the official site of Michael Shermer

top navigation:
photo

The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction

broadcast September 2007 | comments (16)

Produced in 2007, this series of six videos exhaustively examines some of the most persistent of 9/11 conspiracy theories: that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition; that a missile, not a commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon; and that members of the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks in hopes of creating a war in the Middle East. Each conspiracy argument is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military. The program also delves into the anatomy of such conspiracies and how they grow on the Internet. Among those commenting are James Miegs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics and Michael Shermer Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine. Whether you believe it was a conspiracy or not, there is some amazing stuff in these videos that you do not want to miss!

Watch Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Part 6.

topics in this broadcast: , , , , , , ,

16 Comments to “The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction”

  1. alex can Says:

    So the MOSSAD agents arrested the day before at the WTC had nothing to do with it? Hardly a skeptical look at what happened and why! Who had the most to gain and what is the objective evidence OBL was involved?

  2. Jason Says:

    Some people just don’t believe anything that the government says, so they create their own “interpretations” of what is the official report. Are their own lives that uneventful? Bottom line – The Human Race appears to be de-evolving, and it’s disgraceful. What a slap in the face to all those who died that day, and in the conflicts since then.

  3. Liam McDaid Says:

    I think the best thing out there about all the nonsense claims about 9/11 is the video “Screw Loose Change” which answers all the claims by the mockumentary “Loose Change” point by point. A good overall website is: http://www.911myths.com/

  4. P. Pfalzner Says:

    What caused the collapse of the 3rd building at the WTC plaza several hours after the collapse of the twin towers? This was a much smaller building on the site some distance away from the towers, perhaps 10 stories high – it imploded in the same manner as the two towers.
    I believe it may have been called a “Service Bldg”, and some reports I have seen say it was occupied by CIA officers.

  5. Women and Superstitions - Part Three « PodBlack Blog Says:

    [...] are leaving their cause. e-Skeptic are following on from a rather significant amount of material (such as their featured videos on ths issue of 9/11 conspiracies) to address the primarily Internet-based efforts promoting ideas that the towers fell due to other [...]

  6. Rich Jacobs Says:

    The United States government or Mossad Agents (rather Jewish people) are not responsible for the September 11th attacks. I am amazed by the stupidity of all the conspiracy theorist. They pride themselves in being smart and free-thinkers. How are you a free-thinker if you derive your opinion from somebody else’s opinion? Why not base it on the facts and common sense. You have Osama Bin Laden saying he was responsible for the attacks. “I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers … I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with the raids.” If any politicians deserve the blame it’s former presidents Jimmy Carter (Iranian Hostage Crisis) and Bill Clinton (first bombing of the World Trade Center and the bombing of the USS Cole). If Carter had shown a sign of force in 1979 it would not have been open season on America. I must admit Clinton did make an attempt at defending America. He bombed a milk-crate factory and said after the September 11th attacks that he should have gotten him (Osama bin laden) when he had the chance. You think?

  7. John Says:

    Shermer states in this first video and in other sources that those of us who don’t believe the official story behind 9/11 have set up some sort of mental buffer to cope with what happened – that we need to believe there is some sort of larger conspiracy behind what happened because to believe the attacks were the simply the result of a small group of radicals is too far out for our (presumably fragile) minds to believe.

    Couldn’t we say the same about people who accept the official story without question? Wouldn’t it actually make more sense to state that those who DO trust that their gov’t is incapable of malevolence need some sort of coping mechanism. After all, it’s much more comforting to believe in your gov’t as a benevolent protector – right?

    If nothing else, look at Enron. I think we can all agree on the fact that here was a large and powerful entity where corruption existed at the top echelon. So if this can happen at Enron, why is it too far out to believe the same behavior could exist in another large and powerful entity?

    One other thing. Shermer compares 9/11 truthers to Holocaust deniers. Actually, aren’t the good Germans who denied that the Holocaust was happening, as it was happening, more comparable to the good patriotic American’s who refuse to believe their gov’t could possibly be capable of anything malevolent. Fortunately, many of this Adminstrations lies (i.e. no WMDs in Iraq) have come to light. How many hidden lies still exist?

  8. GeneralTHC Says:

    That’s a good point, John. I am not saying you’re right, but I do believe it’s an undeniable fact that Americans are endowed with a sense of patriotism/nationalism that is like no other country, be it by school teachers, Preachers, Parents, Community leaders etc. I guess you could make an argument for N. Korea or Iran but I am not really talking about in that fashion, or am I? I hope not.

  9. PodBlack Cat | Women and Superstitions - Part Three Says:

    [...] are leaving their cause. e-Skeptic are following on from a rather significant amount of material (such as their featured videos on ths issue of 9/11 conspiracies) to address the primarily Internet-based efforts promoting ideas that the towers fell due to other [...]

  10. Justin Says:

    Everyone seems to miss the main point. We are told a story that has a million holes in it, is inconsistant between “experts” and those involved (i.e. Larry Silverstein and 9/11 commission), and the information that could easily clear up everything is tucked into a vault. Or under this administration, just like the Ohio votes, the info is just disposed of.

    In the meantime we lose certain rights, give the current administration the power to do whatever they please, and do not make them accountable for any mistakes.

    This has nothing to do with “conspiracy” or any type of coping technique; it has to do with abstract thought and not believing whatever comes from the mouth of the media.

    If you were told your dog spontaniously combusted in a bank, this would raise some pretty normal questions. For ex. 1. Why/how did it just explode? 2. Why was it in a bank? 3. Why am I not allowed to see the video tapes that prove your story?

    If the official story was that your dog wondered in there because it was following someone eating a sandwhich and ate some alka seltzer, this would seem quite peculiar. Especially, if a bank guard is standing there with a smoking gun?

    Simple solution is that banks have a lot of camera’s and it should be our right to view all the feeds from that exact moment to get the truth with our own eyes. If you would not supply that, then most people would take that as an admission of guilt. It is nothing ‘far fetched’, just a common sense reaction.

  11. Tobias Edwards Says:

    I see nothing new about this particular conspiracy theory. The same patterns emerge all over the place, covering a huge array of world-changing events. The main one I became most fascinated with is the alternative theories concerning the death of the Princess of Wales (Princess Diana) in 1997.

    The main problem with trying to prove an alternate theory to an event is first in the wording of the theory or idea. Most conspiracy theories state that something (usually the official account) did NOT happen. Right away we find that we are trying to do the impossible – proving a negative. It is impossible to prove that something did not take place. First, your theory must be a positive one. Such as: “I believe X happened” and then evidence must be sought to support your claim. Attempting to debunk or finding problems with the official account does not count as any support for an alternate theory. Debunking theory A does not prove theory B to be correct, or C, or even D.

    A good example is the Moon Landing conspiracy. The theory goes that “Man did NOT land on the moon”. So conspiracy theorists go and point out apparent problems and defects in the evidence that supports the official account and claims that this supports their so-called ‘theory’. This is not a scientific way of understanding what is true in our universe.

    I do find it amusing how all of a sudden regular people are all of a sudden construction engineering experts in relation to the collapse of the towers. As if this sort of thing happens everyday. It is an almost singular and unusual event and yet people proclaim that a 747 could not cause the collapse of such a building! How could you possibly know this?!

  12. One Word Says:

    Nano-Thermite – Government did it, the science isn’t going away, case closed. Wake-up, get angry, seek justice and do not let evil go unchecked.

  13. Clark Orwick Says:

    Larry Silverstein, the owner of most of the WTC, admitted that bldg 7 was “pulled”, an industry term for controlled demolition.
    In order to set up a controlled demolition, requires weeks if not months ahead of time.
    That seems like a good place to start an investigation.

  14. Clark Orwick Says:

    Why did the rumsfeld/cheney administration resist any investigation?

    How did a complete list of “hijackers” pop up so soon?

    It took years and millions of dollars to investigate Clinton’s blow-job, and yet they had this case completely solved within a few days.

    The powers that be depend on well-meaning “debunkers” to carry their water, but it seems obvious that Shermer is hardly objective here. He seems to really want the official hogwash to be true.

  15. psikeyhackr Says:

    Who cares what who did? Don’t skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?

    Why is the CN Tower in Toronto shaped like that?

    How many TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE were on every level of the World Trade Center? Why doesn’t the the NCSTAR1 report y the NIST even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers when it does it for the steel? So why haven’t plenty of EXPERTS pointed this out by now?

    Oh yeah, the NIST says the south tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the plane impact at the 81st floor. So why don’t the core columns move in that SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION of the north tower impact that Purdue released in 2007?
    .

  16. Rod Martin, Jr. Says:

    Such a shame about the videos being canned for copyright infringement. I was so looking forward to seeing them.

    I do love a good debate when there’s no bias. Shermer seems to have had his share of kooks rattle his cage about 9/11, but that doesn’t give Mr. Shermer the right to throw critical thinking out the window. In one Huffington Post article, Mr. Shermer used the title, “9/11 ‘Truthers’ a Pack of Liars.”

    There are several problems with this title which do not speak well of Mr. Shermer’s character. He generalizes and lumps all “Truthers” in one group and condemns them all. How convenient. To hell with facts. A crafty label can destroy the lot of them in one fell swoop!

    Are all 9/11 Truthers liars? When someone uses generalities, they’re almost always automatically wrong (an notice my clever sidestepping of an absolute). Why? Because there are exceptions.

    Mr. Shermer, from articles I’ve read of his on other topics, seems to have a penchant for making unsupported declarations and then treating them as fact. Mr. Shermer may be clever and even intelligent, but he’s not omniscient.

    Just because a handful of Truthers have supposedly lied to him doesn’t mean most or even all are liars. Certainly, there is that possibility that all Truthers are liars, but there is a large mountain to climb in proving such an allegation.

    As of 2 years ago, I have accepted myself to be a searcher of 9/11 Truth — a “Truther.” Am I a liar? Have I ever told lies? Am I a habitual liar, as Shermer seems to imply by his title? Am I an exception to his blanket statement?

    Mr. Shermer seems to have a talent for using emotionalism to elicit agreement. That’s not a very ethical thing to do, even amongst family. But in a professional setting, it borders on fraudulent, because it muddies the dialog. Right at the start of Shermer’s Huffington Post article, he starts with Ad Hominem, a logical fallacy. It distracts from the discussion. It appeals to emotion rather than relying solely on logic and facts.

    Frankly, I’ve become skeptical of Mr. Shermer’s skepticism. His has too frequently descended into the darker forms of unsupported dismissiveness and even self-indulgent ridicule. That’s not science. And that’s not the original purpose of skepticism. Shame!

    When scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did their analysis of the collapse of WTC7, they started their timer on the collapse clock artificially early. No continuous movement for more than a second after that. And that constitutes drylabbing or scientific fraud. At first, they took the average acceleration of collapse, which would naturally mask any instances of perfect free fall. This is not only sloppy science, but could also constitute fraud.

    But finally, NIST admitted that WTC7 had undergone perfect free fall for 8 floors. What’s incredible about their final report on WTC7 is that they said the free fall was consistent with their office fire collapse scenario. Incredible!

    Since when does solid steel ever offer zero resistance to collapse. That’s what NIST is implying. I suppose there are only two instances where solid steel does offer zero resistance — cartoons and government reports.

    Free fall is pretty close to solid proof that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. And there is a lot more evidence to support that thesis. Since controlled demolition takes months to prepare in a building of that size, 9/11 was an inside job.

    Some people deny the Holocaust. Some people deny government corruption. Some people don’t think the officials who brought us the WMD lies would ever lie about 9/11. Since when is wishful thinking and denial ever a point of fact?

Leave a Comment