Renegar 1

Sumner Renegar Professor Presnell English 1103 14 November 2012 9/11: Attack or Conspiracy? What Conspiracy? The attacks on 9/11 are a very controversial topic that has been, and still is, discussed by many people around the world. The first I heard of the 9/11 conspiracy on a website called Stumbleupon. I saw a video explaining many reasons for a possible conspiracy surrounding the attacks on 9/11. At first, I was apprehensive to pay any attention to the video. Why would our government want to plan an attack on itself? Why would terrorists conspire with the American government that they so strongly hate? How else would the towers have collapsed? Why would no one have spoken out about such a heinous crime? These are just a few of the questions I found floating around in my head at the time. This paper has given me the opportunity to look for answers to my questions and that is what I intended to produce from my research. Research Begins At the start of my research, my findings, especially those from government resources, seemed to be so vast it would take a lifetime to dig deep enough for answers in them. Luckily, I explored the world of YouTube and found a certain conspiracy theorist that had uploaded many videos pertaining to 9/11 that contained much of his own research of the same documents I had been researching. These videos also gave me a good perspective of the 9/11 story from the conspiracy theorists eyes. I found references to the book-like government documents. These references lead me to the information I was looking for much quicker than I couldve done myself. I also uncovered more details to the whole 9/11 conspiracy. The YouTube videos I watched presented their evidence supporting different parts of the conspiracy such as the planes themselves, the possibility of a planned demolition of the twin towers, the lack of an

Renegar 2

interception by the U.S. military, etc. In addition to the information I found from the government and from conspiracy theorists, I found a special report from the Popular Mechanics magazine that aimed to debunk the most popular conspiracies surrounding 9/11. The Planes To begin my journey into the depths of the 9/11 conspiracy, I drew from the Popular Mechanics report on 9/11. One popular piece of evidence that has been paraded by conspiracy theorists is the photo of the South tower just before flight 175 makes impact with the tower. In the photo, a shadow can be seen on the underside of the planes fuselage that can be made out as a protrusion from the aircraft. This protrusion, conspiracy theorists say, is very similar to that of a military aircraft, such as a refueling tanker or other large aircraft. The magazine refutes this accusation with an account from an expert photo analyst named Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. After his analysis of the photo, Greeley concludes that the protrusion is merely an effect of the lighting in the photo (Debunking the 9/11 Myths). I could safely put this part of the conspiracy to rest after I found this information. Even I found the accusations outlandish and I think conspiracy theorists were grasping for straws when pointing out this evidence.
The Collapse The collapse of the two towers may be one of the most debated upon topics of 9/11. From the video of the collapse to the theoretical reasoning behind the collapse of the towers, there is much room for debate and for different opinions to form. In the videos of the towers collapses, clouds of dust can be seen shooting out from the sides of the building as it collapses. According to conspiracy theorists, explosives planted inside the building prior to the planes impact probably caused these clouds of dust to be seen (WTC Demolition). To most, this is a moot point. There is however, more reasoning behind this theory but Ill discuss this possibility further later. Experts argue in the NIST reports on the collapse that these clouds of dust are caused by an effect called pancaking. Pancaking is the chain reaction of one higher floor collapsing into the one beneath it causing it, subsequently, to collapse and so forth. This is the same conclusion that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, came to upon research of the collapse. However, from a conspiracy theorists point of view, we cannot accept a government explanation of a possibly government-planned attack. This is the same point where I face

Renegar 3 the dilemma of what I want to believe myself, but Ill also have to explain that later on so hold your horses. As mentioned before, the NIST is one of the government agencies that researched the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Their findings were summarized in an official report and I used this as a source for my information regarding the collapse in conjunction with information presented in the YouTube videos discussed earlier. According to the NIST, the cause of the collapse was a combination of the intense heat of the fires in the buildings, the structural damage caused by the planes themselves, and the displacement of the fireproofing on the steel beams of the building. Conspiracy theorists beg to differ, of course, they say that the fires in either building never reached high enough temperatures to lose enough strength to cause a collapse. Even so, they say, the concrete core, and perimeter columns should have withstood the added force from a weakened steel outer structure. The NIST report includes figures that suggest that temperatures in the buildings did get high enough to weaken the steel beams significantly. They said these beams were weakened significantly enough to cause the concrete core, and perimeter columns to fail and cause a catastrophic collapse of the entire building. From my research of the NIST report, it doesnt look like, from their figures, many columns got hot enough to weaken significantly enough for a collapse. Controlled Demolition? The possibility of the collapse of the twin towers being a planned demolition by the U.S. government, in my opinion, is the most compelling conspiracy theory. I thought the idea was ridiculous at first but if you open your mind to the possibility, it doesnt seem so unrealistic. I came across this theory in another one of the conspiracy videos on YouTube. The possibilities presented in the video, though obviously biased towards a conspiracy, are very plausible with an open mind. The conspiracy theorist breaks down the numbers of how long it might take a crew of government workers to plant explosive charges on every other level of both of the twin towers. He concludes that it would take no more than two days to complete this process. But who wouldnt notice government workers planting explosives in one of the most populated and busy buildings in the world? The simple fact is that work is usually being done on a skyscraper of this magnitude. It wouldnt seem abnormal to see workers bringing in toolboxes or crates of unknown contents (WTC Demolition). The footage of the buildings collapses is also suspect to further inquiry. In the videos of the collapse, from all angles, dust clouds can be seen blasting out of the sides of the building. This explosive

Renegar 4 force has to be coming from somewhere. Government agencies hold tight to the pancaking effect but the kinds of force that push pieces of building into other buildings dont seem possible just from the expulsion of the air inside the buildings. I think some type of explosive within the building may have caused these forces; this is all speculation of course because there were never any tests for explosive evidence done after the attacks. This is another fact that I find curious. The government never conducted any tests for explosive evidence in the debris. May this be because they are trying to hide the fact that they themselves planted explosives in the buildings? Or is this because no one thought to do tests for explosive evidence because that wasnt on the table at the time? The answer to these questions, I did not find so it leaves room for speculation of government involvement. How Did They Get Here? Most of the terrorists that boarded the planes that crashed on 9/11 around the U.S. were in the states for a year or more. This may lead you to ask how they got here in the first place. In one of the conspiracy videos I watched on YouTube, there was a testimonial from a man that worked at a visa office. This office had given visas to 15 of the 19 hijackers prior to 9/11. He said that he tried to deny one of the men a visa because he didnt have a good enough reason to enter the United States. After talking to his supervisor, he was told to approve the mans visa for national security reasons (Michael). I find it suspicious that a Middle Eastern man needs a visa for national security reasons. I also find it suspicious that this story didnt surface on national television. Conspiracy theorists argue that this is because of the governments involvement in the national media. I dont have enough research to confirm or deny this testimony but I think it is definitely food for thought nonetheless. Conspiracy Theorist Mentality Conspiracy theorist mentality; this alone is the thing that creates my dilemma of whether or not to choose a side of the conspiracy theory. Try to imagine you are a conspiracy theorist, as I have done myself. If you think the government planned the attacks on 9/11, why would you trust the government? However, the government conducted the tests, did the research, and published the reports on the attacks. So why would you choose to believe any government information that may just be leading you away from the fact that they planned the attack. It just leads you in circles after thinking about it long enough. I think it would be impossible to conclude without doing ones own research on the actual attack and the collapse. In my research, I have not come to a solid conclusion on the events of 9/11. I think there is good evidence to suggest government involvement but I dont think that evidence is

Renegar 5 strong enough to say that the government did it. Observing the current state of our government I wouldnt rule out government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Renegar 6 Works Cited "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report." Popular Mechanics. Popular Mechanics, 03 2005. Web. 5 Nov 2012. Michael, Springman. Interview by Alex Jones. Interview of Michael Springman, Former Consulate officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 01 2002. . Web. 26 Nov 2012. The WTC Demolition explained - Skeptics see this. 2012. Video. YouTube Web. 5 Nov 2012. United States. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. 2005. Web. United States. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. 2005. Web.