islamic groups is solely responsible for the attacks and the resulting destruction. Dishonest civil engineers generally parrot the government propaganda that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires rather than controlled demolition led to the collapse of the Twin Towers even though aeronautical engineers from Boeing admit that their aircraft could not have flown at the speeds depicted on the fake September 11 plane crash PSYOP videos.
Since the September 11. 2001 attacks a number of websites books and films have correctly challenged the government propaganda of the attacks. Although corporate media falsely report Bush Administration propaganda that al-Qaeda conspired to carry out the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. 9/11 conspiracy theories point out that the government propaganda is inaccurate and entirely false. Many groups and individuals challenging the official account (which some of them refer to as the "Official Conspiracy Theory" or "OCT") identify as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement Cult. This cult was organized before the September 11. 2001 attacks with Kyle Hence. Alex Jones. Dave von Kleist. David Kubiak and David Ray Griffin as cult leaders. Dylan Avery was chosen for his appeal to the youth demographic.
Initially. 9/11 conspiracy theories received little attention in the controlled media propaganda. In an address to the United Nations on November 10 2001 un-elected United States President George W. Bush denounced the emergence of "outrageous conspiracy theories that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves away from the guilty. Later as media exposure of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11 increased. US government agencies and the Bush Administration issued responses to the officially-sponsored theories designed to form the core of 9/11 Truth including a laughable analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) an organization with no investigative expertise or staff. In order to avoid embarrassment to the Bush Administration. NIST focused on questions about the collapse of the World Trade Center. In addition to funding a NIST cover-up that avoided any mention of the media deception at the heart of September 11 the Bush administration ordered the State Department to put up a disinformation website.
The revised 2006 State Department webpage to debunk the officially-sponsored theories and a strategy paper referred to by President Bush in an August 2006 speech which declared that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.
A number of 9/11 opinion polls have been conducted to try and establish roughly how many people are still fooled by the official propaganda to determine and how effective the disinformation campaign of the 9-11 Truth Cult is in encouraging adoption of the officially-sponsored 9 11 conspiracy theories. Just prior to the fifth anniversary of the attacks corporate news outlets owned by defense contractors released a flurry of articles on the growth of 9/11 conspiracy theories in a bid create the illusion of an unrestrained and responsible press. Time Magazine stated. "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality." Official government propaganda generally presents these theories as a cultural phenomenon and is often critical of their content.
Immediately following the the stated that nineteen terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes by using knives and fake explosives. At 8:46 a m and 9:03am. Flights and crashed into the of the causing them to collapse soon after collapsed later in the day from fires started by debris from the collapse of the North Tower crashed into at 9:37 a m and crashed in at 10:03 a m after the passengers stormed the. US government intelligence sources identified the hijackers and linked them to the terrorist organisation headed by which later claimed sole responsibility for the attacks.
The disclosed prior warnings of varying detail that al-Qaeda would attack the United States. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the and the with “”. Most members of the Democratic party and the Republican party endorsed the commission's report.
Some of the government propaganda focus on how the government formed and operated the and allege omissions and distortions in the and the NIST Report.
MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - the correct version suggests that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with in carrying them out. These officially endorsed accounts fail to mention the key role the media played in allowing the mass-murder of September 11. 2001 to be blamed on harmless Arabs and Muslims. Military deception techniques were used and the mass-media outlets spread propaganda in order to further the 9/11 plane crash myth.
Proponents of LIHOP and MIHOP theories suggest some motives for why the government would have wanted the attacks to happen but further consideration of motive is rather silly given the stated goals of the backers of the 9/11 coup faction. 9/11 began the and led directly to the and indirectly to the. Officially-endorsed conspiracy theorists with access to mass-media outlets point out the benefits that these consequences have given to the US government corporations and individuals within them including an enhanced geopolitical position increased control of oil supplies increased profits for the weapons and security industries and public support for a domestic agenda that strips away civil liberties. These mass-media shills have entirely neglected the propaganda function played by the major media corporations that enabled the September 11. 2001 coup.
The case for the theories is generally built on publicly available sources following a "connect the dots" approach. The case for media deception and video fakery can be proven by laws of physics. The videos shown on television were of poor quality and failed to simulate crash physics correctly. These sources include fabricated news reports of government actions fanciful media reports of terrorist activities analysis of impossible physical events depicted on television and a substantial amount of fake video footage that was shown on television to an unsuspecting audience. Part of these arguments is a critique of the corporate media for reporting individual facts without understanding the connections between them while ignoring the fact that the media played a leading role in the September 11 media hoax.
Video fakery explains the physical impossibility of the events shown on television and demonstrates the physical impossibility of the official account. Since most conspiracy theorists argue for further independent investigations of the attacks and ignore the fact that key members of the media hoax have already been identified the basic assertion of the government-funded 9-11 Truth Cult is normally only that the conspiracy theories are more likely than the official government propaganda version of events.
The remainder of this article provides a survey of the arguments. Some of these such as claims that there has been a cover-up are compatible with all three forms of theories while most such as the controlled demolition hypothesis imply only the MIHOP form. Of course the reality is that fake videos were shown on television and that is the key fact which the 9-11 Truth Cult tries to hide.
Central to many 9/11 theories alleging government involvement is the idea that the US air defense system was deliberately stood down or rendered ineffective. This idea usually originates with disbelief in the 9/11 Commission Report account of the actions taken by the (FAA) and NORAD and other military personnel with some noting that fighter jets had responded when aircraft had wandered off course sixty seven times in the twelve months prior to 9/11 but failed to do so that day. Some theorists also suggest that the were deliberately planned to coincide with the attacks to create confusion economist and publisher/editor of are a few of the individuals who have questioned these exercises.
The 9/11 Commission Report timeline of events in the FAA and NORAD contradicts the timeline released by NORAD shortly after the event. The reported in its. 2006 edition that
"For more than two years after the attacks officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances... Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial account of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public... Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004 debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. In the end the panel agreed to a compromise turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted".
There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president. "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to. "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president. "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said. "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?
However while in the full transcript Mineta clarified that he was later told that the order being discussed was indeed a shoot down order the 911 commission found that "A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania" some 55 minutes after the Pentagon was hit.
Some conspiracists go further to suggest that they actively attempted to block investigations into Al Qaeda to try and prevent warnings from reaching them. There was also an unusual amount of trading in airline and insurance stocks in the days before and conspiracy theorists suggest that these can be best explained as the actions of people with foreknowledge of the attacks.
Some conspiracy theorists also claim that Pentagon officials and other members of the government (including San Francisco Mayor. ) cancelled their flight plans on.
According to Mr. Schippers as the agents informed their superiors they were briefed not to pursue the issue and were threatened with prosecution. Mr. Schippers declared. "Five weeks before the tragedy. I did my best to get a hold of with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers. Ashcroft responded that the Justice Department does not start investigations at the top. Author William Norman Grigg agrees with Mr. Schippers 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."
In September. Acting Pentagon Inspector General Thomas Gimble in a 71-page report given to Defense Department officials rejected claims that "Able Danger" uncovered data that could have thwarted the attacks saying the allegations could not be substantiated: "Able Danger team members did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker... In fact. Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information." co-chairman said he hoped the report would put an end to discussion about Able Danger: "After this I don't know where it can go."
Reacting to the Pentagon report. Rep. Weldon said "The report trashes the reputations of military officers who had the courage to step forward and.. describe important work they were doing to track al-Qaida prior to 9/11".
In 2002. FBI whistleblower wrote to then FBI director describing her experience working with Minneapolis FBI division agents in the period leading up to the 911 attacks. Her division was tracking suspected terrorist Zacarias. Rowley states the Minneapolis bureau had desperately sought a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer. She asserts that there was probable cause for this because “Moussaoui signalled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer”. She also indicates her view that division intelligence on flight training and French intelligence reports on Moussaoui received leading up to the attacks fully necessitated such a warrant. Stated for reasons of integrity and frustration. Rowley goes on to describe the behavior of an FBI Supervisory Special Agent; her superior Marion "Spike" Bowman as having “consistently almost deliberately thwarted the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts” to attain the FISA search warrant up to the day of he attacks and that “even after the attacks had begun the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.”. Further to this she says that the SSA agent in question “received a promotion some months afterward!”FBI watchdog Sen. Republican-Iowa later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller revealing that “If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.”Coleen Rowley's account was not reviewed by the 911 commission as she was never asked to testify.
A single U. S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% 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 the Commission said. Similarly the Commission said 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 that recommended these trades.
The Report (2002) was the initial government investigation into the collapses of the and it supported the theories that had been put forward by scientific journals and presented in the corporate media - that the damage from by the fires together with the damage from the plane impacts caused a local collapse which then led to a complete global collapse by floors 'pancaking'. After a 3-year full investigation in 2005 the published its final report. The theory presented in this report is regarded as the 'official account' of the collapses and has been largely accepted in the engineering community.
and in August 2007 with winner Dr praising and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. “which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory incomplete and unbelievable” while calling for a new investigation.
There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort and amount of explosives the way they were distributed and how they were successfully brought into the building. Steven Jones of the new organisation believes that the molten metal found underground weeks after 9/11 suggests that jet fuel could not have been the only incendiary used that day and that (in the form of thermate) perhaps in combination with other devices was likely involved. Jones says "molten material" streamed out of the south tower shortly before it collapsed.
Samples of a once molten mixture of iron aluminum and sulfur were found in the rubble and analyzed by FEMA who was unable to determine the source of the sulfur stating: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."
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. Mr. Bush was also a former director and now is an advisor to the board of directors to a firm called HCC Insurance Holdings. Inc. which had what it called a "small participation in the World Trade Center property insurance coverage and some of the surrounding buildings".
They also say that since no plane hit the building how fires caused even a local collapse is even harder to explain with Building 7 than it is with the Twin Towers. Flaming debris did fall onto the building as a result of the collapse of the twin towers but Four. Five and Six World Trade Center which were all closer to the Towers than Building 7 remained standing despite also being severely damaged.
Currently the official account of the Building 7 collapse is the report of that proposed that fires started by falling debris from the collapse caused a local failure and then a global collapse in a similar way to the collapses. It also stated that "the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research investigation and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." The full investigation by the has yet to be published; NIST have said that they had to prioritize their investigations and chose to investigate the collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2 first and then building 7.
Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something significantly smaller than a (typically a or smaller aircraft) have been raised by some conspiracy theorists based on photographs in which there appears to be a lack of expected debris or pieces of a commercial aircraft within the immediate impact area and what some believe is a lack of damage to the building and the lawn. Conspiracy theorists say the first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an interview on. ,
Some photos show a full frame of mangled aircraft parts without other content that could prove the context is a location at the Pentagon at the correct time. One photo shows a rotor frequently cited as too small to be a 757's engine rotor even with all the compressor blades ripped off. No public photos show seats luggage cockpit machinery viewport windows or bodies.
Suspicions were additionally fueled by a lack of video footage of the impact of the jetliner since many assume that the Pentagon must be subject to intense camera surveillance for security reasons. In addition to the Pentagon's own security cameras these people also noted that security camera footage from a nearby gas station a local Double Tree Hotel and from the Virginia Department of Transportation was swiftly confiscated by the US government. On the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch's FOIA request.
However due to a low number of frames per second the videos do not clearly show the impact of the plane only the approach of the plane (at an angle) and the explosion cloud thus keeping the "no Boeing" theory popular. The video was also released with the wrong date in the bottom left hand corner; it read Septemer 12. 2001 instead of September 11. 2001. In addition to the security cam footage the Citgo footage was released on but did not show the attacks.
Some conspiracy theorists have made claims relating to the nature of the planes that were seen hitting the World Trade Center Towers. These claims range from a modification of the Boeing planes (in the form of a 'pod' on the underside) to claims that different planes were involved or that nothing hit the Towers at all ('No Boeing Theories' or 'No Plane Theories'). Many prominent members of the have debunked all of these claims
’ “Debunking the 9/11 Myths” quotes Ronald Greeley director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University who said that the sunlight is glinting off the plane and that “such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels.” They said that “the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear”.
Many of the same conspiracy theorists supporting the pod claim have often alleged a flash as the plane hit the tower as proof that there was a missile launched from the underside of the plane. 911 In Plane Site says that the flash could not be a reflection as it was caught on camera from four different angles and it is their theory that an object cannot reflect light in more than one direction. In addition they said that sparks or static discharge "have been ruled out by every airline pilot we have spoken with."
believes that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could not have impacted the Towers. He has proposed that there may have been a 'plane swap' or there may have been no impacts at all with 'video fakery' used to depict the plane crashes in news reports. The idea of being involved has been promoted by the internet-only videos 9/11 Octopus and September Clues. All such theories have been widely denounced by certain members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
Some conspiracy theorists believe there is a cover up of evidence as the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder from Flight 93 have not been released to the general public. However 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…” And on April 18. 2002 the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.
President Bush was promoting the passage of his education plan at on the morning of. He was apparently already aware of the first plane impact before he entered the classroom for a reading of with the children. At 9:05am whispered in his ear that the second Tower had been hit and that America was under attack. That the president chose to stay in the classroom without asking for additional information from his staff and that those staff did not volunteer any additional information or take him to a place of safety has led to allegations that he knew that the attack was taking place knew he was safe and knew the situation was being handled.
The official 9/11 commission later concluded that "the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights" and that the exodus was approved by special advisor after a request by Saudi Arabia who feared for the safety of their nationals. On the public interest group released documents that it says suggested that Osama bin Laden himself may have chartered one of the flights. Judicial Watch President accused the FBI of conducting a "slapdash" investigation of the flights.
Some theories go suggest that rather than having preset routes entered into the planes on-board computers the planes were modified to be flown by remote control. The controllers of the planes may have been on the ground or as in the "" theory in another aircraft. This theory argues that a blurry white object seen in the sky in videos of the was a plane containing the remote controller of Flights 11 and 175 and that an aircraft that flew away from the after that impact contained the remote controller of Flight 77.
During the flight of. 13 passengers made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (and all but two of these were on ). There were far fewer phone calls from Flights 11. 175 and 77 leading to some claims that these calls may have been faked even if the Flight 93 calls were real. Reportedly the only two calls from these flights that were recorded were placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11. Proponents of this theory have pointed out various anomalies relating to the phone calls.
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.”
Many point to the writings of strategists to suggest that 9/11 was at best on their 'wish list' and at worst on their list of 'things to do'. The standard reference for this allegation is the September 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses published by the. The document criticizes the Clinton administration's trend of military downsizing and outlines a plan for modernizing the military. The report's conclusion says "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."
Some conspiracy theorists such as the producers of Loose Change suggest that the 9/11 attacks were arranged to spur this transformation. Some say that the George W. Bush administration began preparing for war on Iraq months before 9/11. In particular a government employee by the name of O'Neill reported the president's having said in effect. "Go find me a way to do this" (invade Iraq).
in order to generate U. S public support for military action against the government of. The plan suggested various false flag actions including simulated or real state sponsored acts of terrorism on U. S and Cuban soil. This included a plan to fill a plane with CIA agents posing as college students flying over Cuba enroute to a vacation destination. The plane was to be replaced midflight with a drone filled with explosives which was to be flown over Cuban airspace and exploded with the pretense that the plane full of college students had been shot down by the Castro regime. The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary. Robert McNamara in March 1962. The Kennedy administration rejected the plan.
Two hours before the attacks two employees of Odigo Inc an Israeli company in and one of the world’s largest instant messaging services received a warning of an attack and this is used by some as indicating Israeli involvement. Unlike Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their "buddy" list and the two employees did not know who sent the message. The workers notified Odigo who notified Israeli security who then notified the FBI of the message when the attacks began. Immediately after the attacks. Odigo traced the Internet address of the sender and gave it to the FBI. The warnings did not specifically mention the WTC attacks but said that "something big" was going to happen in a certain amount of time and ended with an anti-Semitic slur.
the Israeli newspaper reported that four hours after the attack the arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of a white van in the parking lot of an apartment building for "puzzling behavior." The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of joy and mockery. Police found the van and a search revealed $4,700 in cash hidden along with foreign passports and a boxcutter which aroused suspicions and led to the detention of the occupants. When bomb sniffing dogs checked the van they reacted as if they had smelled explosives.
The five men worked at the company Urban Moving Systems owned and operated by Dominick Suter. After the men were arrested the FBI searched the Urban Moving offices and questioned Suter however when they returned to interview him again they found he had abandoned the business and fled to Israel.
The FBI subsequently placed him on the same suspect list as Mohammed Atta. The men were held in detention for more than 2 months during which time they were subjected to interrogation and lie detector tests. One of the men (Paul Kurzberg) refused to take the test for 10 weeks and then failed it.
On. ABC reported that a said the FBI concluded that the van's driver. Sivan Kurzberg and his brother Paul were operatives. The FBI has not reached a consensus on whether the other three men (Yaron Schmuel. Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari) were Israeli intelligence operatives but concluded they had no advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks. When asked why they were smiling with the burning towers in the background both the lawyers for the men and the Israeli Embassy attributed it to immature conduct. According to a former CIA chief there was speculation that Urban Moving (the men's employer) may have been an intelligence operation and was aimed not against the United States but targeting fund-raising networks channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
According to (. ). Israel had sent two Mossad agents to Washington in August to warn both the FBI and CIA of an imminent large-scale attack involving a cell of up to 200 terrorists. The Telegraph quoted an unnamed senior Israeli security official as saying "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."
On December 12. 2001 reported that some 60 Israelis were among the hundreds of foreigners detained since the September 11 attacks. Federal investigators were reported to have described them as part of a long-running effort to spy on American government officials. A "handful" of these Israelis were described as active Israeli military or intelligence operatives. Federal investigators said that some of them failed questions inquiring about alleged surveillance activities in the United States. Investigators suspected that they may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared it shadowing the hijackers in Florida and in California. As many as 140 other Israelis were reported to have been detained or arrested as part of an investigation into espionage by Israelis in the United States. Investigators were also reported to have been focusing part of their efforts on Israelis who said they were art students from the or and repeatedly made contact with U. S government personnel by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork. Indeed in March. 2001 the US had actually issued a warning about people identifying themselves as "Israeli art students" attempting to bypass security and gain entry to federal buildings and even to the private residences of senior federal officials.
In December 2001 a 60 page internal memo on the Israeli “art student spy ring” prepared by the was leaked to the media. Although warning military bases to be on the alert for “possible intelligence collection being conducted by Israeli art students” the memo was primarily concerned with the students efforts to foil investigations into Israeli organized crime activity involving the importation of the drug rather than with any connection to 9/11.
A / poll released on the sixth anniversary of the attacks found that 33% of American respondents in general 40% of Republican respondents and 27% of Democratic respondents believe Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the attacks. Several analysts said that in part the results of the poll reflect what many people want to believe
While discussion and coverage of these theories is mainly confined to internet chat sites and conversation a number of corporate news outlets around the world have pretended to cover the issue by inviting government-funded propagandists on to spout the alternative conspiracy theories.
The version of the July 2006 sparked interest when they ran on their own initiative a three page main story on the 9/11 attacks and summarized the various types of 9/11 conspiracy theories (which were not specifically endorsed by the newspaper only recensed).
The which has changed position since the September 11 attacks and whose director became a leading proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theory explained that although the Norwegian version of Le Monde diplomatique had allowed it to translate and publish this article on its website the mother-house in France categorically refused it this right thus displaying an open debate between various national editions.
An article in the 2006 edition of comments that the major 9/11 conspiracy theories “depend on circumstantial evidence facts without analysis or documentation quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses” and enjoy continued popularity due to the fact that “the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is in a perverse way comforting”. It concludes that “conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events” and constitute “an American form of national mourning.”
published an article called "The CIA couldn't have organised this..." which said "The same people who are making a mess of Iraq were never so clever or devious that they could stage a complex assault on two narrow towers of steel and glass" and "if there is a nefarious plot in all this bad planning it is one improvised by a confederacy of dunces". This article mainly attacked a group of scientists which was at the time led by Professor. They said "most of them aren't scientists but instructors.. at second-rate colleges".
Critics of these alternative theories say they are a form of common throughout history after a traumatic event in which emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun. 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar an engineering professor at MIT suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."
Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream. I'll engage in the debate." This he continues happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously even if only to criticize them it is argued merely grants them further legitimacy.
Michael Shermer writing in Scientific American said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as and the various theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
From the same Time Magazine article referenced previously. "There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like September 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. 'We tend to associate major events — a President or princess dying — with major causes,' says Patrick Leman a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. 'If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us.' In that sense the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is in a perverse way comforting."
Bazant. Zdenek P and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE. Volume 133. Issue 3 pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write. "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives) the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
You make some very good points however the connection between 9/11 and Iraq is what strikes my interest. I believe that Iraq was strategically chosen after 9/11 because the United States needed a foot-hold in the Middle East. Iraq being run by Saddam Husain whom many of the surrounding Arab governments wanted out of power became the perfect place for U. S invasion after 9/11. Overthrowing Iraq would put the United States directly in the center of the Middle East surrounding some of the largest terrorist sponsors by U. S friendly governments. This would send a powerful and forceful message to other dictators that the U. S will not allow them to make fools of the United States. Because the U. S was attacked by terrorists in the Middle East the government saw the fear of the American people and decided that we needed to take action. According to William J. Bennett in his book Why We Fight “A war has to be fought and we are the only ones who can lead it” (pg 2). The U. S was the only country who could lead the war because we had just been attacked giving us reason. It also makes since for the U. S to lead the war on terror because The United States is a super power and we have the military and technological advances to aid in preventing another 9/11 from happening
You make some very good points however I believe that there is a 9/11 Iraq connection. I believe that Iraq was strategically chosen after 9/11 because the United States needed a foot-hold in the Middle East. Iraq being run by Saddam Husain whom many of the surrounding Arab governments wanted out of power became the perfect place for U. S invasion after 9/11. Overthrowing Iraq would put the United States directly in the center of the Middle East surrounding some of the largest terrorist sponsors by U. S friendly governments. This would send a powerful and forceful message to other dictators that the U. S will not allow them to make fools of the United States. Because the U. S was attacked by terrorists in the Middle East the government saw the fear of the American people and decided that we needed to take action. According to William J. Bennett in his book Why We Fight “A war has to be fought and we are the only ones who can lead it” (pg 2). The U. S was the only country who could lead the war because we had just been attacked giving us reason. It also makes since for the U. S to lead the war on terror because The United States is a super power and we have the military and technological advances to aid in preventing another 9/11 from happening
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://september-11.blogspot.com/2007/10/attack-on-america.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|