Sep 27, 2018

The 9/11 anniversary: Conspiracy theory or critical thinking?

There should be no stigma attached to questioning the official account of what happened 17 years ago

Graeme MacQueen

Graeme MacQueen at the 2011 Toronto Hearings on 9/11

On the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that let loose so much international violence, the public has a right to ask what really happened on that day. Here are eight points to ponder.

Questioners of the official account of 9/11 are often dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” but this makes no sense. A conspiracy is just a secret plan, by two or more people, to commit a criminal or immoral act. The 9/11 attacks obviously involved a conspiracy.
Some people think that the truth of the official account blaming al-Qaida is obvious to every sane person. Not true. Polls suggest that less than half the world’s population shares this confidence.
If Bin Laden was the criminal mastermind, why didn’t the FBI charge him with the crime? In 2006 an FBI spokesperson explained: the Bureau had no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.
Questioners of the official account of 9/11 are not all woolly-minded bloggers. Many have relevant expertise. Winner of the National Medal of Science in the U.S., Lynn Margulis, said the science supporting the official account is appallingly weak. Over 3,000 credentialed architects and engineers have publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center.
In 2006, a peer-reviewed article revealed that 118 members of the Fire Department of New York reported witnessing explosions during the collapse of the Twin Towers. Patterns of explosions were witnessed, going around as well as up and down the buildings. This challenged the official claim that the buildings were brought down by plane impact and fires. It suggested controlled demolition.
In 2009, another peer-reviewed article reported the discovery of large quantities of an exotic explosive and incendiary (nanothermite) in the dust of the World Trade Center. The samples were collected before the cleanup of the site began. This supported the demolition hypothesis.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, given the task of accounting for the World Trade Center destruction, failed to explain to the satisfaction of many scientists the total collapse of a third skyscraper on 9/11, 47-storey World Trade Center 7. No plane hit this building, yet at 5:21 p.m. down it went, beginning its descent symmetrically, suddenly, and at free fall acceleration. Everything about this collapse suggests demolition.
In April 2018, eight lawyers filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The petition offers detailed evidence that the Trade Center was destroyed by explosives and it demands that this evidence of a federal crime be submitted to a grand jury, with the ultimate aim of charging those responsible.

Clearly, there should be no stigma attached to the questioning of the official account of 9/11. Readers wishing to know more may consult the petition of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and the findings of the international 9/11 Consensus Panel, both of which can be found on the internet.

NOTES:

My definition of “conspiracy” is quite standard. But if people want to follow up they can read the introduction to my book, The 2001 Anthax Deception. A good book on the topic of conspiracy theory is Lance DeHaven-Smith’s Conspiracy Theory in America.
I discuss some of the major, large-scale poll results in this article.
That OBL was never indicted is not controversial. The reference to the FBI and hard evidence is supported here.
The website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth contains the relevant information about the architects and engineers. You can listen to the late Lynn Margulis speak about the official story of the Trade Center destruction here.
I know this research well since it is my own. I can assure you the journal was peer-reviewed. I had to make a couple of big changes in the article after receiving reviewers’ comments.
This is the article. We brought the lead author of this article, Niels Harrit, to McMaster to give an address some years ago. I’m sure he would be happy to discuss this issue with you if you have questions.
The best single publication questioning NIST’s explanation of the destruction of the World Trade Center, including WTC 7, is Beyond Misinformation.
The entire text of the latest version of the lawyers’ petition can be found here, with links to relevant exhibits.