September 11th Conspiracy

[Greg C.]

I'm a conspiracy theorist but for years I have held out to be one of the last people that go to my school that doesn not belive in a 9/11 conspiracy. My dad worked there for 27 years and was in the towers when the first bombing happened in 1993. He worked on thr 84th floor and the company he worked for, Blue Starline Shipping, went out of business in the summer of 2001. I refused to believe that our government had something to do with this. But then I saw, LOOSE CHANGE (which can be seen at http://loosechange911.com) and became a believer. Just give it some thought and keep an open mind. And even though we lost thousands of people that day, just think of the ways we benefitted. ITS WORTH THE LONG READ!!!!

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a variety of conspiracy theories have emerged which dispute the mainstream account of those events. The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge, or that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of the American people.

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down.

============================
Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis. U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.

Origins and reception
Since the September 11 attacks, a number of websites, books, and films have challenged the mainstream account of the attacks. Although mainstream media has stated that al-Qaeda conspired to execute the attacks on the World Trade Center, 9/11 conspiracy theories assert the mainstream accounts are either inaccurate or incomplete. Many groups and individuals challenging the official account identify as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Initially, 9/11 conspiracy theories received little attention in the media. 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."Later, as media exposure of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11 increased, US government agencies and the Bush Administration issued responses to the theories, including a formal analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to questions about the destruction of the World Trade Center,a revised 2006 State Department webpage to debunk the theories,and a strategy paper referred to by President Bush in an August 2006 speech, which declares 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."

In August 2004, a Zogby International poll indicated that 49.3% of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens "overall" say US Leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".In July 2006, a Scripps Howard and Ohio University poll concluded that "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them", "sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings" and "twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists."A May 2006 Zogby International poll indicated that 42% of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up."A September 2006 Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans." An October 2006 New York Times and CBS news poll showed that 28 percent believe members of the Bush Administration are mostly lying about "what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States.". A May 2007 survey of American Muslims released by the Pew Research Center shows that 40 percent of respondents believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. Another 28 percent don't believe it. Among the 28 percent who doubted that Arabs were behind the conspiracy, one-fourth claim the U.S. government was responsible.

Just prior to the fifth anniversary of the attacks, a flurry of mainstream news articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories were released.In its coverage Time Magazine stated, "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."Mainstream coverage has generally presented these theories as a cultural phenomenon and is often very critical of their content.


The mainstream account
Immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. government said the attacks were carried out by members of the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden. On the morning of September 11, the government said, nineteen terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes by using knives, box cutters, pepper spray and fake explosives. They piloted the planes themselves and crashed these into the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. According to mainstream scientific account, the World Trade Center towers later collapsed due to the impact damage, removal of the fire protection and the intense fires. Due to the collapse of World Trade Center One and Two, surrounding World Trade Center buildings were heavily damaged as well, leading in turn to their complete or partial collapse. American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon. United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania later that day after passengers learned via air phone of the other attacks and mounted resistance to that plane's hijackers.

Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and FEMA conducted building performance studies at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.The Intelligence Committees of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate conducted a Joint Inquiry in 2002. U.S. government officials, such as Condoleezza Rice, said they had no advance knowledge of the attacks and no idea that such a thing might happen. Organizations representing the victims' families such as the Jersey Girls demanded further investigation and, after initial reluctance, the administration acceded to their request. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission was formed tasked with “not placing individual blame” but providing an explanation as to what happened and making recommendations to prevent a recurrence. In 2004 the commission released its report. It disclosed that there were prior warnings of varying detail that the United States would be attacked by al-Qaeda. These were ignored, the report said, due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of interagency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that resulted in major scandals during that era. The report also faulted both the Clinton and the Bush administration with “failure of imagination”. The explanation laid out in the report has been endorsed by most members of both major political parties, and is what conspiracy theorists refer to as "the official account" of the September, 2001 attacks, which only focuses on government sources.

In addition to government investigations and sources that comprise the "official account" that conspiracy theorists look to, the September 11, 2001 attacks have been documented and analyzed by numerous non-government sources. These include eyewitnesses, investigations by the National Fire Protection Association and other organizations, experts at Purdue University and Northwestern University,and news media throughout the world, including The Times of India, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the BBC, Le Monde,Deutsche Welle,the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC),and The Chosun Ilbo of South Korea.

[Greg C.]

Main approaches
9/11 conspiracy theories generally start with dissatisfaction with the official explanation of 9/11. But criticism of the official account does not in and of itself constitute a conspiracy theory.

The weak version, which does not directly imply a conspiracy, merely suspects that government agencies, including the military and intelligence communities, dealt incompetently with the 9/11 attacks. It may go as far as suggesting that the 9/11 Commission Report covered up these alleged incompetencies and even that part of the incompetence involved inappropriate reactions to advanced warnings. While 9/11 conspiracy theories often include such claims, they go further to suggest intentional activities that either facilitated or directly caused the attacks. There are two main categories of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "let it happen on purpose" (LIHOP). That is, they knew the attacks were coming (though there is a range of opinion about how specific their knowledge was) and undertook to weaken America's defenses sufficiently to ensure a successful major terrorist attack on home soil.
Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "made it happen on purpose" (MIHOP). That is, they planned the attacks (and here there is a range of opinion about what the plan was) and ultimately carried it into action.
Some theories go on to identify the people who had the power to either make it or let it happen purposefully. This list of suspects also varies considerably across theories.

The case for the theories is generally built on publicly available sources following a "connect the dots" approach. These sources include news reports of government actions, terrorist activities, and physical events, and a substantial amount of video footage. Part of the argument is a critique of the mainstream media for reporting individual facts without making an adequate effort to understand the connections between them. Conspiracy theories emerge from making such connections in the interpretative room left open by "unanswered questions". In some cases, conspiracy theorists will insist on the accuracy of early news reports that have since been retracted, refuted, or forgotten.

Arguments are offered to suggest both the physical possibility and circumstantial plausibility or likelihood of a given conspiracy theory and, correspondingly, to demonstrate the physical impossibility and circumstantial implausibility of the official account. Since most conspiracy theorists argue for further independent investigations of the attacks, the basic assertion is normally only that the alternative conspiracy theory is more likely than "the official conspiracy theory". The remainder of this article provides a survey of the arguments, which are generally combined by individual theorists in overlapping and sometimes incompatible ways.

US Military
Many point to the writings of neoconservative strategists to suggest that 9/11 was, at best, on their 'wish list' and, at worst, on their list of 'things to do'. The standard reference in presenting this idea has become a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was written by the think tank, the Project for the New American Century. This document outlines a global strategy that conspiracy theorists say is very similar in its details to the military strategy of the War on Terror. The document includes the line "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."There have been claims that the George W. Bush administration was preparing for war on Iraq months before 9/11. In particular, a government employee by the name of O'Neill reported the president's having said "Go find me a way to do this" (invade Iraq).David Ray Griffin and others have presented an argument that draws a parallel to a particular interpretation of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, according to which Roosevelt both provoked the attack and allowed it to happen in order to have a pretext for American entry into the second world war. Conspiracy theorists believe that 9/11 constitutes a "new Pearl Harbor" in at least this sense (LIHOP), many also adding the element of "false flag terrorism", i.e., that the attacks were organized by at least some of its supposed beneficiaries (MIHOP).


[edit] Operation Northwoods
To establish that the United States government (which some allege to have carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks) would be willing to use a staged incident to generate support for an armed conflict (which some conspiracy theorists say was the purpose behind the attacks) conspiracy theorists have often pointed to Operation Northwoods. This plan, which was proposed by U.S. Department of Defense leaders in 1962 during the Kennedy administration, was meant to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan suggested various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored acts of terrorism on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. The plan, however, was rejected by the Kennedy administration.

[Greg C.]

Government foreknowledge
One theory is that individuals within the United States government and private sector knew of the impending attacks and deliberately failed to act on that knowledge. Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher is among those who have suggested this possibility. The theory does not necessarily suggest that individuals within the US Government actually conducted the operation, but rather that they had enough information to have prevented the attack.


Intelligence issues
Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, stated that the government had been warned in 1995 about a future attack on a government building and that later he was contacted by three FBI agents who mentioned uncovering a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan.

According to the story, as the agents informed their superiors they were briefed not to pursue the issue and threatened with prosecution. David Schippers declared, "Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns." According to Mr. Schippers, Ashcroft responded that they (the Justice Department) do not start investigations at the top.
Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.
Author William Norman Grigg furthered the Schippers story in his article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" According to the article, three unnamed veteran federal law enforcement agents confirmed "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the Bureau before September 11."
Former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. (Able Danger was managed by SOCOM, the military's Special Operations Command.)

The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI, but SOCOM rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, “Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00”, 8/9/2005)
Acting Pentagon Inspector General Thomas Gimble in a 71-page report given to Defense Department officials in September 2006 dismissed claims that an Army intelligence unit code-named Able Danger uncovered data that could have thwarted the September 11 attacks, saying the allegations could not be substantiated. "Able Danger team members did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker," "In fact, Able Danger produced no actionable intelligence information"
Reacting to the Pentagon report, Rep. Weldon said, "The report trashes the reputations of military officers who had the courage to step forward and ... describe important work they were doing to track al-Qaida prior to 9/11". 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean said he hoped the report would put an end to discussion about Able Danger. "After this I don't know where it can go"
Pentagon officials, however, said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks.
FBI agent and Al-Qaeda expert John P. O'Neill warned of an Al-Qaeda threat to the United States in the year preceding the attacks. He retired from his position in mid 2001, citing repeated blocking of his investigations of Al Qaeda by FBI official(s). He was then recruited to be chief of security at the World Trade Center. His body was found in a staircase inside the south tower rubble.

Possible early warning
On September 12, 2001, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown may have received an early warning of the attack, because Brown had said a phone call from his airport security eight hours before the attacks advised him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. He did not cancel his flight plans until he became aware of the attacks.
Of the call, Brown said it "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement. It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge
News accounts in the aftermath reported a suspicious pattern of trading in the options of United and American Airlines as well as Morgan Stanley and other unusual market activity.One report on this theory appeared in 2001 and another in 2002.

In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2003, Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, said:
"Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks. Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account."
However, according to the 9/11 Commission, the SEC and FBI examined each trade, the trades were innocuous, and no evidence of a connection was found:

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10, the Commission said. Similarly, the Commission said, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, that recommended these trades.


World Trade Center collapse as controlled demolition
Main article: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center
The collapse of the World Trade Center was a surprise to many structural engineers.While no skyscraper had ever before completely collapsed due to fire or other local damage, three skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001. The challenge for engineers was then to explain how the local damage caused by the airplanes (or, in the case of WTC 7, falling debris) was able to occasion a global progressive collapse. After an intensive three-year investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published an account that has been largely accepted in the engineering community. The official collapse mechanism refers only to the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires, which are taken to have caused sufficient structural damage to occasion the collapses. Conspiracy theorists emphasize that the only precedents for global collapse before 9/11 are controlled demolitions, and demand a more thorough investigation of this possibility.

The controlled demolition hypothesis plays a central, albeit not essential, role in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.[52] Jeff King and Jim Hoffman were early defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis and published their observations online.David Ray Griffin included the theory in his book The New Pearl Harbor. It received its most notable proponent to date in early 2006, when Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, argued that a "gravity driven collapse" without demolition charges would defy the laws of physics.

There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort and amount of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Some conspiracy theorists propose a regular controlled demolition, in which the role of the demolition charges would have been to remove the main structural supports in order to let gravity and the weight of the building do the rest. Steven Jones believes that the molten metal found underground weeks after 9/11 proves that jet fuel could not have been the only incendiary used that day, and that thermite (thermate), perhaps in combination with other devices, was likely involved. Critics often argue that the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible. Proponents sometimes cite reports of what they believe are unusual power outages, maintenance work and emergency drills in the weeks leading up to September 11, 2001.

There is widespread agreement, however, about the significance of the controlled demolition hypothesis, even among those who do not endorse it specifically or conspiracy theories in general. The necessary devices could only have been planted well in advance of the September 11 attacks and would have required extraordinary access to three highly secured buildings.


Building Seven
Conspiracy theorists frequently emphasise the collapse of Seven World Trade Center in discussing the controlled demolition theory. They cite several reasons for this. First, they believe the collapse displayed especially clear features of a controlled demolition. Second, they say that since no plane hit the building, its collapse is even more difficult to explain than that of the two towers. Flaming debris did fall onto the building as a result of the collapse of the twin towers, but World Trade Center buildings 4, 5 and 6 remained standing despite also being severely damaged. Third, researchers emphasise the style in which WTC7 collapsed: according to conspiracy theorists the collapse took 7 seconds, with constant acceleration close to gravitational.(FEMA described the collapse sequence as lasting 37 seconds, basing this on seismic evidence and videos of the roof of the building;9/11 researchers analyse video footages that show only the sudden collapse of the outer walls and refer to similarity with typical controlled demolitions) Fourth, in a PBS documentary on the collapse, Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, said the fire department had decided to "pull it". Although his spokesperson later said Silverstein meant that firefighters had decided to withdraw from the building and the surrounding area for their own safety,many conspiracy theorists insist that "pull it" is technical slang in the demolition industry for demolish a building. (Whether or not this is what the phrase means has become a point of dispute.)The official investigation into the collapse is still ongoing (a draft of the NIST report will be released in early 2007). NIST said they had to prioritize their investigations and chose to investigate the collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2 first, and then building 7. The fact that the building housed the offices of government agencies like the CIA,the FBI, and the SEC, along with the City of New York's emergency command bunker has also fueled conspiracy theories.

Some also claim that foreknowledge of the collapse of this buildings suggests a possible demolition. On September 11th a BBC news story appeared to be covering the collapse of WTC Building 7 while it was shown still standing, approximately 23 minutes before it actually did come down.


Mini-Nukes or Energy Weapons
A small number of theorists believe that the widespread damage and eventual collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by a "mini-nuke" or energy weapon. Since the resignation of Steven E. Jones, Kevin Ryan and others from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth group, James Fetzer has broadened its scope to encourage the consideration of these theories, and has endorsed the exploration of the possible use of mini-nukes, directed energy weapons, and even of HAARP for this purpose. Among these theories is one first proposed by Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood. Jones and Jim Hoffman have published what they say are refutations to claims that "nukes" were used and Jones has questioned whether the space weapon theories are even testable.

[Greg C.]

Pentagon not hit by Boeing 757Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something significantly smaller than a Boeing 757 (typically a missile or smaller aircraft) have been raised by some conspiracy theorists based on photographs in which there appears to be a lack of expected debris or pieces of a commercial aircraft within the immediate impact area, and what some believe is a lack of damage to the building and the lawn. Conspiracy theorists say the first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an interview on October 12, 2001,which helped set up this claim. Subsequently, Thierry Meyssan in his book 9/11: The Big Lie gave this claim much more visibility. He also advanced the idea with his website Hunt the Boeing! and the popular internet videos Loose Change and "911 In Plane Site". A likely cause of these ideas, some say, was the initial scarcity of documentation of the attack. At first the only evidence available consisted of long distance photographs and video footage taken after the attack, eyewitness testimony from individuals at the scene, and five video frames captured by a security camera which were released on March 8, 2002. A large amount of evidence was later released after the Zacarias Moussaoui trial and several Freedom of Information Act requests.


Security camera footage showing Flight 77 immediately before impact.Conspiracy theorists dispute the contents of the video.


The Pentagon, after collapse of the damaged section.

Suspicions were additionally fueled by a lack of video footage of the impact of the jetliner, since many assume that the Pentagon must be subject to intense camera surveillance for security reasons. In addition to the Pentagon's own security cameras, these people also noted that security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station and from the Virginia Department of Transportation was swiftly confiscated by the US government. On May 16, 2006 the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch's FOIA request. However, due to a low number of frames per second, the videos do not clearly show the impact of the plane, only the approach of the plane (at an angle) and the explosion cloud, thus keeping the "no Boeing" theory popular. In addition to the security cam footage, the Citgo footage was released on September 15, 2006, but did not show the attacks. The Doubletree hotel, located nearby in Crystal City, Virginia, also had a security camera video, and on December 4, 2006 the FBI released the video in response to a freedom of information lawsuit filed by Scott Bingham.No plane can be seen entering the Pentagon since the camera was mounted on a lower point on the Doubletree Hotel and an elevated highway obstructs the view of the Pentagon.

A few conspiracy theorists also consider American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Charles Burlingame as a "prime suspect" in the conspiracy.In response to these accusations and the Loose Change video, his sister, Debra, remarked "The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred...They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world. They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars."

The Pentagon "no Boeing" theory constitutes a controversial issue, even among conspiracy theorists, many of whom have said that this claim is "disproved" by hundreds of eyewitnesses and physical evidence, suggesting it is disinformation to create a supposedly easily discredited straw man argument. Several researchers have argued that the wings would cause less damage than the plane's main body, 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. They also emphasize reports from numerous eyewitnesses, including commuters on nearby roads, nearby apartment buildings,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.

Purdue University also released a study with results that recreated the attack. In explaining the damage, the study argued that the plane was like a "sausage skin" because of the speed of impact.

[Greg C.]

Flight 175 "pod" claims
Some conspiracy theorists say there was a "pod" of some sort under the aircraft which hit the South Tower. This theory has mainly been propagated by 911 In Plane Site, Let’s Roll 911, and Reopen 911. Theories as to what this pod may have been have ranged from a missile to simply the Boeing’s left fairing. The website 911 In Plane Site cited an analysis by a Spanish university as proof that there were objects on the base of the plane. The report says that the "only explanation" for these objects is that they are "in relief."

Both 9/11 researchers and their critics have published refutations of the pod claims. The websites oilempire.us, 911review.com, and questionsquestions.net have each provided critiques illustrating that the pod claim is not supported in the evidence. Those promoting the pod theory were sometimes referred to as the "pod people."

Popular Mechanics’ “Debunking the 9/11 Myths” quotes Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University, who said that the sunlight is glinting off the plane, and that “such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film, which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels.” They said that “the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear”.

911 IPS responded to this by saying that “the anomaly could not have been the fairing because it protrudes beyond the front of the wing.”


"Flash" claims before Flight 175 hit the South Tower
Many of the same conspiracy theorists supporting the pod claim have often alleged a flash as the plane hit the tower as proof that there was a missile launched from the underside of the plane. 911 IPS says that the flash could not be a reflection, as it was caught on camera from four different angles, and it is their theory that an object cannot reflect light in more than one direction. In addition, they said that sparks or static discharge "have been ruled out by every airline pilot we have spoken with."

As with the pod claims, 9/11 researchers published refutations of these ideas, such as questionsquestions.net, oilempire.us, and 911review.com, which states,

"The most plausible explanation for the flashes we've seen is that the kinetic energy of the collisions vaporized a mix of materials, including steel and aluminum, which were rapidly oxidized by the pressure and heat of the 400+ mph collision."
But when Popular Mechanics published an article debunking the 16 most prevalent conspiracy theories, the flash theory was not amongst them.

United Airlines Flight 93
There are several conspiracy theories surrounding the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

Jim Hoffman notes a three-minute discrepancy in the cockpit voice recording immediately prior to the flight's crash. The cockpit voice recorder transcripts end at 10:03 a.m., but Cleveland Air Traffic Control reported that Flight 93 went out of radar contact at 10:06 a.m., and FAA radar records also note a time of 10:06 a.m. Seismologists record an impact at 10:06:05 a.m., +/- a couple of seconds.
Some conspiracy theorists believe there is a cover up of evidence as the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder from Flight 93 have not been released to the general public. However, a 1990 Congressional Law prohibits the “public disclosure [of the] cockpit voice recorder recordings and transcriptions, in whole or in part, of oral communications by and between flight crew members and ground stations…” And on April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings. This was made possible because the FBI controlled the investigation, as opposed to the NTSB as in typical air disasters.


Claims that Flight 93 was shot down
Some conspiracy theorists (including notable right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin who question the common account of United Airlines Flight 93 crashing as a result of an attempted cockpit invasion, have speculated that it was shot down by US fighter jets.

This idea was promoted by author David Ray Griffin in his book The New Pearl Harbor, who cited Paul Thompson. Thompson examined a number of mainstream media reports and says that fighter jets were actually much closer to Flight 93 at the time of the crash than stated in the official record. He mentions witnesses who noticed a small white jet near the impact site soon after the crash.However, some say this was likely a business jet the ATC asked to investigate the crash area and that descended to an altitude of around 1500 ft to survey the impact. Ben Sliney, who was the FAA operation manager on September 11, 2001, says no military aircraft were near Flight 93. Conspiracy theorists also seized on a quote by the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in which he referenced Flight 93 as "the plane they shot down over Pennsylvania." A Pentagon official later said that Rumsfeld had misspoken.

Thompson and other conspiracy theorists note that pieces of Flight 93 were found far from the crash site and suggest that this may be evidence of a shoot-down. NTSB investigators say they have found no evidence the plane was shot down. 9/11 conspiracy theorists say:

The existence of multiple debris fields located miles away from the crash site
Eyewitness accounts that debris fell out of the sky like confetti
The military had known about the WTC strikes and would have investigated a plane off its flight path nearing the White House, or Three Mile Island depending on the intended target
Popular Mechanics, however, argued that debris exploding away and landing far from the crash scene is not a unique occurrence in commercial airline accidents.


Claims that Flight 93 never crashed
Some conspiracy theorists speculate that Flight 93 landed safely in Ohio. The website Physics911 says that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually not United 93 and that the flights involved in the 9/11 attacks were landed and substituted with other aircraft;however, other websites refute this claimand point to the wreckage at the scene and witness testimony,aside from the difficulty of "plane swapping". Often cited is a preliminary AP story on Flight 93’s safe landing at a Cleveland airport by WCPO, a local Cincinnati ABC news affiliate. It was later learned Delta Flight 1989 was the plane confused with Flight 93. WCPO has since retracted the story noting its earlier factual inaccuracies.


Claims that cell phone calls were impossible
During the flight of Flight 93 passengers made a number of calls to both family and emergency personnel. It is argued by some that connecting a cell phone to a tower's signal would have been near to impossible from the air. Based on this assumption, economist Michel Chossudovsky suggests the calls were fabricated or never made at all.
In 2003 a Canadian team conducted experiments to determine if cell phones could be used from civilian aircraft flying at cruising speeds and altitudes. Their results show a 75% success rate at 2000 feet, 25% at 4000 feet, and 17-18% at 6-8000 feet.
Carnegie Mellon researchers published results of a study in which they monitored spectrum frequencies generated by cell phone use during commercial passenger flights. They concluded that one to four cell phone calls are made during each average passenger flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations. The study makes no mention of the length of the calls or whether a successful air-ground connection was actually made during the monitored transmissions.
According to official accounts, at 9:58 a.m., moments before Flight 93 crashed, Edward Felt dialed 9-1-1 from his cell phone from the lavatory of the aircraft and his call was answered by dispatcher John Shaw. Felt was able to tell the dispatcher about the hijacking before the call was out of range and subsequently disconnected. At the time of the call, the aircraft had descended to 5,000 feet, over Westmoreland County, which together with Somerset County has the highest summits in Pennsylvania, at ~3,000 feet in elevation.
Aside from Ed Felt's call, and another made by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles also at 9:58 a.m, all the other calls were made with onboard airphones and not cell phones.

[seguin]

Extremely interesting! I think I´ll watch the Loose Change film...

[Greg C.]

seguin said:

Extremely interesting! I think I´ll watch the Loose Change film...

It's a must see. It will definately change your views.

[Greg C.]

On loosechange911.com there is a place where you can send them an email telling them about how you are connected to 9-11. Since my parents worked there and my dad was in the first bombing, I told them that story, and they sent me a free copy since i was unable to watch the entire thing. (PC doesnt play videos well.) it just arrived today.

[Cole_blooded]

Greg,good buddy a lengthy read but do you honestly believe their conspiracy take and what not concerning 911? That whole bit about the US Goverment `s involvement/possible involvement in 911 is silly! They are putting their spin on this and writing a ton of words to get you hooked!

TED COLE....aka....Cole_blooded

[Greg C.]

You don't think our government is capable of doing this? Killing thousands of people? In the end, what did the government get to to? Invade Iraq, take control of oil and make billions upon billions of dollars from the war. Do you think our government gives a rat's ass about a couple thousand people when there's billions of dollars to be made? I think not...

[Cole_blooded]

Greg I can tell you are really getting taken in by that stuff,that`s cool if you believe that! The US Goverment did not do or partake in 911! That so called oil in Iraq you are talking about is owned by the Iraqi Goverment not the US and the US does not control the oil in Iraq! Who or where did you read that the US is making billions? Far left Liberals talk like that and far left web sites talk like that as well,it boils down to the far left who cry and whine and talk trash about Bush and make accusations!

The radical Arab Muslim terrorists hijackers who took over the airplanes were all from the Middle East,Saudi Arabia and such! Most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and the majority of the terrorists came across the Canadian border! They acted normal,kept to them selves & took flying lessons! These terrorists were all "Al Queda" Greg under Osama Bin Laden and they had planned this attack for several years!

Al Queda took over all the planes Greg and they were suppose to all take off at the same time, 3 did and one was delayed 30 to 40 minutes! Passengers on the plane that took off last started getting cell calls from loved ones telling them of the plane attacks on the Pentagon and the "Twin Towers"! Their plane gets taken over by yes" Arab Terrorists of Al Queda"! These terrorists make a call from the cockpit telling air controler about it! Passengers know/see whats going down a fight brakes out,then it does a suicide drive into the ground in Pennsylvania!

Have a nice day Greg and see you later friend!

TED

[Greg C.]

1. Days after September 11th, Bin Laden publicly stated that he and the Taliban did not partake in the terrorist attacks. The so called "Bin laden Confession tape" is a fake becuase Bin Laden is a left handed but in the very choppy video can be seen eating and writing with his right hand. Also, the Bin laden in the video looks nothing like the real one.

2. There were Billions of dollars in Kuwatian gold located in safes in the sub levels on the World Trade center. It just so happens that in the early morning hours of september 11th, ALL of the gold was being taken out of those safes by the US government and upon excavating, was found in the back of a truck in a tunnel under tower five. The only thing that stopped them was the collapse of the twin towers. The debris fell and blocked the way out.

3. The towers were taken down by controlled demolition. There was a building in Madrid that had 24 floors consumed by flames that burnt for more then 24 hours. The building remained in tact and stands to this day. Yet, in the World trade centers collapsed after 4 floors burned for 56 and 103 minutes. Also if you watch the towers collapsing in slow motion you can see small explosions happeneing about 10 floors down from where the building is actually falling. Also, sublevel workers said in an interview that they heard distinct explosions coming from the basement before the planes hit.

I have more but its getting late...

[Cole_blooded]

Greg this is your forum and your thread and if you honestly believe what you just said, where are you reading this? What network news or Cable news channel did you hear this as being true? What website,chat room and such did you hear/read this stuff? What magazine,book,newspaper and or periodical said this and most important who were the authors? Was any of this stuff seen/heard on any cable news and or satellite channel?

Why does the vast majority of legal Americans believe Osama Bin Laden and his blood thirsty terrorists planned it/did it,which he did?

Why does the very small group of conspiracy theorists,web sites and such believe their take on it?

I love this country the good ole USA

I support the US Military, especially the troops!

I support our President George W. Bush except his lame excuse for not doing more on our southern border keeping illegal aliens out!

Hey Greg you know how to cook toilet paper?......Brown one side and drop in the pot ;D......Have a good laugh and later!

[Greg C.]

Actually many parts to the basis of a government created plot come from actual news telecasts from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. Every news station had on location reporters at the scene and every single one of them reported to the entire world how they kept hearing explosions even after the two planes hit. One even said it looked like a bomb went off in the lobby becuase it had blown out the windows and even taken pices of marble paneling off the walls.

-Here's my favorite of the entire story: The black box of one of the planes was never recovered. Keep in mind that black boxes (which record every single thing said and done in the cockpit) are made of the tougest metal known on the face of this earth. After searching for days, the black box was never found. But, it just so happens they found the passport of one of the supposed hijackers laying there on the streets of new york (which is how officials identified one of them). So your telling me that a box of the toughest metal on earth was destroyed but a paper passport made it through the fire and burning rubble only to land on the street? Or did it flying out a broken window? Who the hell makes this stuff up?

-Oh and twelve of the terrorists the government "identified" were seen alive and well after september eleventh my family back home and in south america. The supposed ring leader Muhammad Atta actually called his father on september twelfth in south america which shocked the old man so much becuase he had just been told his son flew a plane into WTC. Isn't that just a little strange?

Cole, please just go to google video and type in "Loose Change 2nd Edition" and watch it. I think its about 90 minutes and after seeing that then tell me how you feel.

[Cole_blooded]

Greg,the Arab Muslim Terrorists that flew the planes into the world trade center towers,the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania are all dead! What you are talking about is purely propaganda concerning the terrorists not on the planes,they got you hooked into this belief big time!

The fourth plane did not have a chance to hit its target in DC because of #1 It was delayed in taking off! and #2 The heroic passengers took the law into their own hands and the plane did a nose dive to the ground! These brave folks had a warning from loved ones via cell phone about the other 3 planes hitting their targets and then took it to em!

Greg make a copy of what you have posted here on these pages and the link to the conspiracy web site and go visit the Fire Houses,the Police stations and Port Authority in New York City and show it to them and you will not like what you hear! Especially go to the ones that lost men during the terrorist attack of 911!

Those terrorists in the planes are dead!

TED COLE....aka....Cole_blooded

[Greg C.]

coleblooded said:

Greg,the Arab Muslim Terrorists that flew the planes into the world trade center towers,the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania are all dead! What you are talking about is purely propaganda concerning the terrorists not on the planes,they got you hooked into this belief big time!

The fourth plane did not have a chance to hit its target in DC because of #1 It was delayed in taking off! and #2 The heroic passengers took the law into their own hands and the plane did a nose dive to the ground! These brave folks had a warning from loved ones via cell phone about the other 3 planes hitting their targets and then took it to em!

Greg make a copy of what you have posted here on these pages and the link to the conspiracy web site and go visit the Fire Houses,the Police stations and Port Authority in New York City and show it to them and you will not like what you hear! Especially go to the ones that lost men during the terrorist attack of 911!

Those terrorists in the planes are dead!

TED COLE....aka....Cole_blooded

I'll go to them and talk to the ones that were there and they'll tell me about the many explosions they heard before and after the planes crashed. Some of them are even interviewed in LOOSE CHANGE.

[alamojohnuk]

Just watched loose change, and speaking as someone who has always dismissed any talk of conspiracy theories on this as complete and utter rubbish, I have to say it does make a strong argument that perhaps not everything was as clear cut as at first appeared.

Now I am not saying what loose change suggests is 100% fact, but it does show up a lot of loose ends that need explaining, and the argument is a strong one that perhaps we have not been told anywhere near enough of the REAL facts, I am a 52 year old male who has seen enough of life to know that sometimes the truth can leave an awful nasty taste in the mouth, but at the same time I like to keep an open mind on all things which I don't know all the answers to, so from this aspect it certainly takes some thinking on.

PS : I have however never been totaly convinced of the evidence of a "plane" hitting the Pentagon, the lack of wreckage has always been a problem with me.