User:Corleonebrother/9/11 truth media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9/11 Truth media is the term used to describe the books, films and articles produced by the 9/11 Truth Movement, whose adherents believe that members of the US Government deliberately covered-up and falsified events relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks. While some assert that it was incompetence or negligence that was being covered-up, others believe that individuals within the US intelligence community, military or the White House either deliberately allowed the attacks to take place, or were directly involved in the planning and/or execution of the attacks.

The mainstream news media is often accused by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement of "failing to do it's duty" by avoiding to discuss anomalies they claim exist in the official account of events. Occasionally, the Movement is discussed in a mainstream media, who refer to its adherents as "conspiracy theorists", a term they object to, because they believe it is used pejoratively. The mainstream media are often very critical of the claims made and those making them, and in some cases purport to debunk and expose them. Despite this, various 9/11 opinion polls have shown that there is disagreement in the general population as to the veracity of the mainstream account.

This article examines first the media produced by the 9/11 Truth Movement, then looks at mainstream media coverage of them.

Contents

[edit] 9/11 Truth media

[edit] Books

One of the best known authors of 9/11 truth movement literature is theologian David Ray Griffin. His first book on the subject, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), outlines a "methodical, deductive framework for researching 9/11".[1] The book started out as a study of American 20th century imperialism - Griffin originally planned to present 9/11 as "blowback" for American foreign policy:

"Until the spring of 2003, I had not looked at any of the evidence. I was vaguely aware there were people, at least on the internet, who were offering evidence against the official account of 9/11... I knew the US government had 'fabricated' evidence to go to war several times before. Neverless... I did not take this possibility seriously... I was so confident that they must be wrong."[2]

Griffin's second book on the subject was a direct critique of the 9/11 Commission Report, called The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions (2005). Griffin's article The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-page Lie summarises his book, presenting 115 instances of either ommissions or distortions of evidence he claims are in the report believing that "the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true."[3]

In 2006, Griffin, along with Peter Dale Scott, edited 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, a collection of essays including Steven Jones' controversial paper Why Indeed Did The World Trade Center Towers Collapse?. Griffin also released another book entitled Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006). His most recent work Debunking 9/11 Debunking (2007) looks at the way mainstream media such as Popular Mechanics have sought to debunk the alternative 9/11 theories, and the tactics they employ to persuade the reader that they have done so.

Freelance researcher Paul Thompson first became suspicious about 9/11 in 2002 when he heard about the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), seen by President Bush, which warned of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. He began researching and claims that information reported in the mainstream media was not being analysed sufficiently by them: "They failed to connect the dots," Thompson claims. His research is presented on the website the "Complete 9/11 Timeline", a collection of mainstream media reports presented chronologically, which is cited by many as an inspiration for revealing flaws in the official account. In September 2004, Thompson released the book The Terror Timeline, based on his website. The website and book chronicle events leading up to the attacks and America's response, in the form of selected mainstream news reports arranged chronologically.

One of the earliest books produced by the movement, in March 2002, was 9/11 The Big Lie, by Thierry Meyssan, President of the French Voltaire Network. He emphasized purported anomalies in the photos of the Pentagon, being among the first to question whether it was really Flight 77 that hit it. His work has since been the subject of multiple critiques (including critiques written by prominent Truth Movement researchers), some of which allege that Meyssan's book is a form of misdirection, and is generally discredited.[4][5][6]

The first work in English was The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked by Nafeez Ahmed in July 2002, emphasizing geopolitical motives.[7] In 2005, Ahmed wrote a new volume, The War on Truth: Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism, updated and with extra material including an analysis of the 9/11 Commission Report.

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. Michel Chossudovsky's America's War on Terrorism (2005) asserts that the War on Terror is in fact a "War of Conquest".

Barrie Zwicker's Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11 (October 2006) claims to provide twenty-six "exhibits" of evidence proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that 9/11 was an inside job. Zwicker also presents case histories of de facto censorship by mainstream media and examines the psychological phenomenon of denial, false flag operations, psychological warfare, and an "invisible government" that secretly manipulates events.

List of Books

  • Griffin, David Ray; Richard Falk. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. ISBN 1566565529. Retrieved on 2007-07-26. 
  • Griffin, David (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1566565847. 
  • Griffin, David Ray (2006). 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1566566592. 
  • Griffin, David Ray (2007). Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1566566865. 
  • Thompson, Paul; The Center for Cooperative Research (2004). The Terror Timeline. 
  • Nafeez Ahmed, The War on Freedom
  • Meyssan, Thierry (2002). 9/11: The Big Lie. Carnot Editions. ISBN 2912362733. 
  • Meyssan, Thierry (2003). Pentagate. USA Books. ISBN 1592090281. 
  • Michel Chossudovsky, America's War on Terrorism
  • Eric Hufschmid Painful Questions (September 2002)
  • Ruppert, Michael. Crossing the Rubicon. 
  • Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. 
  • Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception
  • The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Research in Political Economy) by Paul Zarembka
  • 9/11 and American Empire: Volume II: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out: 2 by Kevin Barrett
  • Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth (2002), Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie
  • The CIA and September 11 by Andreas von Bülow
  • Operation 9/11 by Gerhard Wisnewski
  • Begin, Jeremy (2007). Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs). Trine Day Press. ISBN 978-0-9777953-3-8. 
  • Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23805-2. 
  • Broeckers, Mathias (2006). Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, and the Secrets of 9/11. Progressive Press. ISBN 0930852230. 
  • Johnston, Patrick, S. (2006). Mission Accomplished. Dog Ear. ISBN 1-59858-244-5. 
  • Laurent, Eric (2004). La face cachée du 11 septembre. Plon. ISBN 2-259-20030-3. 
  • Marrs, Jim (2006). The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty. Disinformation Company. ISBN 1932857435. 
  • Paul, Don; Jim Hoffman. Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City. ISBN 0-943096-10-3. 
  • Morgan, Rowland; Ian Henshall. 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions. 
  • Ridgeway, James. The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11. 
  • Williams, Eric D. (2006). 9/11 101: 101 Key Points that Everyone Should Know and Consider that Prove 9/11 Was an Inside Job. Booksurge Publishing. ISBN 1419624288. 
  • The Big Wedding. 
  • Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies, Jim Marrs

[edit] Films

Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker aired a series on Vision TV titled "The Great Deception" in January and February 2002, the first televised questioning of the common account that charged a deliberate effort to allow the attacks to happen via suppression of the normal air defense systems over New York City and Washington, D.C..

Popular films made by the 9/11 truth movement include Loose Change (2005) and In Plane Site (2004), amateur documentaries that 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.[8]

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.

Alex Jones has made a number of films about 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.

9/11 Mysteries

Oil, Smoke and Mirrors

Zeitgeist

Blueprint for Destruction

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

Who Killed John O'Neill

Painful Deceptions

Some more videos:


The following are videos of lectures given by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement:

Some videos of major 9/11 Truth Movement conferences have been made available online:

  • 911 - Steven Jones on 911 Evidence at Google Video: L.A. Conference, Alex Jones, 2006-06-24.
  • Confronting the Evidence - Jenna Orkin, David Ray Griffin, Paul Thompson, Jeff King, Bob Bowman, Webster Tarpley, Dave Von Kleist.
  • Lifting the Fog - Janette MacKinlay, Jenna Orkin, Nate Mudd, Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman.

[edit] Websites

Numerous websites, for example those connected with Indymedia, had a major role in promoting the questioning of the mainstream media account of 9/11 early on.

The publication and website From The Wilderness by Michael Ruppert.


Pilots for 9/11 Truth Journal of 9/11 Studies whatreallyhappened Prison Planet


[edit] Essays

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have produced a vast body of essays, most of which are available online. The essays can be divided into three broad types:

  • Critiques of the official reports and criticism of official account of 9/11.
  • Responses to the "debunking media" and analysis of mainstream coverage of 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth Movement.
  • Critiques of the work of other members of the movement, sometimes suggesting that the movement has been infiltrated with the goal of discrediting it.

Critiques of the official reports

At the end of the 9/11 Commission investigation, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee produced a 25-page report summarizing the questions they had raised to the Commission prior to the hearings, 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. Mindy Kleinberg has estimated that only 30% of their questions were addressed at all.[citation needed]

David Ray Griffin wrote the article The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-page Lie, a summary of his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. He has also written another essay entitled Why the official account of 9/11 cannot be true.

The NIST Report has been critiqued in addition to the 9/11 Commission Report. Jim Hoffman wrote an essay entitled ... Steven Jones' popular paper Why indeed did the World Trade Center buildings collapse? was also highly critical of the NIST Report and proposed an alternative hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center involving thermate.

Truth Movement responses to the "debunking media"

Members of the 9/11 truth movement often claim that the mainstream media is biased in its coverage of the movement, the theories, and issues relating to 9/11 in general, perhaps because they are being controlled by a relatively small group of people at the top. Some members, such as David Ray Griffin and Jim Hoffman, have directly responded to the official reports and to mainstream media publications such as Popular Mechanics, claiming that they misrepresent their views, ignore the strongest pieces of evidence in their arguments, and attack straw man arguments or hoax theories. They also object to being classified as "conspiracy theorists," which they believe is a term used to discredit 9/11 skepticism. Some of these responses to mainstream publications include the following:

Critique within the Truth Movement

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. Many in the 9/11 truth movement have come to recognize that what they believe are "genuine" objections and "plausible" alternative theories are discredited by association with unscientific and extravagant "conspiracy theories" without a basis in evidence. 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. There are also website articles reviewing some of the papers, books and films produced by other researchers. Some examples include:

Disputes over interpretations of evidence and disagreements at how best to acheive the goals of the movements are led to the December 2006 split of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" group wherein Steven Jones and most members of the group chose to dissociate themselves from James Fetzer and form a new group, the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice". The principle bone of contention between the two groups was the subject of how the World Trade Center was destroyed. While Jones wanted to focus efforts on the hypothesis that thermate was involved, Fetzer, along with Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood, insisted that the directed energy weapon hypothesis should still be persued. The following is a collection of the correspondence between members of the two opposing groups, from both before and after the split occurred:


Some further links:

[edit] Mainstream coverage of the 9/11 Truth Movement

The increasing numbers of people believing the official account of 9/11 to be untrue seems to be in part due to the efforts of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which operates predominantly in the alternative media and on the internet. Periodically, victims' families members, senior officials, academics and, perhaps more significantly for the general public, entertainment celebrities, have expressed doubts about the official story and become supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Some of these have led to coverage within the mainstream media, and responses to the claims being made. The movement is often portrayed as a social or psychological phenomenon and the majority of claims made by them are dismissed or heavily criticized.

Articles have been produced by publications such as Popular Mechanics (who later developed their article into a book), Scientific American, the Daily Telegraph, and Time Magazine. Documentaries have been produced by the BBC, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have appeared on news shows such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.

[edit] Magazine Articles

General Coverage

As the movement grew both on the Internet and in media coverage, many different groups and individuals issued rebuttals to these theories. These different groups included mainstream media outlets, widely-read scientific publications, government offices, independent researchers, and independent websites.

The Norwegian version of the July 2006 Le Monde diplomatique sparked interest when they ran, on their own initiative, a three page main story on the 9/11 attacks and summarized the various types of 9/11 conspiracy theories (which were not specifically endorsed by the newspaper, only recensed).[9] The Voltaire Network, which has changed position since the September 11 attacks and whose director, Thierry Meyssan, became a leading proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theory, explained that although the Norwegian version of Le Monde diplomatique had allowed it to translate and publish this article on its website, the mother-house, in France, categorically refused it this right, thus displaying an open debate between various national editions.[10] In December 2006, the French version published an article by Alexander Cockburn, co-editor of CounterPunch, which strongly criticized the endorsement of conspiracy theories by the US left-wing, alleging that it was a sign of "theoretical emptiness."[11][12]

An article in the September 11 2006 edition of Time Magazine comments that the major 9/11 conspiracy theories “depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses”, and enjoy continued popularity due to the fact that “the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting”. It concludes that “conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events” and constitute “an American form of national mourning.”[13]

The Daily Telegraph published an article called "The CIA couldn't have organised this..." which said "The same people who are making a mess of Iraq were never so clever or devious that they could stage a complex assault on two narrow towers of steel and glass" and "if there is a nefarious plot in all this bad planning, it is one improvised by a confederacy of dunces". This article mainly attacked Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of scientists which was, at the time, led by Professor Steven E. Jones. They said "most of them aren't scientists but instructors... at second-rate colleges".[14]

A major Australian newspaper "The Daily Telegraph", published an article in May 2007 that was highly critical of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[15]

Rebuttals to 9/11 Truth claims

Critics of these alternative theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "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."[22] Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.

Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."[23]

There are also behavioristic objections to these conspiracy theories, arguing that the conspiracy theorists behave in an irrational or unscholarly way.[24] One objection is that the conspiracy theorists tend to connect unrelated information. Another is that they will often expand the conspiracy to include those who debunk their original theories, such as Popular Mechanics.[24] There is also the tendency of the conspiracy theorists to quote only other conspiracy theorists and provide little if any expert verification of any of their claims.[25]

Scientific American,[26] Popular Mechanics,[27] and The Skeptic's Dictionary[28] have published articles that debunk various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is cousin of Michael Chertoff — current head of Homeland Security.[29] However, U.S News says no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.[30] Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.[31] Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."[32] David Ray Griffin has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory[33]

From the same Time Magazine article referenced previously, "There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like September 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. 'We tend to associate major events — a President or princess dying — with major causes,' says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. 'If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us.' In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting."[34]

This is an incomplete list of the most well-known or often quoted sources of analyses that rebut 9/11 Truth theories or otherwise document the commonly accepted events of September the 11th:

Here are some more:

[edit] Books

[edit] Films and Television

See also: September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture

On ?? 2006, the BBC aired a widely-publicised program called "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11", an hour-long show claiming to debunk the theories of the Movement.[35]

Discovery Channel Documentary

The History Channel aired a documentary regarding 9/11 Conspiracy on August 20th 2007. The documentary was critical of the conspiracy theories.[36]

Some internet films have been made rebutting the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement:

Several prominent members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been featured in news shows on mainstream television networks such as MSNBC, BBC, Fox and CNN:

The mainstream news has also featured segments on the "9/11 conspiracy theories" without inviting anyone from the movement to defend the theory:

[edit] Websites

A number of websites have been created which claim to debunk the 9/11 Truth Movement claims. The include the following:

[edit] Official documents

The following are the official reports of the attacks:

The following are articles released by the same authorities, in response to claims made by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement:

[edit] References

  1. ^ [The New Pearl Harbor]
  2. ^ [The New Pearl Harbor]
  3. ^ David Ray Griffin's "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-page Lie".
  4. ^ Paul Boutin : "Hunt the Boeing" Answers. Paul Boutin (March 14, 2002).
  5. ^ "Pentagon missile" hoax distracts and discredits the 9/11 skeptics. OilEmprire.US.
  6. ^ 9-11 Review: Pentagon Attack Errors. 9-11 Review.
  7. ^ The War on Freedom - How and Why America was Attacked September 11, 2001. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.
  8. ^ "Loose Change" An analysis August 3, 2005
  9. ^ 11.September - an innsidde jobb?, Norwegian edition of Le Monde diplomatique, July 2006. See also English translation: Kim Bredesen, Was 9/11 an inside job? and other links
  10. ^ * (French) Pour le Monde diplomatique norvégien, le 11 septembre est un complot intérieur US, Voltaire Network * (Spanish) El 11 de septiembre fue un complot interno estadounidense, estima la prensa noruega
  11. ^ *(English) Distractions from awful reality - US: the conspiracy that wasn’t, by Alexander Cockburn in Le Monde diplomatique, December 2006 *(French)Scepticisme ou occultisme? Le complot du 11-Septembre n’aura pas lieu, by Alexander Cockburn in Le Monde diplomatique, December 2006 *Template:Ir icon Iranian translation *(Portuguese) PODERES IMAGINÁRIOS - A "conspiração" das Torres Gêmeas
  12. ^ Debunking the Myths of 9/11, by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch, November 28, 2006
  13. ^ Grossman, Lev. (2006) Time.com – Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
  14. ^ The CIA couldn't have organised this... 08/09/2006
  15. ^ The Daily Telegraph "Virgin's 9/11 Farce"[1]
  16. ^ Jennifer Senior. "The Memorial Warriors", New York Magazine, September 15, 2006. 
  17. ^ The Christian Science Monitor - A key force behind the 9/11 commission
  18. ^ Canada National Post: A theory that just won't die
  19. ^ Jonathan Curiel. "The Conspiracy To Rewrite 9/11", San Francisco Gate, September 3, 2006. 
  20. ^ "Who really blew up the twin towers?", The Guardian, September 5, 2006. 
  21. ^ Jaya Narain. "Fury as academics claim 9/11 was "inside job"", Daily Mail, September 6, 2006. 
  22. ^ Walch, Tad (2006). Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones. Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Retrieved on 2006-09-09.
  23. ^ Shermer, Michael (2005). Fahrenheit 2777. Skeptic. Scientific American, Inc.. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
  24. ^ a b Rothschild, Matthew. "Enough conspiracy theories, already", The Progressive, October 1, 2006. 
  25. ^ Laucius, Joanne. "The coincidental cash value of conspiracy theories: Theorists 'make the unexplainable explainable' and, in the case of works like The Da Vinci Code, make a fair bit of money", Ottawa Citizen, November 26, 2004. 
  26. ^ Shermer, Michael (June, 2005). Fahrenheit 2777, 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories. Scientific American.
  27. ^ Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story. Popular Mechanics (March, 2005).
  28. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd (March 30, 2006). Mass Media Bunk - 9/11 conspiracies: the war on critical thinking. The Skeptic's Dictionary.
  29. ^ Bollyn, Christopher (March 4, 2005). 9/11 and Chertoff. Associated Free Press.
  30. ^ Sullivan, Will (September 3, 2006). Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll. Us News.
  31. ^ Debunking The 9/11 Myths blog. Popular Mechanics.
  32. ^ Cziesche, Dominik, Jürgen Dahlkamp, Ulrich Fichtner, Ulrich Jaeger, Gunther Latsch, Gisela Leske, and Max F. Ruppert (September 8, 2003). Panoply of the Absurd. Der Spiegel.
  33. ^ Griffin, David Ray. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 978-1566566865. 
  34. ^ Grossman, Lev. "Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away", Time Magazine, September 3, 2006. 
  35. ^ [2]
  36. ^ The History Channel "9/11 Fact or Fiction"[3]