Q8: One of the major conspiracy theories of last two decades relate to 9/11

attack on World Trade Centre in New York. We have discussed the article
titled as “The 9/11 Truth Movement: The Top Conspiracy Theory A decade
later” in the summer 2011 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Briefly present the
arguments and counter arguments about 9/11 Top Conspiracy Theory
discussed in the article.
There are many conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attack on World Trade Centre in New York.
The official explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11 is
that it was the result of a surprise attack involving two hijacked planes that were flown into the
towers.
9/11 conspiracy theory discussed in the article titled as “The 9/11 Truth Movement: The Top
Conspiracy Theory A decade later” is that the US government knew about the planned attacks
and let them happen, and that the government may even have helped engineer the collapse by
rigging the buildings with explosives to ensure that they fell when the planes hit them.

Arguments in favor of this claim:

Here are some arguments that support the claims in the article that the US government knew
about the attack and let them happen.

1. The Twin Towers were brought down by explosives not planes.

The collapse of the North and South Towers to an act of controlled demolition due to the way the
buildings fell so quickly and perfectly into their own footprint. After the dust had settled,
theorists raised further evidence in the form of witness testimonies, citing reports of explosions
being heard before the Towers collapsed and debris visibly shooting out from the lower levels of
the buildings.

2. Fire didn’t burn long to cause such a structural damage.

When the official report stated the Towers fell due to severe structural damage caused by the
planes and resulting fires, conspiracy theorists or 'truthers' as they are otherwise known, argued
the fires did not burn for long enough (56 minutes in the case of the South Tower) to cause the
catastrophic collapses. So there must be any thing else that cause the buildings fell down.

3. The United States government knew about the attacks and stood the military
down
A common belief amongst 'truthers' is that the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) deliberately ordered their fighter jets to stand down and allow the hijacked planes to
reach their targets. America seemingly had the most powerful air force in the world but failed to
intercept any of the planes that day, which theorists believe is an indication of a government
conspiracy to let the attacks go ahead. Why would they do such a thing? Conspiracy theorists
believe that the government wanted to use the attacks to justify an invasion on Iraq and
Afghanistan to secure oil interests.
4. Insider traders knew about the attacks
In the days preceding the attacks, an 'extraordinary' amount of put options (investments that pay
off only when a stock drops in price) were placed on the stocks of two airlines – American and
United, which happened to be the airlines hijacked during 9/11. As such, some theorists believe
that traders had been given advance warning of the attacks and were cashing in on the tragedy.

Counter arguments about this claim:

Here are some arguments that counter the claims in the article that the US government knew
about the attack and let them happen and 9/11 attack is surprise attack involving two hijacked
planes that were flown into the towers.

1. Secrets can’t be kept for long period of time.

It is easy to dismiss the demolition theories without requiring analytical refutation. These
theories introduce far greater problems to address than anything they purport to solve. It seems
the "mastermind" would almost certainly have to be the President of the United States. What
would we do to such a President if he were found out? Clearly, he would have to believe that
absolute secrecy could be maintained forever. We can't even keep secrets in the CIA! Many
people would have to be involved over an extended time period: demolition experts, hijackers,
FBI and Interpol investigators, etc.

2. What if anything goes beyond plan?

If this is controlled demolition then what if one of the WTC aircraft hijackings had been thwarted
by the passengers as in the case of Flight 93? One of the towers would still be standing with
demolitions evidence that would have to be removed. Even a flight cancellation or a delay would
have created havoc. What if World Trade Center hadn't caught fire? Certainly, this could not
have been guaranteed. Would they have proceeded with the demolition? What if the demolition
triggers failed due to damage from the aircraft? The list could go on for pages.

3. Nano-thermite and military-grade explosives were found in dust from the

towers. Tons of melted steel were found in tower debris.
This claim is mostly due to a paper that has been thoroughly debunked. There is scientific
explanation to prove that the “red/grey chips” that Jones et al based their paper on, are in fact a
rust inhibiting primer paint with a Kaolinite base.
Many newspapers, experts and researchers have explained in many ways that the paper was
wrong, how many of the people involved with even letting it be published have resigned in
protest/disgrace, and how there has been no independent testing done. Infact, they basically used
connections to sneak a paper in a journal based on faulty science, and then use the fact that it was
published as truth. In reality, the material they identified was not actually nano-thermite, the
 smoke/debris cloud was the wrong look/color for a nano-thermite burn, and it is highly unlikely
that it is even possible for nano-thermite to cut through a large beam even if it was attempted.

4. We just don't have any reason to think this level of control and certainty is
possible
The idea is this: For it to be rational to try and implement a grand conspiracy of this sort, you
would need enormous confidence that a complex series of operations would go off without a
hitch, that information about the conspiracy could be contained indefinitely, and that the
behavior of dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of a people can be controlled with a high degree
of certainty.

5. Conspiracy scales in size and complexity, the more likely it is to fail

And the objection is that, given what we know about human nature and the functioning of
complex social institutions, and the difficulty of predicting the success of complex operations
like the ones we're talking about here, we just don't have any reason to think this level of control
and certainty is possible. As the conspiracy scales in size and complexity, the more likely it is to
fail, and less likely that rational people would even attempt it.