User:Cs32en/911/Articles/9-11 Truth Movement/old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9/11 Truth movement is the collective name of organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government was either negligent toward or complicit in the September 11 attacks.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] When negligence is alleged, motives given are nefarious such as allowing the launch of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or curtailing civil liberties.[2] Members of the movement are frequently referred to as “Truthers”. [1][8][9]

History[edit]

In January 2002, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the investigations to "intelligence failures."[10]

Both before and after the 9/11 Commission Report, there were questions about the official account published. Among others, Michael Ruppert[11] and Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker,[12] published criticisms or pointed out purported anomalies of the mainstream account of the attacks. French author Jean-Charles Brisard[13] and German authors Mathias Bröckers[14] and Andreas von Bülow[15] published books critical of media reporting and advancing the controlled demolition thesis of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

In September 2002, the first "Bush Did It!" rallies and marches were held in San Francisco and Oakland, California organized by The All People's Coalition.[16] In October 2002, an anti-Bush parody of the dollar bill that includes addresses of websites which say they prove that 9/11 was an inside job, began being produced and handed out at protests and rallies.[17]

The 911 Visibility Project was formed in 2003 and in January 2004 they organized a demonstration at Ground Zero; activists stood behind a large banner that read "The Bush Regime Engineered 9/11," and held signs reading "Support the Families: Stop 9/11 Cover-Up" and "Bush Knew". Leaflets were handed out pointing out supposed inconsistencies in the official account.[citation needed] On March 20, 2004, more than 100,000 people turned out for an anti-war demonstration in New York. 9/11 truth activists distributed thousands of "Stop the 9-11 Cover-Up" signs and the movement received national press exposure.[citation needed]

Several academics challenging official reports of the 9/11 attacks lost their jobs. Steven E. Jones, who became a leading academic voice of the demolition theory[2] In 2006, he published the paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?".[18] was placed on paid leave by Brigham Young University following what they described as Jones's "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements in September, 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[19] Also in 2006, in the U.S. Midwest, 61 legislators signed a petition calling for the dismissal of a University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, after he joined the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Citing academic freedom, the university provost declined to take action against Barrett.[20][21][22]

9/11 Commission Report reaction[edit]

To the consternation of the families and the "9/11 skeptics" in general, many of the questions that the 9/11 Family Steering Committee put to the 9/11 Commission were not asked in either the hearings or in the Commission Report.[23] Lorie Van Auken, one of the "Jersey Widows", estimates that only 30% of their questions were answered in the final 9/11 Commission Report, published July 22, 2004. The story of the Families Movement and their monitoring of the commission is documented in the film 9/11: Press for Truth (2006).

The 9/11 Family Steering Committee produced a website summarizing the questions they had raised to the Commission, indicating which they believe had been answered satisfactorily, which they believe had been addressed but not answered satisfactorily, and which they believe had been generally ignored in or omitted from the Report.[24]

In addition, the 339-page book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin, claimed that the report had either omitted information or distorted the truth, providing 115 examples. He summarizes his book in the article The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-page lie, claiming that "the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true."

On May 26, 2008 college professor Blair Gadsby began a protest and a hunger strike outside the offices of Senator and Republican Party Nominee for President John McCain's office demanding to see McCain. Arizona Republican State Senator Karen Johnson joined the protest in support. On June 10 Johnson with Gadsby as her guest and other 9/11 Truth movement members in the audience spoke before the Arizona State Senate espousing the controlled demolition theory and supporting a reopening of the 9/11 investigation.[25][26] In response to a questioner McCain, who wrote the forward to a Popular Mechanics book aimed at debunking the theories,[27] said he did not meet Gadsby "Because I don't take well to threats".[28]

NIST Report reaction[edit]

Immediately after the collapses of the Towers and Building 7, eyewitness testimony referring to explosions, along with features of the collapses caught on film that resembled footage of controlled demolitions, led many people, including some news anchors and engineers, to suspect that explosives had been pre-planted within the buildings.[citation needed] Within hours, the explanation that the impact damage and fires had led to a "progressive collapse" was presented in the mainstream media. And in weeks and months that followed, articles in scientific journals explained that the global collapses of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were inevitable, with most asserting that the impact damage and intense heat of the fires caused the floor trusses and the vertical columns to weaken and fail, and the "pancake" effect of floors crashing down on top of one another brought down the entire structure.[29] The initial government investigation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Report (May 2002), reached similar conclusions, but recommended a more thorough investigation.[30] The full Report into the collapses of the Twin Towers by the official investigators, NIST, was published in June 2005.

Following the NIST Report, numerous responses were written by members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Many of these responses claimed that it ignored key evidence suggesting an explosive demolition, "distorted reality" by using deceptive language and diagrams, and attacked straw man arguments, such as the 2005 article by Jim Hoffman entitled, Building a better mirage: NIST's 3-year $20,000,000 Cover Up of the Crime of the Century.[31]

In the Fall of 2005, then-Brigham Young University Physics professor Steven Jones announced a paper criticizing the NIST Report and describing his hypothesis that the WTC towers had been intentionally demolished by explosives. This paper garnered a small amount of mainstream media attention, including an appearance by Jones on MSNBC. This was the first such programming on a major cable news station. As of November 2006, Jones had not published his research in peer-reviewed mainstream journals. Although Jones has been criticized by his university for publicizing his claims before vetting them through the approved peer review process and has since been placed on paid leave,[32][33] he continues to remain a focus of public interest for his 9/11 research.

Accordingly, in April 2007, some 9/11 victims' family members and some members of the new Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice submitted an additional request for correction to NIST, containing their own views on the defects in the report.[34] NIST responded to this request in September 2007 supporting their original conclusions;[35] the originators of the request wrote back to them in October 2007, asking them to reconsider their response.

Criticism[edit]

The movement has attracted the attention of some major mainstream media publications.

While noting that the movement is "a mainstream political reality", Time magazine declared that "the [conspiracy] theories prompt small, reasonable questions that demand answers that are just too large and unreasonable to swallow."[36] The movement receives criticism from a variety of sources. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote that he has "two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth Movement":

"The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes.... Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost."[37]

MIT engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to physicist Steven Jones publishing a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eager stated:

"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."[38]

Organizations[edit]

Since the publication of the official reports, a number of interconnected 9/11 Truth movement organizations have been formed to research the events of the day, to promote the 9/11 Truth movement and 9/11 conspiracy theories to the general public, and to try and force a new investigation.[citation needed]

911 Truth[edit]

This organization was launched in June 2004 and has become the central portal for all the 9/11 Truth movement organizations. It is run by Janice Matthews[39] (Executive Director), David Kubiak[40](International Campaign Advisor) and Mike Berger[41] (Media Coordinator), among others, and its advisory board includes Steven Jones, Barrie Zwicker and Faiz Khan.[42]

The organization co-sponsored the Zogby Polls that have shown an increasing number of people believing the government has covered-up the real story of 9/11.[citation needed][43][44] A few of its sister and spin-off organizations include the 9/11 Visibility Project[citation needed] and Justice For 9/11[citation needed]. It also organizes gatherings and events, promotes "scholarly" research, warns about the discrediting effect of extreme alternative theories, and attempts to affect mainstream media coverage.[citation needed]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth[edit]

See also: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization of architectural and engineering professionals[45] who advocate September 11 conspiracy theories and are calling a new investigation into the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC.[46][47] The group is collecting signatures for a petition to the United States Congress that demands "a truly independent investigation with subpoena power" of the September 11 attacks, and in particular "a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction" of the World Trade Center buildings.[48][49][50] Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area based architect,[51] founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006.[52][53]

Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[54][55] Gage critizised the government agency NIST for not having investigated the complete sequence of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers[56] and claims that "the official explanation of the total destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers has explicitly failed to address the massive evidence for explosive demolition."[57] To support its position, the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth points to the "free fall" pace of the collapse of the buildings, the "lateral ejection of steel", and to the "mid-air pulverization of concrete".[45]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth[edit]

The original 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth', founded by Dr. James H. Fetzer and Dr. Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer—such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers—were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule. By December 2006, Dr. Steven Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.[58] The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.[59] By 2007, James Fetzer had been openly rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement, banned from and criticized on popular forums[60][61][62] [63] and no longer invited to public 9/11 events.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice[edit]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice formed in January 2007 and is "a group of scholars and supporters endeavoring to address the unanswered questions of the September 11, 2001 attack" with a focus on scientific research. The group is composed of more than 700 members,[64] including Richard Gage, Steven E. Jones, Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin, Peter Phillips, former Congressman Daniel Hamburg, and Kevin Ryan. Most members support the theory that the the World Trade Center Towers were destroyed through explosive demolition.

In 2008 and 2009, several Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice members published essays in science and engineering journals. In April 2008, a letter by members Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley, was published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal.[65] In July 2008, an article by Ryan, Gourley and Jones was published in the Environmentalist.[66] In October 2008, an essay describing what the author considers fundamental errors in a Bažant and Verdure paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by member James R. Gourley.[67] And in April 2009, as reported by major Danish newspapers,[68] Danish chemist and STJ member Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors, some also STJ members, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[69] The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite are present in the samples of the dust.

9/11 CitizensWatch[edit]

Main article: 9/11 Citizens Watch

The group was formed in 2002 by John Judge and Kyle Hence and, along with the Family Steering Committee, played an active role in calling for the establishment of the 9/11 Commission, and monitoring the commission closely.[70]

Hispanic Victims Group[edit]

The Hispanic Victims Group is a group created after the 9/11 attacks and headed by William Rodriguez, who is now an outspoken member of the 9/11 Truth movement. The group was a key force behind the 9/11 Commission,[70] and was among the Families Advisory Council for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.[71] The group helped secure an amnesty for Hispanic illegal immigrants who died in the attacks.[citation needed]

We Are Change[edit]

The organization staged a protest march at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The group filmed protests in an effort to catch illegal action by protesters or police.[72]

Conferences[edit]

Members of the 9/11 truth organizations, such as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, regularly hold meetings and conferences to discuss alternative theories about 9/11 and to strategize about how best to achieve their goals. Many of these conferences are organized by 911truth.org and some have been covered by the international media.[73]

Internal critique[edit]

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals within the United States government (but not necessarily the government as a whole) are responsible for the attacks, alternative theories differ about what may have happened. There have been a number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the methods and theories of other members, often in a scholarly format, as in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[74]

While Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice states that they advocate the use of the scientific method and civil research activities over public debate,[75] Jim Fetzer's group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has said that the scientific method is unnecessary and that any imaginable theory is worthy of advocating to the public. For example, reporting on a conference involving Fetzer's group, a Madison Times article stated: "By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never existed at all."[76]

Major media[edit]

Books[edit]

One of the best known authors of 9/11 Truth movement literature is theologian David Ray Griffin. His two books, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (March 2004), which outlined a methodical, deductive framework for researching 9/11, and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (October 2004), became best-sellers. His Debunking 9/11 Debunking (May 2007) looks at the way magazines such as Popular Mechanics have sought to debunk the alternative 9/11 theories. His most recent work, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the cover-up, and the exposé (2008), was written to update his original book, The New Pearl Harbor, reflecting information and insights from five major developments that have occurred since his original publication.[citation needed]

In September 2004, the interactive "Complete 9/11 Timeline" website by Paul Thompson, which is a collection of mainstream media reports presented chronologically, was made into the book The Terror Timeline.[citation needed]

Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (October 2004) identified potential key insider suspects in the 9/11 attacks and provide an examination of their context: petroleum, geopolitics, narco-traffic, intelligence and militarism. Webster Tarpley's Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (2005) described a link between 9/11 and previous accusations of false flag state-sponsored terrorism such as Gladio or the Red Brigades.[citation needed]

Films[edit]

Popular films made by the 9/11 Truth movement include: Loose Change:Final Cut (2007) by Korey Rowe,[citation needed] Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (2005) by Alex Jones,[citation needed] 911 Mysteries: Demolitions (2006),[citation needed] The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw (2004) by Barrie Zwicker,[citation needed] and 9/11: Blueprint for Truth (2007) and updated 2008 Edition (2008) by Richard Gage.[citation needed]

These documentaries present a range of alternate theories about how the attacks might have been carried out. In some cases, these theories have been rejected by other movement members[citation needed] In this case most objections raised against the movie were taken into consideration while creating the "Final Cut" version.[citation needed]

9/11 Press for Truth (2006) documents the struggle by the Jersey Widows to open a full investigation of the events, and their frustration while monitoring the 9/11 Commission as part of the Family Steering Committee. The film, partly based on The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson, also looks at warnings received by the US government prior to September 11 and instances during the US invasion of Afghanistan where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda managed to escape from US forces and flee into Pakistan.[citation needed]

Alex Jones has made a number of films about perceived historical instances of false flag terrorism and points out similarities between them and the 9/11 attack. He also promotes the view that the US government has used 9/11 to increase domestic control via the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Bill and militarization of police forces.[citation needed]

Alex Jones, 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorists are the subject of a documentary New World Order directed by Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel that debuted on the Independent Film Channel on May 26, 2009. The documentary while not endorsing the movement is described as the giving the movement "more sympathetic, or less critical, airing than they've yet had (except among the converted)".[77][78]

Mainstream media coverage[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Feuer, Alan (June 5, 2006). "500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11". The New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  2. ^ a b c Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  3. ^ Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009. an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
  4. ^ Powell, Michael (Sep. 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The loose agglomeration known as the '9/11 Truth Movement' {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Barry, Ellen (Sep. 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 30, 2009. a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Hunt, H.E. (Nov. 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved May 30, 2009. A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The '9/11 Truth Movement,' as it is now commonly called
  8. ^ Sullivan, Will (September 3, 2006). "Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll - You won't believe what the conspiracy theorists are claiming-or will you?". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  9. ^ Burchell, David (September 15, 2008). "They're out there, plotting against us all". The Australian. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  10. ^ Dana Bash, Jon Karl & John King (2002-01-29). "CNN.com - Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes". CNN.
  11. ^ Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
  12. ^ Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11
  13. ^ Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy Saudi Arabia And The Failed Search For Bin Laden
  14. ^ Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, and the Secrets of 9/11
  15. ^ Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste
  16. ^ Bush Did It: Pictures From 9/11 Protest in Oakland
  17. ^ Embarrass Mint
  18. ^ Jim Dwyer (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  19. ^ Walch, Tad (September 8, 2006). "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2009-01-04. Sullivan, Will (September 11, 2006). "BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor". U.S. News & World Report. www.usnews.com. Retrieved April 26, 2009. "BYU Professor Who Believes WTC Brought Down by Explosives Resigns". Fox News. October 21, 2006. Retrieved May 15, 2009. Walch, Tad (October 22, 2006). "BYU professor in dispute over 9/11 will retire". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved May 15, 2009. "Steven E. Jones. Retired Professor". Brigham Young University. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  20. ^ Ruethling, Gretchen (Aug. 1, 2006). "A Skeptic on 9/11 Prompts Questions on Academic Freedom". New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ "Wisconsin academic: 9/11 report a fraud". CNN. November 20, 2006. Retrieved May 7, 2009.
  22. ^ Asquith, Christina (September 5, 2006). "Who really blew up the twin towers?". The Guardian. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  23. ^ de Vries, Lloyd (2004-07-20). "9/11 Report: The Open Question". CBS News. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
  24. ^ The Family Steering Committee
  25. ^ Lawmaker asks McCain to talk with 9/11 theorists Arizona Republic June 3, 2008
  26. ^ State senator: WTC destroyed by bombs, not just planes Arizona Capital Times June 10, 2008
  27. ^ Forward to Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts by Senator John McCain
  28. ^ McCain doesn't want to impeach Bush The Raw Story June 26, 2008
  29. ^ "Why did the World Trade Center collapse? - A simple analysis".
  30. ^ "World Trade Center Building Performance Study (FEMA)".
  31. ^ KPFA 94.1, Guns and Butter - September 28, 2005
  32. ^ Walch, Tad (2006-09-08). "BYU places "9/11 truth" professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News.
  33. ^ Sullivan, Will (2006-09-11). "BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor". US News & World Report.
  34. ^ Request for Correction
  35. ^ Communication re Information Quality Request #07-06
  36. ^ Lev Grossman (2006-09-03). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away". Time Magazine.
  37. ^ Taibbi, Matt (2006). "The Low Post: I, Left Gatekeeper". Politics. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2006-09-29.
  38. ^ Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
  39. ^ William M. Arkin (2006-05-26). "9/11 Truth? I Don't Think So". The Washington Post.
  40. ^ "Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act..." Zogby International. 2004-08-30.
  41. ^ "Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Explanations; "Young and Restless" Star Weighs in on Political Topics". CNN. 2006-03-22.
  42. ^ "911truth.org "About Us"".
  43. ^ "American Thinking Toward The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks". Zogby International. 2006-05-24.
  44. ^ "Zogby Poll (May 2006)".
  45. ^ a b Beam, Christopher (April 8, 2009). "Heated Controversy". Slate. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  46. ^ Sutcliffe, Thomas (July 7, 2008). "Yet more tall stories with no foundation". Independent Extra. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  47. ^ Olivier, Clint (2009-05-26). "Controversial Group Re–Examines 9/11 In Clovis". KMPH Fox News. Retrieved 2009-05-28. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  48. ^ "Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!". Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  49. ^ "Un arquitecto estadounidense presenta en Madrid su versión alternativa al 11-S". Telecinco. November 8, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  50. ^ Mounir, Roderic (November 13, 2008). "Les attentats du 11-Septembre: «une démolition contrôlée!»". Le Courrier. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  51. ^ Moskowitz, Eric (November 29, 2007). "Airing of 9/11 film ignites debate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  52. ^ Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  53. ^ Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  54. ^ Jim Dwyer (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  55. ^ Glanz, James (March 29, 2002). "Towers Fell as Intense Fire Beat Defenses, Report Says". New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  56. ^ Potocki, P. Joseph (August 27, 2008). "Down the 9-11 Rabbit Hole". Bohemian. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  57. ^ Beam, Alex (Jan. 14, 2008). "The truth is out there . . . Isn't it?". The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  58. ^ "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice". Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
  59. ^ "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice".
  60. ^ hsgsj (February, 27, 2007). "Dr. James Fetzer and his "Lying Eyes"". 911blogger.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  61. ^ Arabesque (February, 28, 2007). "9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples". 911blogger.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  62. ^ Dem Bruce Lee Stylez! (March 15, 2008). "ALERT: FETZER SPEAKING AT RON PAUL MARCH!! Von Kleist to MC". TruthAction.org.
  63. ^ Victoria Ashley (August 13, 2007). "Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11, James Fetzer". 911Research.com.
  64. ^ STH911 Members
  65. ^ Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley (2008). "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction". Bentham Science Publishers.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  66. ^ Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, Steven E. Jones (2008). "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials "". Springer Netherlands, The Environmentalist, Online First.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  67. ^ James R. Gourley (2008). "Discussion of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" by Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure". ASCE Publications, Reston, VA.
  68. ^ Politiken: Konspirationsteorier om 9/11 får nyt liv, Jyllands-Posten: Forskere: Sprængstof i støvet fra WTC, Ekstra Bladet: Mystik om WTC: Nano-termit i tårne, Kristeligt Dagblad: Dansker genopliver konspirationsteori om 11. september, Videnskab: Dansk forsker: Eksplosivt nanomateriale fundet i støvet fra World Trade Center. The journal Videnskab is sponsored by the Danish Ministry for Science and Technology.
  69. ^ Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" (html). Retrieved 2009-04-03.
  70. ^ a b c The Christian Science Monitor - A key force behind the 9/11 commission
  71. ^ "Chairman Whitehead Announces LMDC Advisory Councils". Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. 2002-01-31.
  72. ^ Afternoon march focuses on 9/11 attacks Rocky Mountain News August 25, 2008
  73. ^ a b Canada National Post: A theory that just won't die
  74. ^ Journal of 9/11 Studies: Letters
  75. ^ Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice: About
  76. ^ 9/11 doubters doubt each other, too by Ben Popper, Madison Times
  77. ^ Doc Hangs with Conspiracy Theorists in New World Order Village Voice May 19, 2009
  78. ^ Movie Review New World Order (2009) The New York Times May 26, 2009
  79. ^ Jennifer Senior (2006-09-15). "The Memorial Warriors". New York Magazine.
  80. ^ Nancy Jo Sales (August, 2006). "Click Here for Conpiracy". Vanity Fair. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  81. ^ Jonathan Curiel (2006-09-03). "The Conspiracy To Rewrite 9/11". San Francisco Gate.
  82. ^ "Who really blew up the twin towers?". The Guardian. 2006-09-05.
  83. ^ Jaya Narain (2006-09-06). "Fury as academics claim 9/11 was "inside job"". Daily Mail.
  84. ^ The Truth Is Out There - Part I Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008
  85. ^ The Truth Is Out There - Part II Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008
  86. ^ The Truth Is Out There - Part III Financial Times Magazine June 7, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cs32en/911/Articles/9-11_Truth_Movement/old&oldid=457609903"