Jump to content

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 288200276 by Marenach (talk)nanomarmite??
Wowest (talk | contribs)
1,228 edits
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
volume=3|
volume=3|
url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf|
url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf|
accessdate=2008-04-11|format=PDF}}</ref><ref name="NYTCountersTheories">{{cite news|journal=New York Times|author=Jim Dwyer|title=2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11|date=September 2, 2006|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/nyregion/02conspiracy.html|accessdate=April 30, 2009}}</ref> These conclusions are widely rejected by scholars.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/ap/national/mainD8JB6LTG0.shtml |title=9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving| work = [[CBS News]] | date=2006-08-06 |accessdate=2008-03-09}}</ref>
accessdate=2008-04-11|format=PDF}}</ref><ref name="NYTCountersTheories">{{cite news|journal=New York Times|author=Jim Dwyer|title=2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11|date=September 2, 2006|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/nyregion/02conspiracy.html|accessdate=April 30, 2009}}</ref> These conclusions are widely rejected by other scholars.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/ap/national/mainD8JB6LTG0.shtml |title=9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving| work = [[CBS News]] | date=2006-08-06 |accessdate=2008-03-09}}</ref>
The [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] (NIST) has rejected the idea that collapse due to fire would be impossible, as has the engineering community.<ref name="bazant07">{{cite journal|
The [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] (NIST) has rejected the idea that collapse due to fire would be impossible, as has the engineering community.<ref name="bazant07">{{cite journal|

Revision as of 08:46, 6 May 2009

Aerial view of the debris field of the North Tower, 6 WTC, and 7 WTC (upper right)

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories claim that the complete structural failure of the World Trade Center towers was not caused by the plane crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, nor by the fire damage that followed, but by explosives planted in the buildings in advance.[1] They were first suggested in late 2001 and have since become increasingly important to the 9/11 Truth Movement,[2] but are rejected by those in the mainstream media and the mainstream engineering community who have looked at the theories.

Physicist Steven Jones and theologian David Ray Griffin have published accounts of the theory. Proponents argue 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, and quickly as they did without an additional source of destructive energy to undermine their structure. Various sources of this energy have been proposed; Steven Jones and a number of notable proponents suggest that thermite, explosives, or some combination thereof, has been used.[3][4] These conclusions are widely rejected by other scholars.[5]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the idea that collapse due to fire would be impossible, as has the engineering community.[6][7][8]

History

The theory was first suggested in October 2001.[1] Eric Hufschmid's book Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack[9], in which the controlled demolition theory is explicitly advocated, was published in September 2002.[1] In 2004, David Ray Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor was published.[10] In 2006, Griffin published his version of the theory in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001,[11] a book of critical essays on 9/11, edited by Paul Zarembka, and Jones published his paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?"[3] in a book called 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin.[12] Griffin and Jones are the two most prominent advocates of the theory.[1] The online publication Journal of 9/11 Studies[13] has published a number of papers arguing that the accounts given by the federal government's agencies are false.[4] The magazine Popular Mechanics launched a critical investigation of 9/11 conspiracy theories in 2005.[14]

In late 2005, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven Jones made his own pursuit of the theory public.[3] BYU responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September, 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[15][16][17][18]

The Albuquerque Journal quoted Dr. Van D. Romero, an engineer who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that "some explosive devices inside ... caused the towers to collapse". Romero speculated that the collision of the planes into the towers was a diversionary attack as part of a common terrorist strategy intended to attract emergency personnel to the scene, followed by the detonation of "a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points" of the towers as the primary attack.[19] He soon withdrew this assessment[20] and later said he had been misquoted: "I only said that that's what it looked like." On September 22, 2001, the Albuquerque Journal printed a retraction.[14]

Engineers[who?] were initially surprised by the collapses[21][22][23] and at least one considered explosives as a possible explanation.[24] The broad outlines of an explanation that did not involve such explosives quickly emerged, and took its current shape in the 2005 NIST report.[25][26] It has come to be known as "the official account of 911" or "the official conspiracy theory" among proponents of controlled demolition.[10] [citation needed]

David Ray Griffin has questioned the "pancake collapse" theory originally suggested by FEMA.[27] NIST rejected the theory in favor of the column failure theory.[26] 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"[28] and posted a FAQ about related issues to its website in August 2006.[26] The major elements of the theory have been rebutted in mainstream engineering scholarship,[23] where its proponents are considered "outsiders".[6]

The internet and homemade videos have contributed to the growth of the movement associated with the conspiracy theory that explosives had been planted in the three buildings of the World Trade Center, and the theory is often associated with allegation that the U.S. administration had planned the destruction of the WTC in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.[29] 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 theory "unlikely".[30]

7 World Trade Center

File:WTC7.jpg
Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume along the South face of WTC 7, looking from the World Financial Plaza.
The position of Building 7 in relation to the other WTC buildings. WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.

7 World Trade Center was a 47-story skyscraper that stood across Vesey Street north of the main WTC complex. Though not hit by a plane, it was damaged by fires which burned for seven hours, until it collapsed about 5:20 p.m. EDT on the evening of September 11.

No steel-frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire.[31] BBC News reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it actually fell. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 on the day of the attacks.[32] Jane Staley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.[33]

Steven Jones says the debris contains thermate, suggesting explosives might have been used to destroy the building.[34][35] Richard Sisson says the sulfur came from gypsum in the wallboards,[36] an opinion which was also given in the NIST report.[37]

File:WTC7 Kink.jpg
WTC 7 at the moment of collapse: the shape of the roof and debris plumes are cited as evidence for controlled demolition.

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 in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.[36][38][39]

In 2002 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus first on the collapse of the Twin Towers.[37] A draft version of its final report on the collapse of building 7 was released in August 2008. The agency has blamed the slowness of this investigation on the complexity of the computer model it is using, which simulates the collapse from the moment it begins all the way to the ground, and notes that the time taken on the investigation into building 7 is comparable to the time taken to investigate an aircraft crash.[37] The agency also notes another 80 boxes of documents related to WTC7 were found and had to be analyzed. These delays fueled suspicion the agency was struggling to come up with a plausible conclusion.[39]

Following a three year investigation NIST released its final report on the collapse on November 20, 2008.[40] Investigators used videos, photographs and building design documents to come to their conclusions. The report concluded that the building collapsed due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

NIST considered the possibility that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. It concluded that a blast event did not occur and that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[41] The investigation noted that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, even though it would have been audible at a level of at least 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. NIST also investigated the possibility that the collapse was caused by thermite and concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities needed could have been carried into the building undetected. The theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.[37]

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?". [42] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives." Quintiere said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[43]

Main towers

File:WTC Tower 2 collapse.jpg
Collapse of the South Tower (2 WTC).

On September 11, World Trade Center building 1 (WTC1) was hit by American Airlines Flight 11 and World Trade Center building 2 (WTC2) was hit by United Airlines Flight 175, both Boeing 767 aircraft. WTC1 collapsed 102 minutes after the impact, WTC2 collapsed 56 minutes after.[44] An investigation by NIST concluded that the collapse was caused by a combination of damage to support columns and fire insulation from the aircraft impacts and the weakening of columns and floors by jet fuel ignited fires.[26] NIST also 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".[45]

Steven Jones has claimed that anecdotal evidence[23] of molten steel found in the rubble of the collapse[4] and a stream of molten metal that poured out of WTC2 before it collapsed[46] are evidence of temperatures beyond those produced by the fire (which was not expected to be hot enough to melt steel). Jones has argued that the molten metal may have been elemental iron, a product of a thermite reaction. NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from WTC2 was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also 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.[26] The rapid removal of the debris has led to suspicions on the part of those who question the account provided by NIST, as it left investigators with little forensic evidence.[47]

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes "progressive collapse" inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was at least ten times greater than that which the lower section could support.[6]

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally 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, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.[6][48] Controlled demolition of a building requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[4][49] Controlled demolition takes place at the bottom of buildings and it is clear that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[4]

There are many causes of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[50] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[51]

Puffs of dust and debris which were ejected from the towers as they collapsed have been taken as evidence that explosives were used.[52] NIST attributes these puffs to pressure exerted by the falling mass of the building.[53]

Reaction of the engineering community

The controlled demolition theory has been dismissed in the structural engineering literature.[6][54] Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer reviewed theory of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition theory in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the view as presented in the NIST report, they note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, 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 two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[6]

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled demolition conspiracy theory.[46] 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."[55] Finally, Leslie Robertson, who helped design the Twin Towers, debated the issue with Steven Jones on a radio program in December 2006.[56][57]

The demolition theory 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[58] presented rebuttals to the theory for a mainstream audience. In 2006, New York Magazine reported, "A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day."[59] The theory has been cited by popular actors, musicians and politicians, including Charlie Sheen,[60][61] Willie Nelson,[62] and former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura.[63] The theory also features prominently in Zeitgeist, the Movie and Loose Change.

  • "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation".
  • "The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse".

References

  1. ^ a b c d Clarke, Steve. "Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development". Episteme, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2007, pp. 167-180.
  2. ^ Feuer, Alan (June 5, 2006). "500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
  3. ^ a b c Jones, Steven E. (2006-09). "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse" (PDF). Journal of 9/11 Studies. 3. Retrieved 2008-04-11. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b c d e Jim Dwyer (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  5. ^ "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. 2006-08-06. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
  6. ^ a b c d e f 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)
  7. ^ Gravois, John (2006-06-23). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
  8. ^ Asquith, Christina (2006-09-07). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
  9. ^ Hufschmid, Eric (2002). Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack. Endpoint Software. ISBN 1-931947-05-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  10. ^ a b Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-552-9.
  11. ^ Zarembka, Paul (ed.) (2006-07-14). The Hidden History of 9-11-2001. Research in Political Economy, Volume 23. JAI Press, an imprint of Elsevier. ISBN 0762313056. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
  12. ^ 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)
  13. ^ Journal of 9/11 Studies http://www.journalof911studies.com. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  14. ^ a b 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)
  15. ^ "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ BYU professor in dispute over 9/11 will retire Deseret Morning News October 22, 2006
  18. ^ BYU Professor Who Believes WTC Brought Down by Explosives Resigns FoxNews October 21, 2006
  19. ^ Uyttebrouck, Olivier (2001-09-11). "Use Of Explosives Believed". Extra. Albuquerque Journal. p. A2. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
  20. ^ Fleck, John (2001-09-22). "Expert Now Thinks No Explosives in Towers". Albuquerque Journal. p. A5. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
  21. ^ Oliver, Anthony (2005-06-30). "Lasting lessons of WTC". New Civil Engineer.
  22. ^ 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. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:1(2). {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  23. ^ a b c 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)
  24. ^ Joseph T. Hallinan, Thomas M. Burton, Jonathan Eig (Staff reporters) (September 19, 2001). "Top Structural Engineers to Do Autopsy On Twin Towers to Assess Why They Fell". Wall Street Journal.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. ^ Gross, John L. (2005-09). [http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-6index.htm accessdate=2008-03-20 "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. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); line feed character in |url= at position 47 (help)
  26. ^ a b c d e 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)
  27. ^ Griffin, David Ray (Sep. 10, 2006). "David Ray Griffin interview". CBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  28. ^ Sunder, Shyam (2005). "Consideration of Public Comments" (PDF). NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  29. ^ Eric Lipton (Aug. 22, 2008), "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says", New York Times {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |class= ignored (help)
  30. ^ 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)
  31. ^ FEMA. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p. 4.
  32. ^ Porter, Richard. "Part of the conspiracy? (2)" March 2, 2007. The Editors, BBC.
  33. ^ The Weekend's TV: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower The Independent July 6, 2008
  34. ^ Pope, Justin (2006-08-07). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". Associated Press Online. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  35. ^ Walch, Tad (2006-09-09). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City). {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  36. ^ a b "Q&A: The Collapse of Tower 7". BBC. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
  37. ^ a b c d "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation". NIST. 2008-08-21. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
  38. ^ "Identifying Misinformation: 9/11 Revealed?". usinfo.state.gov (as recorded by www.archive.org). 2005-09-16. Retrieved 2009-04-30.
  39. ^ a b Barber, Peter (2008-06-07). "The Truth Is Out There - Part III". Financial Times. pp. p.14. Retrieved 2008-08-22. {{cite news}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  40. ^ "NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7". National Institute of Standards and Technology. November 2008. Retrieved 2009-04-25.
  41. ^ National Institute of Standards and Technology. "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)". Retrieved 2009-04-29.
  42. ^ Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says, New York Times, August 21, 2008
  43. ^ "World Trade Centre building seven not destroyed by explosives, says US study". Retrieved 2009-04-24.
  44. ^ "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers". National Institute of Standards and Technology. September 2005. pp. liv. Retrieved 2009-04-28.
  45. ^ "NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower". National Institute of Standards and Technology. September 2005. pp. xxxviii. Retrieved 2009-05-03.
  46. ^ a b 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.
  47. ^ Eric Lipton (Aug. 22, 2008), "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says", New York Times {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |class= ignored (help)
  48. ^ "NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | PBS". Pbs.org. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
  49. ^ Wilkinson, Tim (2006-01-14). "World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects". University of Sydney School of Civil Engineering. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
  50. ^ Blanchard, Brent (2006). "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint" (PDF). implosionworld.com. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
  51. ^ "Seismic Spikes". Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report. Popular Mechanics. 2005. Retrieved 2008-09-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  52. ^ "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Puffs Of Dust". Popular Mechanics. March 2005. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  53. ^ Gross, John L. (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers". National Institute of Standards and Technology. p. 320. Retrieved 2009-03-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  54. ^ 9/11 Commission Report
  55. ^ Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
  56. ^ Jones, Steven; Robertson, Leslie (2006-10-26). (Interview) http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3. Retrieved 2007-02-27. {{cite interview}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (help)
  57. ^ Roberts, Gregg (2007). "Jones v. Robertson, A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-12-02.
  58. ^ 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
  59. ^ Mark Jacobson (2006). "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  60. ^ "CNN.com - Transcripts". Transcripts.cnn.com. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
  61. ^ "Charlie Sheen doesn't buy 9/11 spin". The Boston Herald. 2006-03-23. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  62. ^ Fox News
  63. ^ Ventura Regrets Not Being More Skeptical Over 9/11. Retrieved on April 8, 2008.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories&oldid=288231677"