Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 14 October 2007

Template:911tm According to the controlled demolition hypothesis, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. The most detailed statements of the hypothesis, which has become a central theme for members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, have come from physicist Steven Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, theologian David Ray Griffin, and author Webster Griffin Tarpley. In making their case, they often emphasize the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which was not hit by a plane.

An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) rejected the hypothesis, as have structural and mechanical engineers. Nonetheless, several organizations of skeptics have been formed, including architects and engineers, scholars, military and government officials, and others. Criticism of the NIST report plays a prominent role in presentations of the hypothesis.

Origins and history

Rumors of controlled demolition began to circulate immediately following the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. Today, the hypothesis is normally proposed as part of an argument for "inside" complicity in the September 11 attacks, or what is often called a "9/11 conspiracy theory". On this view, the destruction of the World Trade Center was a carefully organized spectacle intended to justify the prosecution of wars abroad and the curtailment of freedoms at home. Because it would be difficult to explain how terrorists were able to plant the necessary explosives, it is argued, the aircraft impacts were deemed necessary to suggest a more plausible external cause of structural damage.

The plausibility of this cause is precisely what the controlled demolition hypothesis questions. It proposes that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate collapse and that the buildings would in any case not have collapsed as completely, symmetrically, and quickly as they did without an additional source of destructive energy to undermine their structure. Various sources of this energy have been proposed; thermite and explosives is the most common suggestion being made today.

Controlled demolition proponents cite mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks that suggested explosions and secondary devices. Journalist and experts commenting on the events as they happened speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives. Many of these suggestions would later be retracted or revised. In a notable example, the Albuquerque Journal quoted an engineer who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that "some explosive devices inside ... caused the towers to collapse". Like the other suggestions of this kind, he presented this idea as "consistent with a common terrorist strategy." He soon withdrew this assessment and later said he had been misquoted: "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Engineers were in fact initially surprised by the collapses and some originally believed that explosives had been involved. The broad outlines of an explanation that did not involve such explosives quickly emerged, however, and took it current shape in the 2005 NIST report. It has come to be known as "the official account" among proponents of controlled demolition. As late as September 2007, however, engineers were still looking for a "credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began", allowing speculations about controlled demolition to develop. Such an explanation is now about to be published.

An early book-length treatment of the hypothesis inspired both David Ray Griffin's critical inquiry as well as the Popular Mechanics investigation of 9/11 conspiracy theories. In late 2005, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones made his own pursuit of the hypothesis public. Even before publication of the article in 2006, his interest in the hypothesis brought a measure of scientific credibility and media exposure to the theory. BYU responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave in September, 2006. Shortly thereafter, Jones accepted BYU's offer of early retirement.

The controlled demolition hypothesis and the "official" explanation of the collapse developed alongside each other. Proponents of the controlled demolition questioned the "pancake collapse" hypothesis originally suggested by FEMA before the NIST finally replaced it with the current column failure theory.

In its final report, NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001" and posted a FAQ about related issues to its website in August of 2006. The major elements of the hypothesis have been rebutted in mainstream engineering scholarship,, where its proponents are considered "outsiders."

A 2006 poll found that 6 percent of Americans considered it "very likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings," while another 10% found it "somewhat likely." 77% found the demolition hypothesis "unlikely." A 2007 poll found that 67% of Americans fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

World Trade Center Seven

Videos that show the fall of 7 World Trade Center have become a mainstay of presentations of the controlled demolition hypothesis. This was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the main WTC complex. Its tenants included the CIA, Department of Defense, IRS, Secret Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Though not hit by a plane, it collapsed at about 5:20 p.m. EDT on the evening of September 11, 2001.

No steel-frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire. The collapse of WTC 7 did seem to have been anticipated, however. Proponents of the hypothesis have concluded from the fact that BBC news reported the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it actually fell that the news service received advanced word that the building would collapse. The BBC has denied that the implication of this is that they were told it would be demolished; numerous news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 on the day of the attacks.

In a New York Magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator granted that they were having "trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." NIST has postponed publication of its report several times, attributing the delays to reassignment of investigators to other tasks such as the main towers investigation.

In addition to its remaining unexplained, proponents of controlled demolition often emphasize the collapse of WTC 7 for two reasons. First, because it was not hit by a plane and, second, because its collapse looked even more like a bottom-to-top standard controlled demolition than the more explosive top-to-bottom collapses of the two main towers. Support for this theory comes from features argued to have been visually observed in the collapse--the swift and symmetrical fall, the pulverization of what the theory supporters assume is concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances. The initial FEMA investigation team also found sulfur within the structural steel from 7 WTC, which would indicate very high temperatures.

In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7 and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC Complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department about the possibility of being unable to contain the fires. According to Silverstein, "they made the decision to pull" after which they "watched the building collapse." Some proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis have taken the remark as a confession that he ordered the building to be demolished. Silverstein issued a statement that rejects this interpretation, asserting that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both professors of structural engineering at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, believe that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished based on video footage.

Preliminary investigations do not include the mechanics of the actual collapse, concentrating instead on the events leading up to it. The FEMA report begins its "timed collapse sequence" with a seismic event recorded at 5:20:33 pm. FEMA marks this as the time the building "begins to collapse." At this time, the report says, the east and west mechanical penthouses — the structures at the very top of the building — are still intact. Approximately thirty seconds later, FEMA says, video evidence shows the east mechanical penthouse begin to disappear into the building. Five seconds later the west penthouse also disappears, and at 5:21:10 "WTC 7 collapses completely." This is roughly the point at which Jones begins timing the collapse, noting that his results correspond with the free, unimpeded fall of the roofline: just under seven seconds. This purported "near free-fall" collapse time is a recurrent theme of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Main towers

A central claim of the controlled demolition hypothesis is that without explosives to destroy the internal support structure of the WTC towers, the fall of the towers would violate the principle of conservation of momentum. Since the structure underneath provided almost no resistance to the falling upper stories, it is argued, the collapse of the towers at near free-fall speed indicates that the central core below the impact zone had lost its structural integrity. This assumption is also sometimes said to imply that if the buildings had resisted the collapse as the laws of physics predict, the tops would, at worst, have tipped over, in each case falling off the remaining structure rather than through it. Since the mainstream explanation does not describe any damage to this structure (beneath the impact zone) controlled demolition is proposed as a better way to explain this lack of structural resistance.

Until recently, the totality of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 have not been modeled in a way that could either confirm or refute the controlled-demolition hypothesis, in part because of an early calculation that showed that the force of the falling upper section was at least an order of magnitude beyond what the lower section could support. The NIST report therefore provided an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where it says collapse was inevitable due to this enormous weight of the buildings above the damaged floors. That is, NIST did not simulate the structural response of the parts of the buildings which are of primary interest to supporters of the demolition theory. Indeed, some critics of the controlled demolition hypothesis suggest that more detailed modeling of that response might put the hypothesis to rest.

Engineers who have investigated the collapses, however, deny that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, they argue, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, leaving the rest of the building intact. Any such tilting, they argue would place such an enormous strain on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. In terms of the resistance that a structure can provide after it begins, they argue, there is very little difference between a progressive collapse with or without explosives. The controlled demolition hypothesis is therefore often defended by drawing attention to other signs that might indicate that the World Trade Center was demolished.

First, proponents often encourage their audiences to compare the video footage of the collapses of the WTC towers with footage of known controlled demolitions. Among the most commonly cited similarities are tightly focused horizontal plumes of smoke and debris being ejected from the twin towers during the collapse. While these plumes are normally attributed to material ejected due to the compresson of air as the floors collapsed, they are often taken as evidence for exploding demolition charges ("squibs") by proponents of controlled demolition.

Second, they cite a number of eyewitness accounts of explosions just prior to the start of the collapse of the towers as evidence for controlled demolition.

Third, proponents of controlled demolition argue that the fires could not have been hot enough, nor burnt long enough, to significantly weaken the steel in the buildings to a point of collapse. However, they say, there was evidence of temperatures well beyond those that, by general consensus, can be attributed to the fires. It is pointed out that "molten material" streamed out of the south tower shortly before it collapsed. Steven Jones has argued that the molten material may have been molten iron, a byproduct of a thermite reaction. Thermite reactions can reach temperatures of up to 4500°F (2500°C), well beyond the temperature (approximately 1500°C) required to melt structural steel.

In response, NIST has pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns. NIST proposed that some of the observed molten metal may have been molten aluminum from the fuselage of the plane. Aluminum melts at significantly lower temperatures than steel.

Finally, the production and expansion of the enormous dust clouds that covered Manhattan after the collapses have also been taken as an indication of an additional source of energy, such as explosives. It is suggested that the energy required for this expansion alone (ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials) exceeded the gravitational energy available by at least 10 times. NIST attributes these clouds to the ejection of air from compressed parts of the building.

Debris removal

Most of the structural steel in the World Trade Center was removed from the site and recycled before it could be examined by engineers. Proponents of controlled demolition often see this as part of a cover up. Webster Tarpley, in particular, has criticized the official response to the crime scene, saying the speedy cleanup resulted in the destruction of most of the evidence, identifying the New York City Mayor's office as a key player in this regard. A call to action by Bill Manning, the chief editor of the trade journal Fire Engineering, is often quoted in this connection. Manning called the early ASCE investigation (which would later turn into the FEMA building performance study) a "half-baked farce" and said that "the destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." He said that the cleanup of the WTC site differed in many respects from that of other engineering disasters.

In defense of the decision to dispose of the steel, Mayor Bloomberg said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do." David Ray Griffin notes that this is exactly what Manning had worried about when he warned that "the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals."

Notable proponents

The most notable statements of the controlled demolition hypothesis have been made by Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Webster Griffin Tarpley and Kevin Ryan. Jones has published his paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?" in a book called 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. Griffin, a retired professor of theology, published his own version of the hypothesis in The Hidden History of, a book of critical essays on 9/11 edited by Paul Zarembka. Webster Griffin Tarpley has devoted a chapter of his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror to the hypothesis. Kevin Ryan, who was fired from his job at Underwriters Laboratories for voicing his criticism of the official investigation, has also contributed a chapter to the Griffin and Scott volume. While his work remains largely self-published, Jim Hoffman's detailed web site, 9-11 Research, is often cited by proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis as an inspiration.

All these authors refer to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center as a hypothesis in need of further investigation before it can be accepted as true. Their accounts of the hypothesis overlap in many ways, but they each offer a distinct perspective. Jones concentrates on the physical plausibility of the mainstream explanation and possible similarities to controlled demolition. While Griffin also summarizes suggestive physical features of the collapses, he adds a reading of the verbal statements that were released by the New York Fire Department in August 2005 and published by the New York Times. These constitute a substantial body of eyewitness testimony of the collapses and the events that led to them. Tarpley takes a more historical view, emphasizing expert opinions proposing controlled demolition shortly after the attacks; the behavior of government agencies (especially the New York Mayor's Office) in the handling of the WTC site; and public criticism of the mainstream investigation into the collapses. This criticism of both the motives and the methods of mainstream investigations is central to the defense of the controlled demolition hypothesis and here Ryan's contribution has become influential.

Reactions from engineers

With few exceptions, the controlled demolition hypothesis is unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and structural engineers.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer an explanation of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the mainstream consensus as presented in the NIST report, Bažant and Verdure note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. They trace "strange ideas" about, among other things, controlled demolition, to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While, strictly speaking, superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Moreover, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not in fact two separate modes of failure.

Other engineers, such as Thomas Eagar, have also dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis with reference to the prevailing view in the engineering community about the collapses. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) 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."

Leslie Robertson, who helped design the Twin Towers, debated Steven Jones on a radio program in December 2006.

When Steven Jones made his hypothesis public, Brigham Young University professor D. Allan Firmage responded that he had "studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers, and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft." Having read Jones' paper, and based on his "understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel", Firmage found "Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable."

Building demolition experts have also weighed in on the hypothesis, noting that demolishing buildings by implosion typically requires weeks of active and easily detectable preparation.

On September 11, 2007, the University of Cambridge announced the forthcoming publication of Keith Seffen's analysis of the progressive collapse. The press release mentioned the controlled demolition hypothesis as Seffen's motivation "to produce a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began". His conclusion is that progressive collapse adequately explains the speed and totality of the collapses.

Popularizations

The research of proponents like Hoffman, Griffin, Jones and Tarpley has entered popular culture by a variety of means, many involving new media. A Scripps/Howard poll found that people who are most likely to endorse this hypothesis get most of their information from the Internet. A number of lectures by Hoffman, Jones and Griffin have been made available online. In addition, several documentaries have defended the controlled demolition hypothesis, including 9/11 Mysteries, Improbable Collapse, and Dylan Avery's Loose Change.

The demolition hypothesis first entered mainstream media by way of negative press coverage of "9/11 conspiracy theories" or "9/11 myths." Critical articles in Popular Mechanics, which were later expanded into a book, and the popular magazine Skeptic dissected the hypothesis for a mainstream audience. New York Magazine published one of the first major articles that offered a partially sympathetic take on the hypothesis.

Finally, the hypothesis has also been cited by celebrities, such as David Lynch and Charlie Sheen. Lynch, on Dutch television station VPRO's December 3, 2006 broadcast of Wereldgasten said:

At the World Trade Center, three buildings came down, like demolitions, and two of them were hit by a plane, but the third one they said "do you want us to pull it?" and they pulled it and it looked just like the other two. Those things bother me. It's just an event that has many questions and no answers.

References

1. ^ Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). J. Engrg. Mech. 133 (3): pp. 308-319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved 2007-08-22. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. "AE911Truth: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Join Us". ae911truth.org.
3. "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice:Members". stj911.org.
4. various (2007/06/27). "Prominent people questioning 9/11 Truth". patriotsquestion911.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) See under links below quotes to find reliable sources.
5. "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". Retrieved 2007-08-28.
6. Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (2007-04-10). "Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report" (pdf). Retrieved 2007-04-14. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
7. ^ Jones, Steven E. (2006-09). "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse" (PDF). Journal of 9/11 Studies. 3. Retrieved 2006-01-13. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. ^ NIST (2006-08). "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions". Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Retrieved 2006-01-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
9. Webster Tarpley. 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Chapter 6.
10. Uyttebrouck, Oliver. "Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says". Albuquerque Journal.
11. Fleck, John. "Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says". Albuquerque Journal.
12. ^ The Editors (2005). "Debunking The 9/11 Myths". Popular Mechanics. 182 (3): pp. 70-81. Retrieved 2007-08-22. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
13. Oliver, Anthony (2001). "Lasting lessons of WTC". New Civil Engineer.
14. Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2002). "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis". J. Engrg. Mech. 128 (1). New York: ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers: pp. 2-6. ISSN 0733-9399. The original version was submitted to ASCE on September 13, 2001. An expanded version was submitted to ASCE on September 22, 2001. The appendices were added between September 28 and October 5, 2001. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
15. ^ Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2007-05-27). "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?" (PDF). 2007-06-22. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA. Structural Engineering Report No. 07-05/C605c. Retrieved 2007-09-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
16. Kevin Ryan has drawn attention to the initial impressions of Ronald Hamburger, who participated in the FEMA and NIST investigations (“A New Standard of Deception”, remembers slide 5. See also Joseph T. Hallinan, Thomas M. Burton and Jonathan Eig. “Top Structural Engineers To Do Autopsy On Twin Towers To Assess Why They Fell.” Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2001. (PDF here
17. ^ Gross, John L. (2005-09). "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers". Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 2007-01-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "ncstar1-6" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
18. University of Cambridge. "9/11 'conspiracy' theories challenged by Cambridge research". Press release, 11 September 2007.
19. BBC News. "9/11 demolition theory challenged". 11 September 2007.
20. Hufschmid, Eric (2002). Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack. Endpoint Software. pp. 154 pages. ISBN 1-931947-05-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
21. Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press. pp. 214 pages. ISBN 1-56656-552-9.
22. ^ Griffin, David Ray (2006-09-30). 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1566566592. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
23. Walch, Tad. "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave", Deseret Morning News, September 8, 2006.
24. Sullivan, Will. "BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor". U.S. News & World Report. www.usnews.com.
25. ^ Sunder, Shyam (2005). "Consideration of Public Comments" (pdf). NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology.. See also NCSTAR1, p. 146.
26. Hargrove, Thomas (2006-08-02). "Anti-government anger spurs 9/11 conspiracy belief". Scripps Howard News Service. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
27. "Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment". 2007-09-06. Retrieved 2007-09-15.
28. One collection is available at www.wtc7.net.Videos available online
29. FEMA. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p. 4.
30. Porter, Richard. "Part of the conspiracy? (2)" March 2, 2007. The Editors, BBC.
31. ^ Mark Jacobson (2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
32. Gregory P. Meeker, Amy M. Bern, Heather A. Lowers, and Isabelle K. Brownfield (2005). "Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron Microscopy Point Counting Techniques". USGS. Retrieved 2007-01-20. This preliminary report seeks to quantitatively define the fine-particle fraction of WTC dust for the purpose of identifying a diagnostic signature. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
33. Barnett, Jonathan (2002). "Limited Metallurgical Examination" (pdf). FEMA 403 -- Appendix C.6, Suggestions for Future Research. Federal Emergency Management Agency. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
34. ^ Griffin, D.R. "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" in The Hidden History of 9-11, Zarembka, Paul, ed. 2006. Available in a slightly revised form online at 9-11 Review
35. "Identifying Misinformation: 9/11 Revealed?". usinfo.state.gov. 16 September 2005. Retrieved 2007-01-06.
36. Ganser, Daniele (2006-09-09). "The embittered controversy over September 11". Tages Anzeiger. Retrieved 2006-09-20.
37. FEMA report re WTC7, page 5-23.
38. ^ Seffen, Keith. "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press. See the University of Cambridge's press release.
39. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
40. Griffin, D.R. (October, 2005). "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" (pdf). Progressive Democrats–East Bay, http://www.pdeastbay.org. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
41. Griffin, David Ray. "Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories". Here Griffin analyzes "The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers," released by FDNY in August 2005 under order from the New York Court of Appeals.
42. Griffin, D.R. (October, 2005). "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" . Griffin here cites the work of Jim Hoffman. Cf. Hoffman, Jim, 2003. “The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center” .
43. Sunder, S. Shyam (2005-09). "NIST NCSTAR 1: Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers". Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology. p. 90. Retrieved 2007-02-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
44. Tarpley, Webster G. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. Chapter 6. ISBN
45. Manning, Bill. ""Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse." Editorial in Fire Engineering. January 4, 2002. &ARTICLE_ID=131225
46. Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris EastDay.com via China.org.cn, January 24, 2002
47. Zarembka, Paul (2006-05-10). The Hidden History of. JAI Press. ISBN)).
48. Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2005-12-01). 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Tree of Life Publications. ISBN.
49. Griffin, David Ray (2006-09-30). 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Olive Branch Press. ISBN. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
50. Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2007-01-24. Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
51. Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
52. Jones, Steven; Robertson, Leslie (2006-10-26). (Interview) http://media-nf.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3. Retrieved 2007-02-27. {{cite interview}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (help)
53. netxnews.net
54. Links to lectures
55. http://www.improbablecollapse.com/ - the documentary website.
56. Molé, Phil. "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement Perspective" and "What Demolition Experts Say About 9/11" in Skeptic, v. 12, n. 4. 2006
57. vpro.nl

v t e 9/11 conspiracy theories
Key topics	Advance-knowledge conspiracy theories Opinion polls 9/11 truth movement World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
Groups	Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Million Muslim March
Film and TV	911: In Plane Site A Few Days in September Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura Loose Change "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" Zeitgeist
Books	9/11: The Big Lie American Conspiracies Among the Truthers Debunking 9/11 Myths The CIA and September 11 The New Pearl Harbor The Terror Timeline
Category

• Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks
• Buildings and structures in Manhattan
• Conspiracy theories
• September 11, 2001 attacks
• Terrorism in the United States
• World Trade Center