8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

1/13

9 / 1 1 ConspiracyTheoriesThe 9/11 Taith Movement in Perspective

P H I L M O L E

AT THE HYATT REGENCY O'HARE NEARCliic^ago. a crowd of approximately 400 peoplehas gatliered on a plea.siint summer evening.Some are old and some are young; some aredressed in colorful tie-died shirts while otherswear dress shirts and slacks, but most seemcheerful and friendly. We :ire all waiting for theopening of tlie main lecture hall for tlie evening'sevent, tlie first t)f irony .scheduled talks during aweekend-long conference. We bide some timeby kxjking at tlie items for sale: DVD copies ofMichael Moore's Fahretthdi 9/13, tlie anti-K:irlRove doainientar>'Bush's Bmi?i, and the morerecent Walnuiri: ' I h e High Cost ofL o w Price.

Tliere is notJiing especially unusual here, sinceiill of tliese are available at the Borders or BestBuy ne-ar you. But tJien as the doors to tlie mainhall are about to open, one anxious attendee triesto start a diant of "9 / 11 was an Inside J o b , " A fewpeople join in before anotlier attendee tells iiini.quite emphatically, "we already know!" Th eweekend conference is the Chicago meeting for911tiiitli,oig, one ofthe most visible oi^^anizationswithin a laiger ccxalition known as the "9/11 Trutli

Movement." and most of the crcjwd believes tliatthe IJnitc^l States government planned and orches-trated the terroiist attacks of SeptemlxT1 1 ,2001,

'Hie statement "we akeady know!" well sum-marizes the attitude of the conference attendeestoward the nuterial presented duiing the lec-tures. Many at the conference do not seem to helooking for new information that might lead tomo re accurate persj^ectives alxxit the e vents of9 / 1 1 , A fellow sitting near me admits, "Wealready know this stuff; we're here to reconfinn

what w e already know." The conference is away for attendees to coasolid:ite their groupidentity, and try to biing tlieir message to thosepeople at home and abroad who believe the"official story" of 9 / 1 1 . As someone who doesnot share the views ofthe 9/11 Tmth Movement,1 have anoth er objective, I want to listen to theirarguments and view their evidence, and under-stand the reasons why so many likeable and oth-erwise intelligent people are convinced that theUnited States govemment planned the murder ofnearly 3.000 of its own citizens.

The Collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2

When mast of us recall the events of9 / 1 1 , wethink of the image of those two seemingly inde-stRictible World Trade Center towers cmmbling tothe ground. Not suiprisingly, their collapseLsalsoa central issue for the 9/11 Truth Movement, Anoverwhelming iimount of tlie organization's talks;md publicity materials address tlie fall ofBuildings 1 and 2, But as these materials show,911tnith.org does not believe the official story tliatthe primary damage to the WTC cx:curred when

two airplanes hijacked by terrorists c-nished intothe tow ers. Rather, they m aintain that the towersfell due to a controlled demolition, planned inadvance by the United States govemment.

Why d o they think this? A primary reasonseems to be that the collapse of the towers /fxislike the result of a controlled demolition. Sincethere is no staictural resistance to gravity in a con-troUcxi demolition. tJie building collapses straiglitinto its own fcxitpiint, witli each tlcxx "pancaking"onto the floors below at or near the speed of a

S K E P T IV O L U M E 1 2 N U M B E R 4 2 0 0 6

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

2/13

Rgure 1

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

3/13

Above:The unique structu re ofthe World Trade Center towersconsisted of two groups ofcolumns connected by steeltrusses. One group formedthe inner core and the otherformed the four outer walls.In the rectangle above: a sideview of how the floor trusse sanchored the inner core columnsto the outer wa ll columns.

Three column units were linkedbyspandrels. Roor trusses were linkedto both spandrel and cofumns by asystem of bolts and welded plates.

South Tower(First to fall.)

a

OO

k Fatledcolumn

Heavy O Moderatedamage damage

tilted toward the direction of the impaa point,and thenbegan to pancake downward withthe top p;irt of thebuilding tiltedat an angle. The difference betweenthetwo collapsescan be explained by the diiferent wayeach airplane staickthe buildings.The first planestruck tlie North Tower (Building1) between the 94thto 98th floorsand hit it head on, bunow ing almostdirectly toward the core of the building, Tlie secondairphine struck the South Tower between the 78th iind84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damagingthe entire northeast comerof the building.-^ Comparedwitli the North Tower, the South Tower sustaineddam-age that was bf^th less evenly distributedand signifi-cantly loweron the building's frame, requiringtheweakened jx)intto support more upper buildingweight tlian the corresponding crash siteon the North

Tower. This explains both tlie tiltof the

buildingas it

fell toward the weakened comer,and the fact that theSouth Tower fell first despite being staick aftertheNorth Tower was struck. Again, this scenario makesgood sense if the buildings felldue to dimage inflictedby the plane crashes,but makes very litde senseif thebuildings feOdue to a planned demolition.

Th e 9/11 Truth Movement often statesor impliesthat steel would have neededto melt in order for thestrucaire to collapse at the speed of a free-fall. Whilethere are varying assessmentsof the temperature of thefire at WTC, most agree thatthe temperature probablyreached 1,000 Fahrenheit and possibly higher than1,800 F. Fkme s of this temperature wouldbe far shortof the approximately 28(X)F needed to melt steel,butthey would have been sufficientto severely reducethestructural integrityof the metal. Best engineering esti-mates tell us that steel loses 50%of its strength at

' O O

North Tower(First to be hit.)

Failedcolumn

Heavydamage

O Moderatedamage

The way the airplanes s truck the towers influenced which building failed first. Right:the first airplane hit the North Towernearly dead on center. Column damage to the central core is indicated by the shaded circles. The second ainilane hit theSouth Tower at an an^e, destroying the column support for an entire comer of the building.The second plane also hrt loweron the buikting leaving the weightof more floors above a more severely weakened structure.

S K E P T I CV O L U M E 1 2 N U M B E R 4 2 0 0 6

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

4/13

650 C. (1.200F) and can lose as m uch as 90% of its strength at tem-peratures of 1,8(X)F.'' Even if we assume temperaaires of no highertlian 1.000 F during tlie fire, we wou ld still have more than enoug hreasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.

The unique structure of the WTC towers exaggerated the problemscaused by the weakened steel. The towers had a lightweight "peiimetertube" design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36cTn square steelon 100 cm centers, with 95 % of the stnicture's interior consisting ofnothing but air (see top right).^^ Within this perimeter tube design therewas a 27 m by40 m core, designed to pnjvide additi

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

5/13

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

6/13

most extensive damage. As noted for the col-lapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of thebuilding's fall are completely consistent with thenature of the damage sustained. The planneddemolition hypothesis, on the other hand, fails toexplain why collapse would begin at exactly tliepoint where damage was inflicted, since the con-spirators would have had to been able to predictexactly where debris from the fallen North andSouth Towers would strike WTC 7. And whilethe makers of tlie documentaryLoose Changecomment that WTC 7 "fell straight down, into aconvenient pile," the truth Is that the pile ofdebris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across,hardly the kind of "convenient pile" described byconspiracy theoris ts. -

For tliose who believe that Building 7 felldue to controlled demolition, some of the mostpowerfijl "evidence" seemingly com es from WTCleaseholder Larry SUverstein's alleged "confession"that he authorized the tower's destruction. Thequote in question comes from a September, 2002PBS Special calledAmerica Rebuilds, in whichSilverstein says:

I remember getting a call from the, er, firedepartment commander, telling me that theywere not .sure they were gonna be able tocontain the fire, and I said, "We've had such

terrible loss oflite, maybe the smartest thing todo is pull it." And they made that decision topull and we watched the building collapse.'"*

To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones atprLsonplanet.com, this quote seems to l;x; a"smoking gun" because they interpret the phrase"pull it" to be "industry jargon for taking a build-ing down with explasives."''' Silverstein seems tobe saying that he and the firefighters decided topull (destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall afterauthorizing the demolition. No building could becontrollably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy

theorists go on to aigue, so WTC 7 must havebeen prepared for demolition long in advance.On closer inspection, this supposedly devas-

tating evidence does not seem to mean what the9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There isfar from unanimous industry agreement that thephrase "pull it" always signifies a controlleddemolition with explosivesmore specific phrasessuch as "pull away" would be used to designatethe specific operation to be performed.i'' And ofcourse, "pull" has man y com mon language uses

quite separate from demolition lingo. But ifSilverstein wasn't describing a decision to destroyW I C 7, wliat could the words "pull it" mean? Agood place to seek the answer is this September

9, 2005 statement by Mr. Dara Mc-Quillan. aspokesperson for kiny Silverstein:

In the artemoon of September 11, Mr. Silversteinspoke to tlie Fire Department Qjnimander on siteat Seven World Trade Center. The Coirimander toldMr. Silverstein diat there were several firefigliters intJie building working to contain the tire.s. Mr.Silverstein expressed his view that the most impor-tant thing was to protect the safety of those fire-fighters, including, if necess;iry, to have them with-draw from tlie building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander orderedhis firefighters out of the building antI at 5:20 p.m.tJie building coilapsed. No lives were lost at SevenWorld Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted ahove, when Mr, Silverstein wasrecounting these events tor a television doeumen-tary he stated, "I said, you know, we've had suchterrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest tiling to doLs to pull it." Mr. McQuillan has stated that by "it."Mr. Silierstein meant the cuntingent of firefightersremaining in the building(emphasis added).'^

McQuillan's resp onse also indicated that fire-fighters were present at WTC 7 to evacuate ten-ants, and worked at the site until late in the after-noon shortly before the collapse occurred. Thereis in fact abundant evidence that firefighters werepresent in and around WTC 7 in evacuation andrescue missions until late in the day on 9/11.According to Fire Depaitment Chief Daniel Nigro:

Ttie most important operational decision to bemade that aftemoon was [that] the collapse [of theWTC lowers] had damaged 7 World TradeCenter.. .It had very heavy fire on many floors andI ordered the evaaiation of an area sufficientaround to pn:.)tect our members, so webad to giveup some rescue (perations that were going on at thetime (emphasis added) and back the people awayfar enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse,we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continuedto operate on what we could from tliat distanceand approximately an hour and a half after thatorder was [given], at 5:30 in the aftemcxm, WorklTrade Center cxjllapsed completely.'*^

Another first responder adds that there w ere"tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally

W W W . S K E P T I C , C O M

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

7/13

Left: extensive damage to the Pentagon is revealed duringthe cleanup and repair. Right: damage to the C-rtngthecentral ring of the Pentagon,Photos courtesy of Popular Mechanics magazine.

they pulled (emphasis added) us out."''^ Thefirst-hand accounts of rescue operations at WTC 7tell a consistent story, and the latter quote alsouses the word "pull" to describe the remo\'al offirefighters from the vicinityoi tlie building, justas McQuillan's statement does. Indeed, there Islarge agreement between McQuillan's responseand the testimony of the firefighters, includingthe fact that: (a) firefighters were in fact in thevicinity of W T C 7 on 9/11; (b) their activitiesinvolved evacuation and rescue missioas; (c) fire-fighters remained near WTC 7 until late in theaftemoon of9 / 1 1 ; (d) firefighters realized thatWTC 7 would probably fall by approximately 3PM on 9/11; and (e) firefighters pulled back fromtlie building shortly after this realization, andwatched the building collapse at approximately5:20 PM, Despite the objections of conspiracy

theorists, the "official story" is both logicallycoherent and supported by evidence.By contrast, the story told by die 9/11 Taith

Movement is riddled witli holes. It assumes thatLarry Silverstein destroyed WTC Building 7, pre-sum^ihly in order to claim a huge insurance pay-off. But if this is .so, why wo uld he tell the worldof his plot on a PBS speci:il? Furthermore, whatrelationship dcx,'s Silverstein have with the UnitedStates govemment who, according to conspiracytheorists, destroyed th e WTC buildings in order to

terrorize its citizens into accepting domination bya police state ? 'J And if the go vem me nt controlledthe demolition of the WTC buildings in order to.strike fear intoiLs citizens, why one this one casewould it wait until all of the tenants were evacu-ated from WTC 7 so that there were no reportedcasualties?2 ' The government's strategy appearswildly inconsistent in the Trutli Movementaccountkilling nearly 3,000 people in thedestmction of the two main towers, while allow-ing ;ui entire aftemcx)n for tlie tenants of WTC 7to escape. We should also note that the alleged9/11 plot was needlessly complicated, since thebuilding was w ired for a controlled demolitionan d tai^eted to be hit by airplaneswhy not justdo tlie controlled demolition, ditch the airplanesand blame it on die terrorists of your choice?

Tliere's also the problem that, as even the

9/11 Tmth Movement admits, prepping a build-ing for demolition takes considerable time andeffort. Usually a building targeted for demolitionhits l:)een abandoned for considerable time andpartially gutted to allow ex plosives intimate con-tact witli the stnicture of the builtling. But sinceall of the WTC buildings were cK'cupied right upto 9/11, how did the govemment gain access towire 3 towers for complete demolition withoutanyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wiresand bombs into buildings while thousands of

S K E P T IV O L U M E 1 2 N U M B E R 4 2 0 0 6

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

8/13

people are working in offices, riding the eleva-tors and milling about in the liallsthat scenarioLS unlikely in the extreme.

The PentagonMany peop le in the 9/11 Truth Movement believethat the Pentagon was not actually stRick by Flight77, as the "official story" claims. Instead, the>'believe that the United States govemment some-how staged the damage, perhaps through the useof a bomb or strategically fired missile. This claimfirst attracted attention in French author ThierryMeyssan's b(:x>k,Pentagate, which claims that thedamage done to the Pentagon was too limited tohave resulted fiDm the crash of a Boeing 757.^^The documentary "Loase Change" claims that thehole left in the Pentagon by the alleged airplanewzs "a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diam-eter," and that no rem:iins whatsoever of Flight 77were found at the cmsh site.^ To dramaticallysupport this last point, conspiracy' theorists citeCNN correspondent Jatnie Mclntyre's repott fromthe crash site on9/11, wliich says, "From myclose-up inspection, there's no evidence of a planehaving crashed anywhere near the Pentagon,"^"*

lik e the previously discTJSsed a i l m e n t s aboutWTC 7 not being damaged enough to fall on itsown, complaints about the size of the hole in thePentagon left by Flight 77 rely on selective choice

of perspective, 9/11 conspiracy theorists like toreference pictures of the damaged Pentagon inwhich the hole made by the plane appears to besmall, but aren't as fond of the pictures accuratelyshowing the full extent of tlie damage. Some con-spiracy theorists also don't seem satisfied that theshape of tiie hole matches that expeaed for acrashed airplane. Hut the expectation that theplane should have left iin immediately recogniza-ble hole in the building is delusionala speedingBoeing 757 will not leave a snow-angel styleimpression of itself in a concTete building (versusthe mostly-glass exterior of the WTC buildings,which did leave an outline of a plane). And thecontention that no remains of Flight 77 werefound at the crash site is simply absurd. Manypictures taken of the area around tlie Pentagoncrash site cieariy show parts of an airplane in thewreckage. In an excellent article about 9/11 con-spiracy theories inPopular M echanics, blastexpert Allyn F. Kilsheimer describes liis ownobservations as tlie first structural engineer toarrive at the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed:

I saw tlie marks ofthe plane wing on the face of thebuilding. I picked up parts ofthe plane with the air-line iniirkings on tliem. I held in my hand the tailsection of the phne, and I found the black box.

Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed Lip

by photos of plane wreckage inside and oLitsidethe building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts ofLiniforms from crew m emb ers in my han ds,including Ixxiy parts. Okay?"

But if there is so much evidence that a planecrashed into the Pentagon, why did CNN corre-spondent Jamie Mclntyre report that he couldfind none? The answer is that Mclntyre did notreport this at all, and the 9/11 Truth Movement isonce again selectively manipulating evidence tofit their conclusions. When Mclntyre noted thatno debris from a plane was observable near thePentagon, he was responding to a specific qties-tion asked by CNN anchor Judy Woodruff duringthe seg ment. Flight 77 came in flying very low,and there h:id been speculation that tlie planemight have ,stnick the ground shortly l")eforereaching the Pentagon. M clnt>'re's respons e,when quoted in full, makes clear that he is say-ing that tliere was no evidence that the plane hitthe ground before hitting tbe Pentagon, but hecertainly does not deny that the plane stmck thePentagon itself.

picturesthat show

recognizableairplane debrison the lawn of

the burningPerrtagon on

9 / 11 . Photoscourtesy of

PopularMechanicsmagaz ine .

W W W . S K E P T I C . C O M

S K E P T I C

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

9/13

The crash site ofUnited 93 andthe iocation ofengine debris,

In rural Somersetcounty nearShanksviMe,Pennsylvania.

WOODRUFF: |;imic, Aaron was ttlking L'arlierorone of our ct^rrespondcnce was tilking earlierIthinkactually, it was Bob Franken^with an eye-

witness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757,the American jet. American Airline jet, landed shortof the Pentagon.

Can you give us any l^etter idea ofhow^ much ofthe plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeat^ed tliatvray, but from my dose-iip inspection, there's noevidence of a plane having crashetl anywhere nearthe Pentagon, T h e only site is the actual site ofthebuilding that's crashed in [emphasis added], and xs1 said, the only pieces left that you can see aresmall enough tiiat you can pick up in your hand.There are no large tail seaioas, wing sections, fu.se-lage, nothing like that anywhere an)und,whichiivukl indicate that the entire planecrashed itito theside ofthe Fentagon and then caused th e side to c o l -/i^^e iemphasLs a dde d], ^

Note that Mclntyre never questions that anairplane crash damaged the Pentagon, andindeed describes seeing many piecx's of the air-craft around tlie crash site inim earlier section of

the CNN transcript.-"' Of course, this has notstopped coaspiracy theorists from picking andchoasing the evidence to piLsh tlieir own agendas.

Right 93 and Other Alleged AnomaliesOn April 5, 2006, the creators of the 9/11 con-spiracy dcxumentary "Ixx^se Cliange" and theirsupporters decided to attend the premiere of thefilm "United 9 3 , " about the hijacked airplane thatcrashed on 9/11. They wanted to take the oppor-tunity to expose the alleged lies about tliis flight,and in the words of one "Loose Change" forummember, to "bite these bastards wbere it hurts,and have this Fight 93 movie backfire ontliem,"^ To many Americans, the passengers onUnited 93 who fouglit back agaiast the terroristsand caused it to cTash before it could reach itstaiget are heroes, l^ut tJie 9/11 TnitJi Movetiientsees tilings differently. Depending on which con-spiracy theorist you ask, you will either !e:im thatFliglit 93 actLially landed s:ifely, or that a US mili-tary jet shot the plane out of the sky.-^^ The firstclaim stetns from confiision in the initialAsscxjiated Press (AI') reports l">etween Flight 93and Flight 1989, the latter of which did land atCleveland's Hopkins Airport on 9/11. The APsubsequently corrected the error, hut many con-spiracy theorisLs have not followed suit.-*^' Thesecond claim rests laigely on unsupported asser-

tioas that the main Ixxly of the engine and otlierlai^e parts t)f the plane tumed up mOes from themain wreckage sitetoo far away to have result-ed from an ordinary crash. This is incorrect,becaiLse the engine was found only 300 yardsfrom tlie main crash site, and its location wasconsistent with the direction in wliich the planehad been traveling.^' Furtliermore, tbe black boxfor the flight records the struggle onlx)ard pre-ceding the plane's crash, Coaspiracy tlieorists areleft with not only an evidentially worthless theory,but also a confiising one. Why would the sameU.S . government that allegedly destroyed theWTC shoot down Flight 93 before it could causesimilar dam age to other buildings? Of cou rse, this(question assumes a standard of logical cx)nsistencythat the 9/11 Tmth Movement seems to lack.

Anotber alleged fligbt anomaly amcems thesupposed "stand down" order given by the NorthAmeric-an Aenxspace Defease Commiind(NORAD) on 9/11 to aQow tbe hijackcxl airphinesto reach their destinations witbout interference.Tbe 9/11 Tmtb Movement believes that NORAD

S K E P T I CV O L U M E 1 2 N U M B E R 4 2 0 0 6

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

10/13

bad the capability' of locating and interceptingplanes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates agovemment conspiracy to allow the attacks tooccur. To support this assertion, they claim that

NORAD could have quickly neutralized tbehijacked planes because flight interceptions areroutine, with 67 such intercepts occ\irring before9/11 -^^ Significantly, this claim does not specifythe length of time over which these alleged inter-cepts occurred, or tell us whether they tcx^k placenear major cities or over, say, miles of open ocean.More specific and accurate information comesfrom the Pcpular Mechanics article, which states:

In the decade before9/11, NORAD interceptedonly one civilian plane over North America; golferPayne Stewart's Learjet. in Oaober 1999. Witli pas-

sengers and crew unconscious from cabin decom-pression, the plane lost radio contact but remainedin transponder contati until it crashed. Even so, ittook an F-l6 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach thestricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11,prohibited supersonic flight on intercepLs.33

It is not a quick or easy matter to locate andintercept a plane behaving erratically. NORADpersonnel must first attempt repeated communica-tion with the plane in question to rule out moremundane problems, and then must contact appro-priate military personnel to scramble fighters and

direa them to the appropriate location. Tbe situa-tion on 9/11 was fi-irther complicated by the factthat terrorists on the hijacked jets had tumed off ordisabled tbe onlxard radar transponders. Withouta tninsponder signal identifying the airplanes, eachhijacked airplane would have been only one mov-ing blip among many others on NORAD'Sscreens, making it mucb harder to track. TTius,even a direct NORAD decision to intercept any oftbe liijacked planes on 9/11 would have stillentailed a significant amount of time to reach tbejettime tbat was siniply not available on 9/11.

Various other conspiracy theories focus on thegovernment's alleged foreknowledge of tbe ter-rorist attacks. One popular theory suggests therewas a suspiciously high volume of "put" tradingof airline st[x:ks in the days just before 9/11. Since"put" trading is effectively a gamble that tbe priceof a stock will decrease, conspiracy theorists sur-mise tbat trading "insiders" knew about tbe com-ing events of 9/11 and placed theirh& s accord-ingly. While this may look suspicious in isolation,the general volume of put trading on these stocks

reached similar levels at earlier points in the year.The spike in Americ:m Airlines trading was thehighest ofth e all airline companies involved, butthat's hardly surprising considering that tbe com-

pany had just released a major warning aboutpossible losses.^ Indeed, general bad news aboutthe airline industry prompted investment compa-nies to advise their clients to take the put options,removing any need to blame the trading optionson foreknowledge of the attacks.

Another theory alleges that the FederalEmeigency Management Agency (FEMA) arrivedat the World Trade Center on September 10,2001, thus showing that the govemment knewabout the coming disaster. This claim is based ona statement by Tom Kenney of the Massachusettst;isk force, who told CBSne^-s anchor DanRatJier on September 13, 2001, "We're currently,uli, one of tbe first teams that was deployed tosupport the city of New York for this disaster. Wearrived on, uh, late Monday nigbt and went intoaction on Tuesday moming. And not until todaydid we get a full opportunity to work, uh, theentire site."'^ The rather mundane explanationfor this quote is thatMi". Kenney confused hisdaysnot an unusual occurrence for someonewbo had been working for more than two longdays in emergency response activities. Thus, astraightforward interpretation of Kenney's

response is that he arrived at Ground Zero on9/11 (which he incorrectly identified as Monday,rather than Tuesday), went into action on 9/12(mistakenly identified as Tuesday) and did notget a chance to work the whole WTC site until"today" (the day he was speaking to Rather, orTliursday, 9/13)- Additionally, many sou rces d oc-ument tbe arrival of FEMA on 9/1 1, andKenney's wife confirmed tbe day her husbandwas dispatched to Ground Zero as9/11.-^' Thedegree to which the 9/11 Truth Movement willexaggerate and exploit simple misunderstiindingsdoes not speak well of tbeir concern for tmth.

Much of this discussion has focused onexplanatioas given by the 9/11 Truth Movement,but we should note that the explan:itions theydon't give are just as problematic. I have notbeen able to locate any significant discussion ofal Qaeda, radical Islamic terrorists or the mo demhistory of the Middle East in any of the 9/11Tmth M ovement's writings. The most likely rea-son for this is that, like mast other Americans,many of them simply didn't pay very much

W W W . S K E P T r C . C O M

S K E P T I C

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

11/13

attention to the Middle East before 9/11. Yet, it isimpossible to understand tbe threat of terrorismunless we also understand how the fall of theOttoman empire, the fragmentation of much ofthe Middle East into new nations with largelyarbitrary boundaries after WW II, Muslim reactionto the creation of the state of Israel, the birth ofIslamic fundamentalism, conflict with and influ-ence by S(3viet Russia, and frustration overAmerica's support for Israel have shaped theideology and mission of groups like al Qaeda.Islamic terrorist groups arose in tliis context, andhave actively and repeatedly tai^^eted Americaninterests for over two decades. The idea tliatIslamic tem)iisLs would tai^ct U.S. buildings forattack fits well with recent events over the pasttwo decades, including:

an attack by the radical Hezbollati faction onMarine barracks in Lebanon in 1983;

the liijacking of the Achille latin) in 1985; a truck bomb attack on the World Trade

Center in 1993; killing 6 people and injuringover 1,000 more;

a thwarted attempt to blow up 12 planes head-ing from the Philippines to the U.S. in January,1 9 9 5 ;

an attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in1 9 9 6 , killing 19 U.S. military personnel andinjuring hundreds more;

the bombings of U . S . Embassy buildings inKenya and Tanzania in 1995, killing 12Americans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians;

a thwarted attempt by Ahmed Ressam to attackLos Angeles International airport in late 1999;

a suicide boat bombing agaiast the U.S.S. Coleon October 12, 2000, killing 17 sailors andinjuring 39 others. ^

Additionally, there is well-documented evi-dence tbat Osama Bin Laden bas repeatedlyorganized and prompted attacks against theUnited States, His role as a financier for major ter-rorist otgiinizations and the leader of al Qaeda iswell-established. Bin Laden issued a 1996 fatvt'aofficially declaring a jihad against tlie UnitedStates, and a second fat^\'a in 1998 declaring "tokill the Americans and their alliescivilian andmilitary is an individual duty for any Muslim whocan do it in any country in which it is passible todo it." Since bin-Laden and al Qaeda have offi-cially claimed respoasibility for the attacks of9 / 1 1 , and the evidence points in theii" direction

there is no point in seeking altemative theories. ^^

Tlie best explanation for the events of 9/11 isthat it was the latest and most damaging attack yetin a series of attacks by radical Islamic terroristswbo wish to end ^Ahat they believe Ls an evil U.S.foreign policy. As a nation, we were psychologi-ailly and strategically unprepared lor this attackdue to our lailui'e to acknowledge the seriousnessof the threat. Sadly, the 9/11 Tmth Movement con-tinues to divert its gaze from the real problems,preferring tlie .solace of delusions to reality.

Conclusion: The Power of Conspiracy TheoriesTliis article bas analyzed the arguments of the9/11 Trutli Movement and found tliem lacking.Yet, ttie 400 people who attended the conferenceand tlie thousands of others who support their

efforts find these theories convincing, and thereason d(x?s not necessarily seem to be groundedin common political ideology. Based on myinfomial sur\'ey of the crowd at the Hyatt confer-ence, I noted that attendees seemed to comefrom each extreme of the political spectrum.There were representatives of the far right whodecr ' any form of government authorit>', buttbere were also members of tbe far left waging atireless c:impaign against the perceived evils ofaipiUilism and imperialism. We need to return toa question posed near the beginning of this dis-

cussion: Why do so many intelligent and promis-ing people find these theories so compelling?Tliere are several possible ans-wers to this

question, none of them necessarily exclusive ofthe others. One of the first and most obvious isdistrust of tbe American govemment in general,and the Bush administration in particLilar. Thismistrust is not entirely without basis. TlieAmerican govemment deceived its citizens aboutthe real human ck office after the most controversial presiden-tial election in more than a century, and one tliatbacked out of international agreements such asthe Kyoto Protoc< l, mislfd citizens about the sci-ence of global warming and stem cell research,initiated a war in Iraq based on unsupportable"intelligence" about weapons of mass destmction.

S K E P T IV O L U M E 1 2 N U M B E R 4 2 0 0 6

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

12/13

and failed to respond inadequately to the effectsof a hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, and you havestrong motivations for suspicion.*^ (Suffice it tosay, admiration for George W. Bush is not mymotivation for defending him against the claimsof coaspiracy theorists).

However, there are a few things to be saidabout suspicion. First, there is the simple philo-sophical point that suspicion alone demonstratesnothingany theory needs evidence in its favorif it is to be taken seriously. Second, the mistakesmade by our government in tlie past are qualita-tively different from a coasdous decision to killthousands of its own citizeas in order to justifythe oppression of others. Most impcjitantly, tliereis the fact that most of what we know about the

bad decisioas made by our government is onlyknowable due to the relati\'e transparency witliwhich our government operates, and the free-dom to dLsseminate and discuss this information.

The full irony of this last point hit me while Iwas at die conference. Here was a group of about400 people gathered to op enly discuss the evilschemes of the U.S. government, whom theyacaise of horrible atrocities in the service of estab-lishing a police state. But if America really was apolice state with such terrible secrets to protect,surely government thugs would have stormed thelecture h^ills and arrested many of those present,or would at the very least have conducted behindthe scene s arrests and jailed the movem ent's lead-ers. Yet even the most vcxal leaders of the 9/11Truth Movement ;ire still going strong, and no oneat the conference seemed very worried about gov-emment reprisals. This faa seeniingly indicatesthat at some level, the conspiracy' theorists them-selves don't really believe what they are saying.

Another reason for the appeal of9/11 con-spiracies Ls that tliey are easy to understand. Asprevioasly mentioned, most Americans did notknow or care to know much about the Middle

East until the events of 9/11 forced them to takenotice. (The brilliant satirical newspaper'IheOnion poked tun at this fact with its article "AreaMan Acts Like He's Been Interested In Afghan-istan All Along").*! file great advantage of the9/11 Taitli Movement's theories is that they don'trequire you to know anything about the MiddleEast, or for that matter, to know anything signifi-cant about world history or politics. This pointsto another ix^nefit of coaspiracy theoriestheyare oddly comforting. Chaotic, threatening events

are difficult to comprehend, and tlie steps wemight take to protect ourselves are unclear. Withcoaspiracy theory that focuses on a singlehuman cause, the terrible randomness of lifeassumes an understandable order

The great writer Thomas Pynchon memo-rably expressed this point in his novelGramty'sRainbow:"If there is something comfortingreli-gious, if you want about paranoia, there is stillalso anti-paranoia, where nothing is connected toanything, a condition not many of us can bearfor long."**^ The promiscuity of coaspiracy theo-ries toward evidence thus becomes part of theirappealtliey can link virtually any ideas of inter-est to the theorist into a meaningful whole. Thispoint was iUustrated nicely during the Q & A ses-

sion following the conference screening of RickSiegel's Eyeuntiwss: Iloboken.An attendee want-ed to know what role the Freemasoas played inthe plot, and seemed very concerned thatSiegel's account had negleaed them. After waf-fiing on tlie answer for a few moments withoutappeasing his questioner, Siegel finally relentedand said, "Sure, they're involved." And why not'Witti the standards of evidence used by conspira-cy theorists, there is no reascjn why theFreemasoas, the Bavarian Illuminati, or the Eldersof Zion cannot also be involved in the 9/11plotit just depends on what you find the mostsolace in believing. As it turns out, some conspir-acy theorists do throw one or more of theseother parties into tlie mix, as a popular andbogu s rum or that 4,000 Jew s m ysteriously failedto come to work on 9/11 shows.'*-^

Solace is something all of us needed after thehorrible events of 9/11, and each of us is entitledto a certain degree of freedom in its pursuit.However, there is no moral right to seek solaceat the expease of truth, especially if tlie tmth Isprecisely what we mast need to avoid the mis-takes of the past. Truth matters for its own sake,but it also matters because it is our only defenseagaiast the evils of those who cynically exploittruth claims to serve their own agendas. It is con-cern for the tnith that leads us to criticize ourown goveiTiment when necessary, and to insistthat others who claim to do so follow the samerigorous standards of evidence and ai lm en t.9/11 was a powerful reminder of how preciousand fragile human life and liberty arethe great-est possible rebuke to those who would live inservice to delusions. T

W W W . S K E P T I C . C O M

S K E P T I C

8/3/2019 9 11 Theories

13/13

References1 . 2005 . " 9 / 1 1 ;Debunking the

Myths."Popular Mechanics.March.2005 .

2 . Heller, David. 2005. "TakingaCloser Look: Hard Scienceandthe Collapseof the WorldTrade Center." Gariic& Grass,Issue 6. Availablea t h t t p : / /www.garl icand gciss.org/issije6/Dave_Heller.cfm.

3. Thisis clearly visiblein thePBS NOVA D ocumen taryW hyThe Towers Fell.

4 . 2005 . " 9 / 1 1 :Debunking theMyths."Popular Mechanics.March.2005 .

5. Eager. Thomas and M usso,Christopher. 20 01 . "WhyDid theWorld Trade Center C oll^jse :Science, Engineering and Spec-ulation."JOM. 53(12), 8-11 .

6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. Jones, Steven. 2006."Why

Indeed didth e WTC BuildingsCollapse?" Availablea t h t tp : / /www. physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

9. A good discussionof this issuecan be founda t h t t p : / / 9 11myths.com/html/wtc_motten_steel.html

1 0. This claim can be founda thttp://vrtc7.net/b7fires.html

1 1 . "Worid Trade Ce nter TaskForce Interview: RichardBanaciski." Interview o induct-ed on December 6. 20 01 .Transcribedby ElisabethF.Nason.Availableat h t tp : / /graphics8.nytimes.cofn/pack-^e s /p t l f /ny re g ion /20050812_.WrC_GRAPH IC /9 11 025 3.PDF#search=%22Banaciski%22 Ibid.

1 2 . Ibid.13. fittp://www.loosechangeguide

.com/LooseChangeGuide. html1 4 . "America Rebuilds."PB S

Home Video, ISBN a 78 06-

4006-3,is available fromhttp://shop.pbs.org/prod-u c t s / ARE B9 0 1 / .

1 5. http://www.prisonplanet.com

/ 0 11 9 0 4 w t c 71 6. A d iscussionof the "puiltt"

phrase by professional demoli-tion workersis at ht tp: / /web.archive.org/web/2005032705240 8 /h t tp : / /home . p l a netnt/-reiic(O5O/911_my_own_re\new.htm#222

1 7. See "9 /1 1 Revealed? A NewBook Repeats False ConspiracyTheories."At http://usjnfb.state.gov/media/Archive/ 2 0 0 5 / S e p / i e - 2 4 1 9 6 6 . h t m l

1 8. "World Trade Ce nter TaskForce Interview: Daniel Nigro."Interview conductedonOctober24 . 2 0 0 1 . The textofthe interviewis availablea thttp://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/2005

_Daniel.txt19 . "Warid Trade Ce nter Task

Force Interview: RichardBanaciski." Interview conduct-ed on December 6. 20 01 .Transcribedby ElisabethF.Nason. Availableat h t tp : / /graphics8.nytimes.com/

packages /pdf/nyregon/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/911O253.PDF#search^622Banacist';i%22Ibid.

20 . Read almost anythinga thttp://www.prisonplanet.comfor this idea.

2 1 . The FEMA report on WTC7 isavailablea t http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

22 . Meyssan. Tliierry. 20 02 .Pentagate. New YoricUSABooks.

23 . http://www.loosachangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

24 . The transcript: h ttp ://

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ 0 1 0 9 / l l / b n . 3 5 . h t m l

25 . 2 0 0 5 . " 9 / 1 1 :Debunkingth e

Myths."Popular Mechanics.March,2 0 0 5 .26 . http://transcripts .cnn.com/

TTW J SC R IFTS/0109 / l l / bn.35.html

27 . Ibid.28 . http://www.loosechangeguide

.com/LooseChangeGuide .html29 . The claimi^a t F l i ^ t9 3 land-

ed safely is at http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm. The claim th atit wa sshot bya missile ca nbe foundat http://www.serendip(ty.li/wot/pop_mech/shanksville .htm

30 . A descriptionof the confusionbetweenth e planes is inKropko. M.R. 2002."September 1 1 Tension Vividto Controller."AssociatedPress, August 15, 2002.Thestory is also available onlineat http://www.enquirer.com/e d i t ions /2002 /08 /15 / toc_s e p t_ l l j e n3 ion . h tmi

3 1 . 2 0 0 5 . " 9 / 1 1 :Debunking theMyths."Popular Mechanics.March,2 0 0 5 .

32 . One such claim canbe found

at http://911research.wtc7-net /essays /pm/33 . 2005 . " 9 / 1 1 :Debunkingth e

MyUis."Popular Mechanics.March.2 0 0 5 .

34 . See "AMR Corp Issues3Q'2001 Profit Warning."AirlineIndustry Information,Sept-ember 1 1 . 20 01 . Availableatht tp: / /www. hi^beam.com/library/docR-ee.asp?DOCID=1G1:78127985. Fora gener-al contemporary assessmentof the viabilityof airline indus-try in themonths before 9 /1 1 .

see Hamilton, Adam. 2001."Plummeting Profits." ZealSpeculation and Investment.

June 22 . 2 00 1 , availablea tht tp: / /www.zeal l lc .com/2001/plummet.htm

35 . Schorow, Stephanie. 2 00 2. .

"Indepenctent Research."BostonHerald.5 September(Arts & Life).A sound recordingof Kenney's statement canbeheard at http://www.snopes.com/rumor^/sound/kenney.ram

36 . Ibid.

37 . This listis based on infbrma-tion in Stasser, Steven (ed.).2 0 0 4 . TTie9/11 Investigations:Staff Reportsof the 9/11Commission.New York: PublicAffairs Books. More informa-tion about radical Islam canbe

found in Rashid, Ahmed.2 0 0 1 . Taliban:Militant Islam, ]Oil and FundamentalisminCentral Asia.NewYori