9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that question the mainstream account of

the September 11 attacks in the United States. These theories assert that the official report
on the events is not sufficiently forthright, thorough or truthful. Many critics allege that
individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and
intentionally failed to act on that knowledge. Some critics state that the attacks could
have been a false flag operation carried out by a private network of high-level officials in
the U.S. Government. The common suspected motives were the use of the attacks as a
pretext to justify overseas wars, to facilitate increased military spending, and to restrict
domestic civil liberties.

Many of these theories have been voiced by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, a
name adopted by organizations and individuals who question the mainstream account of
the attacks.[1] Generally, individuals and groups belonging to the 9/11 Truth Movement
question the accuracy of the mainstream account of the attacks, demand a new
investigation into the attacks, and often investigate aspects of the September 11 attacks
themselves. A prominent claim is that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the
result of a controlled demolition.[2][3] Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not
crash into the Pentagon; this position is debated within the Truth Movement, many of
whom believe that AA Flight 77 did crash there, but that it was allowed to do so via an
effective stand down of the military.[4]

Published reports by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology rejected the
controlled demolition conspiracy theories.[5][6] The community of civil engineers generally
accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in
combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse
of the Twin Towers.[7]

History
Since the September 11 attacks, a number of theories challenging the mainstream account
of the attacks have been put forward in websites, books, and films. Many groups and
individuals challenging the mainstream account identify as part of the 9/11 Truth
Movement.[8]

Conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks did not emerge immediately after the
event, as most professional conspiracy theorists in the United States appeared to be as
shocked as the rest of the population.[9] The first theories that emerged focused primarily
on anomalies in the official account and publicly available evidence, and propenents were
only later tending to develop more full-blown theories about the ultimate source of an
alleged plot.[9]

The first elaborated theories, published in books, appeared in Europe. They include a
blog published by Matthias Bröcker, an editor at the German newspaper Die
Tageszeitung at the time, the book 9/11: The Big Lie by French journalist Thierry
Meyssan, the book The CIA and September 11 by former German state minister Andreas
von Bülow and the book Operation 9/11, written by the German journalist Gerhard
Wisnewski.[9]

While these theories were popular in Europe, U.S. media treated them with either
bafflement or amusement. The U.S. government dismissed them as anti-
Americanism.[9][10] In an address to the United Nations on November 10, 2001, United
States President George W. Bush denounced the emergence of "outrageous conspiracy
theories [...] that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away
from the guilty."[11]

By 2004, conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks began to gain ground in the
United States. This increase in popularity was arguably not due to the discovery of any
new or more compelling evidence, or to an improvement of the technical quality of the
presentation of the theories, but rather to the growing criticism of the Iraq War and the
presidency of George W. Bush, who had been reelected in 2004. Revelations of spin
doctoring and outright lying by federal officials, such as the claims about the existence of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the belated release of the President's Daily Brief of
August 6, 2001 and reports that NORAD had lied to the 9/11 Commission, have fueled
the conspiracy theories.[9]

Between 2004 and the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in 2006, mainstream
coverage of the conspiracy theories increased.[9] Reacting to the growing publicity, U.S.
Government agencies and the Bush Administration issued responses to the theories,
including a formal analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
about the collapse of the World Trade Center,[12] a revised 2006 State Department
webpage to debunk the theories,[13] 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."[14] al-Qaeda has
repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attacks, with chief deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri
accusing Shia Iran and Hezbollah of intentionally starting rumors that Israel carried out
the attacks to denigrate Sunni successes in hurting America.[15]

Many of the conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks do not involve classical
representational strategies that establish a clear dichotomy between good and evil, or
guilty and innocent. Instead, they call up gradations of negligence and complicity.[9]
Matthias Bröckers, an early proponent of such theories, dismisses the official account of
the September attacks as being itself a conspiracy theory that seeks "to reduce
complexity, disentangle what is confusing," and "explain the inexplicable".[9]

A number of 9/11 opinion polls have been conducted in an attempt to establish roughly
how many people have doubts about the mainstream account, and how prevalent some of
the theories are. Just prior to the fifth anniversary of the attacks, mainstream news outlets
released a flurry of articles on the growth of 9/11 conspiracy theories,[16] with Time
Magazine stating, "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political
reality."[17] In 2008 9/11 conspiracy theories topped a "greatest conspiracy theory” list
compiled by The Daily Telegraph. The list was based on following and traction.[18][19] An
August 2007 Zogby poll found that, while 26.4% of Americans believe that "certain
elements in the U.S. Government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them
proceed for various political, military and economic reasons", another 4.8% of them
believe that "certain U.S. Government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects
of the attacks".[20] Mainstream coverage generally presents these theories as a cultural
phenomenon and is often critical of their content.

Mainstream account
Main article: September 11 attacks

On September 11th, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet
airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of
the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others
working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying at least
two nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the
Pentagon and a fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the
passengers and flight crew revolted. [21]

The terms 'mainstream account,' 'official account' and 'official conspiracy theory' all refer
to:

• The reports from government investigations - the 9/11 Commission Report (which
incorporated intelligence information from the earlier FBI investigation
(PENTTBOM) and the Joint Inquiry of 2002), and the studies into building
performance carried out by the Federal Emergency Management Agency[22]
(FEMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
• President Obama's June 2009 speech to the Muslim world where he said "I am
aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al
Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day."[23]
• Investigations by non-government organizations that support the mainstream
account - such as those by the National Fire Protection Association, and by
scientists of Purdue University and Northwestern University.[24][25][26]
• Articles supporting these facts and theories appearing in magazines such as
Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, and Time.
• Similar articles in news media throughout the world, including The Times of
India,[27] the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC),[28] the BBC,[29] Le
Monde,[30] Deutsche Welle,[31] the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC),[32]
and The Chosun Ilbo of South Korea.[33]

The 9/11 Commission Report disclosed prior warnings of varying detail of planned
attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda. The report said that the government
ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement
and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited
bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals
during that era. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administration with “failure
of imagination”. Most members of the Democratic and the Republican parties applauded
the commission's work.[34]

Some members of the 9/11 Commission have criticized how the government formed and
operated the commission, and allege omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission
Report.[35][36][37] Commission co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote in their
book "Without Precedent" that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and in an
interview with CBC News, Mr. Hamilton complained of "poor access" and said that the
Commission was unable to answer many of its questions about FAA and NORAD and
White House activity. [38] He also acknowledged that NORAD had told the Commission
things that were not true. [39] According to an article in Harpers, the Commissioners wrote
that they threatened to seek prosecution of officials for criminal obstruction. [40]

Variants
Most 9/11 conspiracy theories generally originate from dissatisfaction with the
mainstream account of 9/11.[41] Less extensive theories allege that official reports have
covered up incompetence or negligence from U.S. personnel, or involvement of a foreign
government or organization other than al-Qaeda.[42] The most prevalent theories can be
broadly divided into two main forms:

• LIHOP ("let it happen on purpose") - suggests that key individuals within the
government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately
ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked
flights were not intercepted.[41][43]
• MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - that key individuals within the
government planned the attacks and collaborated with or framed, al-Qaeda in
carrying them out. There is a range of opinions about how this might have been
achieved.[41][43]

Main issues
Foreknowledge

Main article: 9/11 advance-knowledge debate

The issue of whether anyone outside al-Qaeda was aware that the attacks were going to
take place has been a subject of some theories. Among the theories are: whether activities
at the World Trade Center in the days prior to 9/11 were consistent with preparation for a
controlled demolition; whether the Bush Administration or military knew about the plan
of using planes as missiles; what the intelligence agencies knew about al-Qaeda activities
inside the United States; whether the put options placed on United Airlines and American
Airlines, and other trades considered questionable by theorists, indicate foreknowledge;
whether there were warnings from foreign countries that were specific enough to have
warranted action; whether there was any intelligence information gathered about
imminent al-Qaeda attacks and whether it was specific enough to have warranted action;
whether the alleged hijackers were under surveillance prior to the attacks and, if so, to
what extent; and whether agents of the Mossad or the Pakistani Inter-Services
Intelligence were aware that the attacks were going to take place.

It has been claimed that action or inaction by U.S. officials with foreknowledge was
intended to ensure that the attacks took place successfully. For example, Michael
Meacher, former British environment minister and member of Tony Blair's Cabinet until
June 2003, was widely criticized for claiming that America knowingly failed to prevent
the attacks.[44][45]

Lack of effective defenses

See also: U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

Many 9/11 theories claiming government involvement allege that the U.S. air defense
system, NORAD, was deliberately stood down or rendered ineffective. This claim
originates from the 9/11 Commission Report account of the actions taken by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), NORAD and other military personnel. Some note that
"FAA standard procedures for NORAD interception of off course or ceased responding
aircraft"[46] were activated on 129 occasions in the year 2000 and on 67 occasions in the
period from September 2000 to June 2001 but failed to do so on 9/11.[47]

The interception failure was due to a change in protocol. Prior to 9/11 standard procedure
was for the FAA to contact NORAD who then immediately scrambled fighters to
intercept non responding craft. In July 2001 the procedure was changed. The FAA now
had to contact the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center and the United States
Secretary of Defense would then have to approve the use of military aircraft for the
intercept. The Pentagon would then contact the relevant NORAD Air Defense Sector. On
9/11 the new protocol broke down. The FAA could not get a response from the Pentagon
until 8:34, some 21 minutes after the first hijack and were then told they needed to call
the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) themselves.[48] Air traffic controller Joseph
Cooper then contacted NORAD directly. As the operator should not have received that
call he then passed it on to his superior. Protocol broke down again and NORAD
scrambled without the secretary of defense's authorisation.[49]

Although the military first learned of the hijacking of Flight 11 from Boston Center at
8:40, just 6 minutes before its impact, it was able to scramble two F-15 fighter jets from
the 102nd Fighter Wing from Otis Air National Guard Base just 12 minutes later at 8:52,
six minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
However, the 33 minute flight time didn't allow them to reach Manhattan until 9:25,
22 minutes after the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower.[50] One of the pilots later
commented, "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of
nonstandard for us. And, Nasty even called me on the radio and said, Duff, you're super. I
said yeah, I know. You know, don't worry about it. ... I just wanted to get there
quickly."[51]

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

"For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided
inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media
appearances... Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded
that the Pentagon's initial account of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have
been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public... Suspicion of
wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end
of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for
criminal investigation. In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the
allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who
can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted".[52]

Since the 9/11 Commission places the primary blame on communication failures within
the FAA, David Ray Griffin, who has written several books alleging that the 9/11
conspiracy was considerably larger than the government claims, has questioned why the
U.S. Military would lie to cover up the mistakes made by that agency.[53]

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

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement question whether the story that such an array of
war games and exercises were due to take place on that day by coincidence, is plausible.
United States Representative Cynthia McKinney, former head of the Strategic Defense
Initiative; Dr. Robert M. Bowman; economist Michel Chossudovsky; publisher/editor
Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness and many others have suggested that the war
games were deliberately planned to coincide with the attacks to create confusion.[54]
Webster Tarpley, in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA claims that the war
games were the "perfect cover for conducting the actual live-fly components of 9/11
through a largely un-witting military bureaucracy. Under the cover of this confusion, the
most palpably subversive actions could be made to appear in the harmless and even
beneficial guise of a drill."[55]

In testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta

said that he was not present when the order was given to shoot down the airplanes. He
stated that he became aware of the order when he entered the Presidential Emergency
Operation Command in the bunker underneath the White House where Dick Cheney was
in command. He describes the following exchange, between Cheney and a "young man",
as taking place sometime between him entering the bunker and the time the Pentagon was
hit at 9:37.

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is
50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles
out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the
vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still
stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"[56]

However, the 9/11 Commission report concluded, based on testimony from the other
members who were in the bunker and overhead the conversation, that the young man was
referring to Flight 93, and that the young aide first entered and stated that the aircraft was
80 miles out "at some time between 10:10 and 10:15", after Flight 93 had crashed, but
was believed to still be on its way toward Washington, D.C.[57] Mineta did not know at the
time what the orders referred to, and he learned only later that 'shoot down orders' had
been given that day. However, it has been suggested that the orders spoken of could have
been an order not to shoot down the approaching plane. This theory is based on an
interpretation of the young man's question as an expression of his surprise about the
order. Therefore, because shooting down the approaching plane would be the accepted
action, the unusual nature of an order not to shoot down the plane would explain the
young man's putative disbelief. Still others believe that the young aide's repeated
questioning was due to ethical concerns over shooting down a commercial aircraft with
innocent civilians on board.[58][59]

World Trade Center collapse

Main article: World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

The controlled demolition conspiracy theories state that the collapse of the North Tower,
South Tower and 7 WTC was due to the use of explosives or incendiaries.[60] It plays a
central role in the 9/11 conspiracy theories that assert that the U.S. Government is
responsible for the attacks.[citation needed] Steven E. Jones, a retired professor of Brigham
Young University, suggests that the working hypothesis, as outlined in NIST's 2004
interim report, that fire and debris induced the collapse of 7 WTC, is false.[61]
Some conspiracy theorists have also recently suggested that the 757 aluminum nosecones
and fuselages could have been used as giant shaped charge warheads,[62] driving and
compressing the massive fuel loads inside the towers.[63] It has been claimed that the
effect of compressed Jet-A fuel in a steel chamber would have been similar to a fuel-air
or thermobaric explosive.[64][65]

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Report of 2002 and the later National
Institute of Standards and Technology report of 2005 regarding the reconstruction of the
collapse events of the Twin Towers and Seven World Trade Center both contradict the
controlled demolition conspiracy theories. On August 21, 2008, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology released a 77 page report on the cause of the collapse of World
Trade Center Building 7. It concluded that the collapse occurred because the building was
set on fire by falling debris from the other burning towers, that catastrophic failure
occurred when the 13th floor collapsed weakening a critical steel support column and that
the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system
in the bottom half of the building without water. The theories that the collapse was caused
by explosions or fires caused by diesel fuel in the building was investigated and ruled
out.[66]

The Pentagon

The first of the five video frames leaked in 2002 showing the Pentagon just before
impact.[67][68]

The Pentagon, after collapse of the damaged section.

Debris scattered near the Pentagon.

Some contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon; this position is
debated within the Truth Movement, many of whom believe that AA Flight 77 did crash
there, but that it was allowed to do so via an effective stand down of the military.[4]
Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something other than the Boeing 757 of Flight 77
have been raised, based on photographs taken after the attack, in which there appears to
be a lack of expected debris or damage in and around the impact area, along with the FBI
seizure and refusal to release nearby security camera footage which, it is assumed, would
have captured the attack on video.[69][70] The first proponent of the "No Boeing" theory
was Thierry Meyssan through his book 9/11: The Big Lie and website Hunt the Boeing![71]
His claims have been further popularized by the Internet videos Loose Change and "911
In Plane Site"[citation needed].

On March 8, 2002, five video frames captured by a security camera at the Pentagon were
leaked. Only the first frame preceded the impact: this frame shows what may be an object
heading for the Pentagon. On May 16, 2006, the security camera footage was released as
part of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request.[72][73] However, due to a low
number of frames per second, the videos are also inconclusive, thus keeping the "No
Boeing" theory alive. Security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station, from a
local Doubletree Hotel, and from the Virginia Department of Transportation, was swiftly
confiscated by the FBI. The footage from both the gas station and the hotel were later
released following successful FOIA Requests, but neither captured the impact.[74][75][76]
Additional photographs were released in 2006 after the Zacarias Moussaoui trial and
several FOIA requests.[70]

In an interview for Parade magazine on October 12, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld apparently referred to "the missile to damage [the Pentagon]".[77] Some have
interpreted this as a faux pas admission that it was not Flight 77 that hit the building.
Others have suggested that the word may have been carefully chosen disinformation,
designed to "trap 9/11 skeptics," citing this as the real reason why photographs and video
footage have not been forthcoming.[78][unreliable source?] Parade magazine subsequently stated
that this interpretation of Rumsfeld's words was a misunderstanding caused by a
transcription error.[79] Jim Hoffman states:

"Experts at psychological operations, the perpetrators could have anticipated that skeptics
would divide into two groups: those persuaded by eyewitness evidence that a 757 had
crashed, and those persuaded by physical evidence that one had not. The ongoing
controversy could then be exploited by the perpetrators to several ends: 1) to keep the
skeptics divided, 2) to divert skeptics' resources from other more productive lines of
inquiry and 3) to provide a bizarre-sounding theory with which to tar the entire 9/11 Truth
Movement."[80]

Jim Hoffman and other members have produced essays examining the "No Boeing"
claims and have concluded that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.[81][82] Several researchers
have argued that the wings would cause less damage than the plane's main body,[83] that
photographs of large amounts of wreckage and debris matching a 757 have become
available, that the appearance of the size of the hole is typically misrepresented; and that
the actual fuselage diameter of 12 feet is a much more relevant dimension for the deepest
parts of the hole than the overall 44-foot height of the 757's tail.[84][85] They also
emphasize reports from numerous eyewitnesses, including commuters on nearby roads,[86]
nearby apartment buildings,[87] and other surrounding locations. Many witnesses saw the
aircraft close up as it approached the Pentagon and described it as an American Airlines
Boeing 757.[88][89][90] The remains of all but one of the victims of Flight 77 have been
identified using DNA testing.[91][92]

Flight 93

United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in an open field in Pennsylvania as a result of an

attempted cockpit invasion. However, there have been claims that it was actually shot
down by U.S. fighter jets.[93] This idea is promoted by author David Ray Griffin in his
book The New Pearl Harbor. Two debris fields from Flight 93 were found at three
(Indian Lake) and eight (New Baltimore) miles from the crash site, and there are also
some eyewitness reports of debris falling from the sky like confetti.[citation needed] However,
Flight 93 was flying south-east toward Washington, D.C. when it crashed. Both Indian
Lake and New Baltimore are 3 miles and 8 miles, respectively, south-east of the crash
site, in the direction the plane was heading but never flew over.[94] Many websites say this
contradicts the claim that the plane shed debris for 3–8 miles before its crash, in which
case the debris would have been found north-west of the crash site along the plane's flight
path.[95] A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article from 9/14/2001 describes the material as
"mostly papers", "strands of charred insulation", and an "endorsed paycheck". The same
article quotes FBI agent Bill Crowley that, "Lighter, smaller debris probably shot into the
air on the heat of a fireball that witnesses said shot several hundred feet into the air after
the jetliner crashed. Then, it probably rode a wind that was blowing southeast at about
9 MPH."[94] Popular Mechanics argued that debris such as an engine exploding away and
landing far from the crash scene is not a unique occurrence in commercial airline
accidents.[96]

Some conspiracy theorists believe a small white jet seen flying over the crash area may
have fired a missile to shoot down Flight 93.[96] However, government agencies such as
the FBI assert this was a Dassault Falcon business jet asked to descend to an altitude of
around 1500 ft to survey the impact.[97] Ben Sliney, who was the FAA operation manager
on September 11, 2001, says no military aircraft were near Flight 93.[98]

Jim Hoffman claims there is a three-minute discrepancy in the cockpit voice recording
immediately prior to the flight's crash.[99] Seismological observations recorded an impact
at 10:06:05 a.m., +/- a couple of seconds,[100] but the 9/11 Commission Report decided
that the seismological information was not definitive and concluded that the crash
occurred at 10:03 a.m.[101]

According to some theories the plane had to be shot down by the government because
passengers had found out about the "plot".[102]
Some internet videos, such as Loose Change, speculate that Flight 93 safely landed in
Ohio, and a substituted plane was involved in the crash in Pennsylvania.[103] Often cited is
a preliminary news report that Flight 93 landed at a Cleveland airport;[104] it was later
learned that Delta Flight 1989 was the plane confused with Flight 93, and the report was
retracted as inaccurate. Several websites within the 9/11 Truth Movement dispute this
claim, citing the wreckage at the scene, eyewitness testimony, and the difficulty of
secretly substituting one plane for another, and claim that such "hoax theories... appear
calculated to alienate victims' survivors and the larger public from the 9/11 truth
movement".[93][105] The editor of the article has since written a rebuttal to the claims.[106]

The woman who took the only photograph of the mushroom cloud from the impact of
Flight 93 hitting the ground says she has been harassed by conspiracy theorists, who
claim she faked the photo. The F.B.I., the Smithsonian, and the National Park Service’s
Flight 93 National Memorial have found it to be authentic.[107]

Conspiracy theorists have claimed that passengers of Flight 93 or Flight 77, or of both
flights, were murdered or that they were relocated, with the purpose of which never being
found.[102]

Autopilot

Jim Hoffman and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice are among those who have said
the Flight Management Computer Systems on board Flights 11, 175 and 77 could have
been loaded with a preset route that guided the planes to their targets.[108] Hoffman
suggests that Flight 77 performed the unusual spiral dive it made on its approach to the
Pentagon with the help of the onboard computer.[109]

Some theories suggest that, rather than having preset routes entered into the planes' on-
board computers, the planes were flown by remote control. The controllers of the planes
may have been on the ground or, as in the "doomsday plane" theory, in another aircraft.
This theory argues that a blurry white object seen in the sky in videos of the World Trade
Center, was a plane containing the remote controller of Flights 11 and 175, and that an
aircraft that flew away from The Pentagon after that impact contained the remote
controller of Flight 77.[110] The aircraft at the Pentagon was later identified as a E-4B
National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) plane, a militarised version of a Boeing
747-200, taking part in the Global Guardian exercise.

Theories of remotely controlled aircraft have been criticised for ignoring phone calls
made by passengers which state that their aircraft had been hijacked.[111]

Hijackers

The BBC and the Daily Telegraph reported on September 23 that some of the people
named as the hijackers by the FBI were actually "alive and well".[112][113] One of them was
Waleed al-Shehri, who they said they had found in Casablanca, Morocco. Abdulaziz Al
Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other hijackers, were all said to be
living in the Middle East. On September 19, the FDIC distributed a "special alert" which
listed al-Mihdhar as alive (the Justice Department later said this was a typographical
error). These reports have led to claims that the names of the hijackers may be incorrect,
or that the hijacking scenarios outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report may not be the
truth.

All of the reports have since been acknowledged as cases of mistaken identity by the
publications involved and by other news organizations such as the New York
Times.[114][115][116] The BBC said that confusion may have arisen because the FBI names
were common Arabic and Islamic names.[117] In 2002, Saudi Arabia asserted that the
names of the hijackers were correct.[118]

Some attention has been given to news reports that might indicate that the named
hijackers were not typical Islamic extremists. For example, Mohammad Atta reportedly
ate pork, drank alcohol, gambled in casinos, and went to strip clubs.[119] It is however
controversial whether terrorists are motivated primarily by religious belief.[citation needed]

By January 2009 remains from thirteen of the nineteen hijackers have been identified
through DNA mapping. The remains are at an undisclosed location. No requests have
been made to return them and no decision has been made on what to do with them.
According to Khaled Abou El Fadl, a law professor at UCLA and an authority on Islamic
law if a family member of a suspected hijacker were to ask for the remains it would put
themselves and their families in Saudi Arabia and Egypt at risk for harm because it would
be seen as admitting that their relatives were 9/11 hijackers in countries where the
prevalent belief is that the 9/11 attacks were an anti-Arab conspiracy carried out by the
Bush Administration.[120]

Phone calls

Air phone calls and cell phone calls were placed from the hijacked planes. Conspiracy
theorists[who?] say cell phone calls should either be impossible or rarely possible from
commercial planes, and therefore the hijackings were staged and the phone calls were
faked.

After 9/11, cellular experts said that they were surprised calls were able to be placed from
the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They said that the only
reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close
to the ground.[121] Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson said it was almost a fluke that the
calls reached their destinations.[122] Other industry experts said that it is possible to use
cell phones with varying degrees of success during a flight. [123] Marvin Sirbu, professor
of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14,
2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a
commercial flight."

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of
over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone
calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report). The FBI Joint
Terrorism Task Force testified that all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air
phones.[124] Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was
supported by several cell sites.[122] There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11,
five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77 which American Airlines later
confirmed did not have airphones fitted[citation needed]; two calls from these flights were
recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11. A
conspiracy theory web site claims anomalies relating to the nature of the phone call
transcripts.[125]

Cover-up allegations
Conspiracy theorists[who?] say they detect a pattern of behavior on the part of officials
investigating the September 11 attack meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that
might contradict the mainstream account.[126][127][128] They associated news stories from
several different sources with that pattern.[129][130][131][132][133][134]

Cockpit recorders

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the cockpit voice recorders (CVR) or flight
data recorders (FDR), or "black boxes", from Flights 11 and 175 were not recovered from
the remains of the WTC attack; however, two men, Michael Bellone and Nicholas
DeMasi, who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, stated in
the book "Behind-The-Scenes: Ground Zero"[135] that they helped federal agents find three
of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners:[136][137]

"At one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the
black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the
top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million
dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. There were a total of four black
boxes. We found three."[138]

However, information has since surfaced which casts doubt on the credibility of this
claim. The New York Post reported in April 2004, shortly before the book was published,
that Michael Bellone was in serious financial difficulty, owing more than $220,000 to his
publisher as well as in unpaid bills, "including hotel rooms, flights, FDNY shirts,
business cards and even prescription drugs."[139] Many have speculated that a possible
motive for the "We found three [of the black boxes]" claim would have been to boost
book sales, and there have been several recorded accounts of flight recorders being
destroyed in aircraft accidents.[140] On September 27, 2005, Michael Bellone, who had
called himself an "honorary New York firefighter", was arrested for stealing an FDNY
Scott air tank, harness, regulator and mask, and was charged with grand larceny, criminal
impersonation and possession of stolen property. Conrad Tinney, one of the New York
Fire Marshals who arrested Bellone, described him as a "fraud" and stated, "He's saying
he was made an honorary firefighter by New York Fire Commissioner Nicholas
Scoppetta. That's a fallacy."[141] On September 28, 2005, it was revealed that Michael
Bellone had been using the firefighter equipment, as well as other historical artifacts
stolen from Ground Zero, as part of a charity fraud. An unnamed firefighter in a NY
Daily News article said of Bellone's book promotion and charity fraud that, "It's very
ghoulish. He may have helped firefighters at the time, but now he's making a living on
this."[142]

The cockpit voice recorder from Flight 77 was heavily damaged from the impact and
resulting fire.

Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, remarked
that "It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another
domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders."[143]

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, both black boxes from Flight 77 and both
black boxes from Flight 93 were recovered. However, the CVR from Flight 77 was said
to be too damaged to yield any data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of
victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.[144] In April 2006, a transcript of
the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. Some conspiracy
theorists[who?] do not believe that the black boxes were damaged and that instead there has
been a cover up of evidence.

bin Laden tapes

Main article: Videos of Osama bin Laden

A series of interviews, audio and videotapes have been released since the 9/11 attacks that
have been reported to be from Osama bin Laden. At first the speaker denied
responsibility for the attacks but over the years has taken increasing responsibility for
them culminating in a November 2007 videotape in which the speaker claimed sole
responsibility for the attacks and denied the Taliban and the Afghan government or
people had any prior knowledge of the attacks.[145][146][147] The Central Intelligence Agency
has confirmed the speaker was or was likely to be Osama Bin Laden. Some people in the
Muslim World doubted the authenticity of the tape.[148] Steve and Paul Watson of
Infowars.net claim that the organization handling the tapes is a front for the Pentagon and
that the tapes are "highly suspect".[147][149] Professor Bruce Lawrence head of Duke
University’s Religious Studies Department and author of Messages to the World: The
Statements of Osama bin Laden believes the tapes are fake and that Bin Laden has been
dead since 2001.[150]

Other theories
Foreign governments

See also: Responsibility for the September 11 attacks#Other alleged responsibility and
9/11 advanced-knowledge debate#Foreign government foreknowledge

There are allegations that individuals within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence may
have played an important role in financing the attacks. There are also claims that other
foreign intelligence agencies, such as the Israeli Mossad, had foreknowledge of the
attacks, and that Saudi Arabia may have played a role in financing the attacks. Francesco
Cossiga, former President of Italy from 1985 until his resignation over Operation Gladio,
asserts that it is common knowledge among intelligence services the 9-11 attacks were a
joint operation between elements in the U.S. Government and Mossad.[151][unreliable
source?][verification needed]
General Hamid Gul the former head of Pakistani Inter-Services
Intelligence believes the attacks were an “inside “job” originating in the United States
perpetrated by Israel or neo-conservatives.[152]

The theory that such foreign individuals outside of al Qaeda were involved is often part
of larger "inside job" theories, although it has been claimed that, while al Qaeda deserves
most of the responsibility, the alleged role played by Pakistan, Israel or Saudi Arabia was
deliberately overlooked by the official investigation for political reasons.[citation needed].

"No plane" theories

The "no plane theory," promoted by internet-only videos like 911 Taboo,[153] asserts that
this shot of the second impact, taken from a news helicopter, depicts a video composite of
a Boeing 767 accidentally appearing from behind a Layer Mask.

Some individuals, primarily on the internet[citation needed], have made the claim that no
hijacked airliners hit the World Trade Center towers ('No Boeing Theories' or 'No Plane
Theories'). Supporters of this claim have been described as "no-planers," or "Pod people,"
by members of the 9/11 truth movement who generally maintain that the claim is a case
of poisoning the well — an effort which is intended to broadly discredit the more credible
theories.[154][155] According to "no-planers," live television, video and photographs that
purport to show Boeing airliners on September 11 all had fake airplane images
composited into them. Many prominent members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have
rejected the claims.[156]

Those describing the no plane claims as poisoning the well often refer to proponents like
Morgan Reynolds, former Labor Department chief economist under George W. Bush,
who calls himself the "black sheep" of the 9/11 Truth Movement.[157] Reynolds claims it is
physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175, being largely
aluminium, could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and has also proposed
that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and
subsequent amateur video. Numerous papers by 9/11 Truth Movement researchers have
rejected the claims.[158]

President Bush's behavior

President Bush was promoting the passage of his education plan at Emma E. Booker
Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, on the morning of September 11. He was already
aware of the first plane impact before he entered the school, believing it to have been a
"horrible accident". There is confusion about his description of having seen the first
impact on television, long before the single piece of footage of that event (taken by the
Naudet brothers) had been shown anywhere.[159] He was sitting in a classroom reading
The Pet Goat with the children when, at 9:05am, White House Chief of Staff Andrew
Card whispered in his ear that "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under
attack."[160] That the president chose to stay in the classroom for an additional 7 minutes,
without asking for additional information from his staff, and that those staff did not
volunteer any additional information or take him to a place of safety, has led to
allegations that he knew that the attack was taking place and knew he was not a
target.[161][162] A response is that Bush's intention was to "project strength and calm," i.e.,
that he did not want to cause more panic by fleeing the room, as the footage would
probably have been replayed over and over on news coverage.[163]

Jewish involvement

There are theories that 9/11 was part of an international Jewish conspiracy. One of the
most popular claims in these theories is that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the
World Trade Center on September 11. This was first reported on September 17 by the
Lebanese Hezbollah-owned satellite television channel Al-Manar and is believed to be
based on the September 12 edition of the Jerusalem Post that stated "The Foreign
Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have
been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the
attacks.".[164] Both turned out to be incorrect; the number of Jews who died in the attacks
is variously estimated at between 270 to 400.[165][166][167][168] The lower figure tracks closely
with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area and partial surveys of the
victims' listed religion. The U.S. State Department has published a partial list of 76 in
response to claims that fewer Jews/Israelis died in the WTC attacks than should have
been present at the time. [169] Five Israeli citizens died in the attack. [170]

Several websites of the 9/11 truth movement have worked to debunk the anti-Semitic
claims and expose websites and individuals engaging in anti-Semitism and Holocaust
denial.[171] On the internet, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has indignantly denied
the rumor and attacked Shias, Hezbollah and Iran for spreading it, claiming, “the
objective behind this lie is to deny that the Sunnis have heroes who harm America as no
one has harmed it throughout its history.” and that Iran's aim is to cover up its
involvement in the invading of Iraq and Afghanistan.[172][173][174][175]

According to the Anti-Defamation League, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories blaming

Jews and Israel for the terrorist attacks of September 11 continue to gain ground around
the world, and are contributing to a new form of global anti-Semitism. The Anti-
Defamation League has published papers[176][177] addressing these conspiracy theories.
According to these reports, 9/11 conspiracy theories are increasingly popular among both
left- and right-wing extremists, and among white supremacists, but have not gained
mainstream acceptance in the West as they have in the Muslim world.

Motives
Pax Americana

Main article: Pax Americana

In suggesting motives for the U.S. Government to have carried out the attacks, Professor
David Ray Griffin claims that a global "Pax Americana" was a dream held by many
members of the Bush Administration. This dream was first articulated in the Defense
Planning Guidance of 1992, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney, in a document that has been called "a blueprint for permanent
American global hegemony"[178] and has been echoed in the writings of the
neoconservatives. In his lecture, "9/11: The Myth and the Reality," Griffin states that:

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

1. getting control of the world's oil, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East
— and the Bush-Cheney administration came to power with plans already made
to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.
2. a technological transformation of the military, in which fighting from space would
become central.
3. an enormous increase in military spending, to pay for these new wars and for
weaponizing space.
4. to modify the doctrine of preemptive attack, so that America would be able to
attack other countries even if they posed no imminent threat.
These four elements would, moreover, require a fifth: an event that would make the
American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies."[179]

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

"This process of transformation... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and
catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."[180][181]

Matt Taibbi, in his book The Great Derangement argues that this is "taken completely out
of context", and that the "transformation" referenced in the paper is explicitly stated to be
a decades-long process to turn the Cold War-era military into a "new, modern military"
which could deal with more localized conflicts.[182] He further ridicules this position by
pointing out that, for this to be evidence of motive, that either those responsible decided
to openly state their objectives, or read the paper in 2000 and quickly laid the
groundwork for the 9/11 attacks using it as inspiration.[182] In either case, he argues that
this is a form of "defiant unfamiliarity with the actual character of America's ruling class"
and constitutes part of a "completely and utterly retarded" narrative to explain the
attacks.[182]

The War on Terror is seen by many as the pretext for achieving the goals of the
neoconservatives. Jim Hoffman is among those who claim that a key motive for 9/11 may
have been to create a "perpetual threat", terrorism, to function in a similar way to
communism during the Cold War.[183] He cites an article in the Washington Post in which
Dick Cheney says of the War on Terror: "It may never end. At least, not in our
lifetime."[184]

Since 9/11, the U.S. Government have introduced numerous acts of Congress which,
some people say, is an invasion of their civil liberties and are "in direct contradiction with
the U.S. Constitution". These claims normally refer to the PATRIOT Act, the Homeland
Security Bill, the militarization of the police force, the nullification of the Posse
Comitatus Act, and the changes in laws relating to rights of prisoners in Guantanamo
Bay.[185]

The perpetrators of the attacks are sometimes thought to be a "shadow government"

controlling the White House and both major political parties. They are also said to control
certain foreign governments, global corporations and the mainstream news media, and
are referred to as the "New World Order". Some of the individuals believed to be working
for this group are members of such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral
Commission and the Bilderberg Group.[186] The term itself gained popularity following its
use in the early 1990s, first by President George H W Bush when he referred to his
"dream of a New World Order" in his speech to Congress on September 11, 1990, and
second by David Rockefeller in a Statement to the United Nations Business Council in
September 1994:

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and
the nations will accept the New World Order."[187]

Also interesting is the idea that the Illuminati which worked to undermined the
Monarchies in Europe for centuries, also choose September 11 2001 because of the
symbolism of September 11 1611, the birthdate of Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne in France
whom was a pet of the Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu. Whom some have supposed Cardinal-
Duc de Richelieu to be the true founder of the Illuminati and New World Order and a
Satanist.

The concept of this shadow government pre-dates 1990 and they are accused of being the
same group of people who, among other things, created the Federal Reserve Act (1913),
supported the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), and supported the rise of the Nazi Party in
Germany, all for their own agenda. Indeed, the domestic agenda of the Bush
Administration since 9/11 has been compared to that of the Nazi Party following the
Reichstag Fire of 1933.[188][unreliable source?] The World Bank and national central banks are
said to be the tools of the New World Order; war generates massive profits for central
banks, as government spending (hence borrowing at interest from the central banks)
increases dramatically in times of war.[189]

Invasions

There are claims that the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was being planned before 9/11.
On June 26, 2001, the Indian public affairs magazine News Insight revealed plans for a
joint US-Russian invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government. It reported
that India and Iran would 'facilitate' the invasion.[190] The BBC reported on September 18,
2001 that Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American
officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the
middle of October.[191] MSNBC reported on May 16, 2002 that unspecified "U.S. and
foreign sources" said President George W. Bush received plans to begin a worldwide war
on al-Qaeda on September 9, 2001.[192]

Conspiracy theorists[who?] have questioned whether the Oil Factor and 9/11 provided the
United States and the United Kingdom with a reason to launch a war they had wanted for
some time, and suggest that this gives them a strong motive for either carrying out the
attacks, or allowing them to take place. For instance, Andreas von Bülow, a former
research minister in the German government, has argued that 9/11 was staged to justify
the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.[193] The role of 9/11 in prompting the
Afghanistan invasion has been widely acknowledged; Tony Blair said to the Commons
Liaison Committee in July 2002 that "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could
have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for
what happened on September 11".[194]

It has also been suggested that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was on President Bush's 'to-do'
list from the time he was elected into office and even before. Although the pretext for the
war was that Saddam was in possession of 'weapons of mass destruction,' some say that
9/11 was part of a plan to create a 'climate of fear' to win support for an invasion,
followed by a long period of occupation. Paul O'Neill, George Bush's first Treasury
Secretary, reported that in a meeting in January 2001, the president discussed an invasion
and occupation of Iraq. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it.
The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" O'Neill told CBS.[195] Likewise,
America's elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan has declared that the prime motive
for the war in Iraq was oil.[196]

Suggested historical precedents

The media, such as Time Magazine, and academics[who?] often draw parallels between
events which inspired past conspiracy theories and those which inspire 9/11 conspiracy
theories — such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[17] Conspiracy theorists, such as
those associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement[who?] , argue that the similarities between
authorities' actions surrounding the attacks and their actions surrounding the false flag
operations they cite indicate that they are both plausible and may operate with a long-
term, hidden, agenda.[197] Some examples which have been used include the attack on
USS Maine, the Reichstag fire, the Gleiwitz incident (Operation Himmler), the attack on
Pearl Harbor (specifically, the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate), Operation
Gladio, Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the "Kuwaiti incubator
baby hoax".[197]

Media reaction
While discussion and coverage of these theories is mainly confined to internet pages,
books, documentary films, and conversation, a number of mainstream news outlets
around the world have covered the issue.

The Norwegian version of the July 2006 Le Monde diplomatique sparked interest when
they ran, on their own initiative, a three page main story on the 9/11 attacks and
summarized the various types of 9/11 conspiracy theories (which were not specifically
endorsed by the newspaper, only recensed).[198] The Voltaire Network, which has changed
position since the September 11 attacks and whose director, Thierry Meyssan, became a
leading proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theory, explained that although the Norwegian
version of Le Monde diplomatique had allowed it to translate and publish this article on
its website, the mother-house, in France, categorically refused it this right, thus
displaying an open debate between various national editions.[199] In December 2006, the
French version published an article by Alexander Cockburn, co-editor of CounterPunch,
which strongly criticized the endorsement of conspiracy theories by the U.S. left-wing,
alleging that it was a sign of "theoretical emptiness.";[200][201]
Also, on the Canadian website for CBC News: the fifth estate, a program titled,
"Conspiracy Theories: uncovering the facts behind the myths of Sept. 11, 2001" was
broadcast on October 29, 2003, stating that what they found may be more surprising than
any theories.[202] More recently on March 19, 2008, the fifth estate aired, "The lies that led
to war".[203]

An article in the September 11, 2006 edition of Time Magazine comments that the major
9/11 conspiracy theories “depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or
documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized
eyewitnesses”, and enjoy continued popularity because “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.”[204]

The Daily Telegraph published an article titled "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 led by
Professor Steven E. Jones, now called Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. They said
"most of them aren't scientists but instructors... at second-rate colleges".[205]

A major Australian newspaper "The Daily Telegraph", published an article in May 2007
that was highly critical of Loose Change 2, a movie which presents a 9/11 conspiracy
theory.[206]

Doug MacEachern in a May 2008 column for the Arizona Republic wrote that while
many "9/11 truthers" are not crackpots they espouse "crackpot conspiracy theories". He
wrote that supporters of the theories fail to take into account both human nature and that
nobody has come forward claiming they were participants in the alleged conspiracies.[207]
A view seconded by Timothy Giannuzzi a Calgary Herald op-ed columnist specializing in
foreign policy..[208]

On June 7, 2008, The Financial Times Magazine published a lengthy article on the 9/11
Truth Movement and 9/11 conspiracy theories.[209][210][211]

Charlie Brooker a British multimedia personality in a July 2008 column published by The
Guardian as part of its Comment is free series agreed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists fail to
take in account human fallacies and added that believing in these theories gives theorists
a sense of belonging to a community that shares privileged information thus giving the
theorists a delusional sense of power.[212] The commentary generated over 1700 online
responses the largest in the history of the series.[213]

On September 12, 2008, Russian State Television broadcast in prime time a documentary
made by Member of the European Parliament Giulietto Chiesa entitled Zero sympathetic
to those who question the mainstream account of the attacks according to Chiesa.
According to Thierry Meyssan in conjunction with the documentary Russian State
Television aired a debate on the subject. The panel consisted of members from several
countries including 12 Russians whom hold divergent views. The motive of Russian State
Television in broadcasting the documentary was questioned by a The Other Russia
commentator who noted that Russian State Television had a history of broadcasting
programs involving conspiracy theories involving the United States government.
[214][215][216]

Nasir Mahmood in a commentary printed by the Pakistan Observer wrote favorably about
a 9/11 truth lecture and film festival held in California and quoted a Jewish speaker at
that festival who said that none of the 19 suspected hijackers had been proven guilty of
anything and compared racism against Muslims resulting from what he called false
accusations to the racism against Jews in the Nazi era.[217]

On November 10, 2008, ITN broadcast a story summarizing various 9/11 conspiracy
theories.[62]

In June 2005 the popular murder mystery German State Television program Tatort ran an
episode in which a women who claims the 9/11 attacks were instigated by the Bush
family for oil and power is targeted by FBI and CIA hitmen after her male roommate is
found dead. The roommate was trained to be a 9/11 pilot but was left behind. The episode
viewed by 7 million people ended when the detectives investigating the death believed
her and she escapes to an unnamed Arab country.[218] A Rescue Me episode scheduled for
April 2009 broadcast will feature a character played by actor Daniel Sunjata who is a
9/11 conspiracy theorist in real life, explaining to a French journalist that the 9/11 attacks
were a “neoconservative government effort” to create a new Pearl Harbor to control oil
and increase military spending.[219][220] According to Dennis Leary major plot lines in the
first 10 episodes of the shows season 5 will revolve around reinvestigation and
conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks.[221]

Criticism
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common
throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a
mythic form of explanation.[222] 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.[223]

Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a
handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the
heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the
rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are
not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple
lines of inquiry."[224]

Scientific American,[225] Popular Mechanics,[226] and The Skeptic's Dictionary[227] have

published articles that rebut various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these
conspiracy theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by
senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is a cousin of Michael Chertoff — former
head of Homeland Security.[228] However, U.S. News says no actual connection has been
revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.[229] Popular Mechanics has published
a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in
the article.[230] In the foreword for the book Senator and Republican Party Presidential
nominee John McCain wrote that blaming the U.S. government for the events "mars the
memories of all those lost on that day" and "exploits the public's anger and sadness. It
shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an
all-time low. It trafficks in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against
fellow Americans."[231] Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of
the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a
basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."[232] David Ray Griffin has
published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics
and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory,[233] and Jim Hoffman has written
an article called 'popular mechanics assault on 9/11 truth." where he attacks the methods
Popular Mechanics uses in forming their arguments.[234]

Journalist Matt Taibbi, in his book The Great Derangement, discusses 9/11 conspiracy
theories as symptomatic of what he calls the "derangement" of American society; a
disconnection from reality due to widespread "disgust with our political system".[182]
Drawing a parallel with the Charismatic movement, he argues that both "chose to battle
bugbears that were completely idiotic, fanciful, and imaginary," instead of taking control
of their our lives.[182] While critical, Taibbi explains that 9/11 conspiracy theories are
different from "Clinton-era black-helicopter paranoia", and constitute more than "a small,
scattered group of nutcases [...] they really were, just as they claim to be, almost everyone
you meet."[182]

While not supporting theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted
explosives, James Quintiere, Ph.D., the former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology and who was a Popular Mechanics panel
member for their debunking of 9/11 Truth article disagreed with their conclusions.
Calling for NIST's investigation to be peer reviewed and for researchers and engineers to
scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses he stated "The official conclusion NIST
arrived at is questionable....I hope to convince you to perhaps become Conspiracy
Theorists, but in a proper way".[235][236]

Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy
target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually
happened if there wasn't a conspiracy. He suggests that the answer is criminal negligence
on the part of the president and vice president, who were repeatedly warned, followed by
a cover-up conspiracy after 9/11.[237]

In 2006, South Park aired an episode entitled "The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" which
satirized contemporary events surrounding the resolution of the 9/11 attacks, including
conspiracy theories and the Bush Administration — according to IGN's reviewer, the
episode was "a way to explain to people just how crazy the government conspiracy idea
really is." The episode especially parodied the "ridiculous nature of both our government
and the easily influenced members of our society."[238]. In 2008 calls for the resignation of
Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories for the
United Nations, were partially based on his support investigating the validity of 9/11
conspiracy theories.[239]

Canadian Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion forced a candidate from Winnipeg Lesley
Hughes, to terminate her campaign after earlier writings from Hughes surfaced in which
Hughes wrote that U.S., German, Russian and Israeli intelligence officials knew about the
9/11 attacks in advance. Hughes plans to run as an independent candidate.[240][241] Earlier
Peter Kent Deputy Editor of Global Television News a Canadian TV network and
Conservative Party candidate in the 2008 Election had called for Hughes's resignation
saying that the 9/11 truth movement is "one of Canada’s most notorious hatemongering
fringe movements" composed of "conspiracy theorists who are notorious for holding anti-
Semitic views."[242] Later another Conservative Party candidate called for the leader of the
Ottawa New Democratic Party to fire a candidate for her pro 9/11 truth views.[243]. In
February 2009 a Aymeric Chauprade a professor of geopolitics at CID military college in
Paris was fired by French Defence Minister Herve Morin for writing a book entitled
’’Chronicle of the Clash of Civilizations’’ that espoused 9/11 conspiracy theories.[244]

British historian Antony Beevor wrote in January 2009 that "studies of internet sites
reveal an unholy alliance between left-wing 9/11 conspiracy theorists, right-wing
Holocaust deniers and Islamic fundamentalists". He claimed that 9/11 and other
conspiracy theories are a result of a "Wikipedia age" phenomenon that author Damian
Thompson dubbed "counterknowledge". It allegedly involves people "seizing upon one
or two minor discrepancies in a government report, then joining up all the wrong dots to
create a monstrous fable". He believes "counterknowledge" is potentially greater threat to
liberal democracy than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. [245]

David Aaronovitch a columnist for The Times in his book entitled The Role of the
Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History that was published in May 2009 claimed
that the theories strain credulity.[102]

Court cases
A number of court cases have been filed which use certain conspiracy theories as a
central basis of their allegations. Two of them were qui tam cases, filed by Judy Wood[246]
and Morgan Reynolds,[247] against private contractors, airlines, and individuals, alleging
fraud pursuant to the False Claims Act, alleging that the defendants misled NIST and the
United States about the nature of the destruction of the WTC, citing directed energy
weapons, video fakery, and alleging that no airplanes hit the Twin Towers. [248] Both
Wood's complaint and Reynolds' complaint were dismissed by the court on June 26,
2008.[249][250] The general claims made by Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer have also been
widely rejected within the truth movement.[251][252]

Ellen Mariani, the widow of a 9/11 victim, filed suit in 2001 against United Airlines and
President George W. Bush, seeking "the truth of what happened on Sept. 11", and
claiming damages under the RICO act, and for negligence.[253][254] Ms. Mariani also filed a
lawsuit against President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others in
September 2003, which was dismissed in April 2004.[255] William Rodriguez, a former
janitor at the World Trade Center, filed a similar lawsuit in October 2004, which was
dismissed in July 2006.[256] Former Dole chief of staff, Stanley Hilton, filed a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of 400 families of 9/11 victims, alleging that "George W. Bush
allow[ed] the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 to take place, [...] in order to rally the
country into a frenzy...",[257] which was dismissed in 2004 based upon the legal theory of
sovereign immunity and a failure by the plaintiffs to "establish the required causal
connection between [their] alleged injuries and these defendants' conduct".

Jim Hoffman has speculated that the poor quality of the legal cases could be the result of
an effort to discredit them.[258]