User:Cs32en/911/Overview/Sources

Links

Lists of sources

"Further information about WTC 7 and 9/11". BBC. July 4, 2008. Retrieved May 15, 2009. content · cite

"US GOVERNMENT SITES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (Nist)

Federal Emergency Management Administration (Fema)

9/11 Commission (full report)

CONSPIRACY SITES

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

911 Truth.org

9/11 Blogger

9/11 Research

9/11 Review

WTC7.net

We are change

British 9/11 Truth Campaign

CONSPIRACY FILMS

Loose Change

Improbable Collapse

9/11 mysteries

DEBUNKING SITES

Debunking 9/11

Screw Loose Change

9/11 Myths

9/11 Debunker

9/11 Guide

WTC7 Lies

Popular Mechanics"

"Further Resources". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Sep. 8, 2008. Retrieved May 15, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

"ABOUT THE BBC REPORT

BBC | The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower This BBC documentary delves into the final mystery of 9/11: a third tower at the World Trade Centre, which along with the Twin Towers, also collapsed that day. But this skyscraper was never hit by a plane. Watch a preview online.

BBC | The Conspiracy Files A BBC TV series exploring some of the conspiracy theories of modern times. Watch previews online.

BBC The Editors | Impossible Conspiracies Series producer Mike Rudin wrote an online blog discussing The Conspiracy Files.

BBC The Editors | Controversy and conspiracies III Online discussions about 9/11 conspiracies.

BBC Online | Timeline: WTC 7 Key events leading up to and following the collapse of the World Trade Centre Building 7.

New sources

Interviews

Avery, Dylan (Sep. 10, 2006). "Dylan Avery interview". CBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

Griffin, David Ray (Sep. 10, 2006). "David Ray Griffin interview". CBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

To support his claim that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers, David Ray Griffin refers to the testimonies of eyewitnesses released by FDNY in August 2005.

Hamilton, Lee (Sep. 10, 2006). "Lee Hamilton interview". CBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

McIlvaine, Bob (Sep. 10, 2006). "Bob McIlvaine interview". CBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

Meigs, Jim (Sep. 10, 2006). "Jim Meigs interview". CBC News. Retrieved May 4, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

Sources on eyewitness reports

Text

Article as of May 5, 2009

People at the scene,^[1] print journalists,^[2]^[3]^[4] policemen,^[5] firefighters,^[6] and television news anchors Peter Jennings^[7] and Dan Rather^[8] have compared the process of the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings to that of a controlled demolition, or have reported explosions.

↑ Murphy, Dean E. (2002). September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday.
↑ Bussey, John (Sept. 12, 2001). "Eye of the Storm: One Journey Through Desperation and Chaos". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 4, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
↑ Los Angeles Times. Sept. 12, 2001. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
↑ Shepard, Alicia; Trost, Cathy; Newseum (2002). Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |note= ignored (help)
↑ "Terrorism in the US. Special Report". The Guardian. Sept. 12, 2001. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
↑ Hagen, Susan; Carouba, Mary (2002). Women at Ground Zero: Stories of Courage and Compassion. Indianapolis: Alpha Books.
↑ "Internet Archive: Details: ABC Sept. 11, 2001 9:54 am - 10:36 am". Retrieved 2008-10-30.
↑ The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower Calgary Herald March 26, 2007

Sources

"Eyewitnesses tell of horror". BBC. Sep. 11, 2001. Retrieved May 10, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

"Terrorism in the US. Special Report". The Guardian. Sept. 12, 2001. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

A story in the Guardian said that "police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion.'"

Hagen, Susan; Carouba, Mary (2002). Women at Ground Zero: Stories of Courage and Compassion. Indianapolis: Alpha Books. content · cite

Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: "[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. [...] I knew something was going to happen. [...] It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion." Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: "[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. [...] I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. [...] There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."

Los Angeles Times. Sept. 12, 2001. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) content · cite

The day after 9/11, a story in the Los Angeles Times, referring to the south tower, said: "There were reports of an explosion right before the tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors collapsing."

Murphy, Dean E. (2002). September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday. content · cite

Multiple explosions were also reported by Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company in the north tower. She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly "the whole building shook. [...] [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: "There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. [...] There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."

Shepard, Alicia; Trost, Cathy; Newseum (2002). Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |note= ignored (help) content · cite

Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that after seeing what appeared to be "individual floors, one after the other exploding outward," he thought: "'My God, they're going to bring the building down.' And they, whoever they are, had set charges. [...] I saw the explosions."

Slevin, Peter; Gellman, Barton (Sept. 11, 2001). "Nightmare Shatters Manhattan Morning". Washington Post. Retrieved May 5, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

"[...] Black and gray clouds enveloped the buildings. An enormous rumble, described by one witness as sounding like thunder, only lasting longer, shook the ground. One of the buildings began to collapse. A few moments later, witnesses said, the top of the tower simply was not there. [...]

"I was sitting at my desk and heard the explosion and at first thought it was maybe the air conditioning ducts imploding or something. Then I heard people who were sitting by the window scream," Nessel said. "We saw things falling and thought it was debris but it wasn't. They were bodies."

Nessel hurried to his wife's office as one of the towers collapsed. [...]

"On the plaza, you could see all these bodies lying all over the place," Abel said. "The cops were like, 'Move it! Move it!' There's another explosion. I look back and I can see all this black smoke. I try to get into a police car, but I can't. I run into this building. I hear another boom. I can't believe it.""

Bussey, John (Sept. 12, 2001). "Eye of the Storm: One Journey Through Desperation and Chaos". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 4, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

"Unknown to the dozens of firefighters on the street, and those of us still in offices in the neighborhood, the South Tower was weakening structurally. Off the phone, and collecting my thoughts for the next report, I heard metalic crashes and looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor, spewing glass and metal outward. One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces. It was the building apparently collapsing in on itself, pancaking to the earth."

Topics

Retirement of Steven Jones

"Steven E. Jones. Retired Professor". Brigham Young University website. Retrieved May 6, 2009. content · cite

Polls

Feuer, Alan (June 5, 2006). "500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2009. content · cite

"[...] The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.

The movement's answer to that report was written by Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University and the movement's expert in the matter of collapse. Dr. Jones, unlike Alex Jones, is a soft-spoken man who lets his writing do the talking. He composed an account of the destruction of the towers (www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html) that holds that "pre-positioned cutter-charges" brought the buildings down. [...]

It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. This is in addition to the Zogby poll two years ago that found that 49 percent of New York City residents agreed with the idea that some leaders "knew in advance" that the attacks were planned and failed to act. [...]"

Aaronovitch, David (April 29, 2009). "9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet". The Times. content · cite

"[...] A Scripps Howard poll of July 2006 (which measured belief in a Kennedy conspiracy at 40 per cent) had 36 per cent of respondents suspecting government participation of some kind in the attacks, with just over one in six believing that explosives had been used to bring down the twin towers. A summary of what a made-it-happen-on-purpose 9/ll Truth activist is likely to believe goes something like this. Certain forces in the Bush Administration wanted a pretext to use overwhelming military force in the Caspian area and the Middle East, either to procure oil supplies, to weaken opposition to Israel or both. Accordingly they or their agents organised a false-flag operation, which would accomplish what Pearl Harbour was supposed to have accomplished for the Rooseveltian war party in 1941, causing a large number of Americans to die on the territory of the United States itself with the blame wrongly being put on Islamist extremists. The plot they devised involved three airliners being flown into the World Trade Centre main towers and, possibly, a Washington target.

There were either no hijackers or the ones on board were patsies, and two of the planes were guided remotely into the World Trade Centre. What brought the towers down, however was a “controlled demolition” using explosives planted there at some earlier time. The same devices also brought down the structure called World Trade Centre 7, though no plane flew into that building. The Pentagon was not hit by an airliner but by a guided missile. The fourth airliner, United 93, possibly heading for the capital, was either shot down because the passengers threatened to land it successfully thus exposing the plot, or else it was never found. Various ruses, including faked mobile phone calls and fraudulent claims of such calls were used to disguise the true nature of the crime.

That was the basic theory, although different people in the Truth movement might agree or disagree with various parts of it. To accept it, you have to believe that elements of the US Government engaged in a conspiracy of exceptional complexity and enormous risk of failure. [...]"

"Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment". 2007-09-06. Retrieved 2007-09-15. content · cite

In 2007, a representative poll by Zogby International, commissioned by 911truth.org, found that 67% of Americans fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

NIST 7 WTC Study

NIST (2008). Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7 (NCSTAR 1-9) (PDF). Vol. 2. Retrieved May 4, 2009. content · cite

Preliminary investigations did not include the mechanics of the actual collapse, concentrating instead on the events leading up to it. However, the final draft report on the collapse of WTC7 by NIST provides a detailed investigation into the collapse timeline, starting with the failure of a critical column, Column 79 (initial failure event). 6 seconds later, the collapse of the East Penthouse on the roof was visible. The collapse of the core columns progressed from east to west for another 6.9 seconds (12.9 seconds total since the initial failure event). At this point, the report says, "all the interior columns had buckled" and "the remaining exterior structure above began to fall vertically as a single unit." To calculate the timeline of the collapse of the rest of the building, NIST focused on the time between the initial collapse of the roofline and the last position that the complete roofline could be observed before portions of it started to become obscured by dust, at the top of Floor 29. NIST calculated the timeline for this observable descent as 5.4 seconds and calculated the theoretical free-fall time for the same portion of the building as 3.9 seconds, and concluded that, "The actual collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This was consistent with physical principles."

Study by Niels Harrit et al.

Jarvik, Elaine. "Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved April 7, 2009. content · cite

"Mystik om WTC: Nano-termit i tårne". Ekstra Bladet. content · cite

Harrit, Niels H (March 2009). "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". Open Chemical Physics Journal. Retrieved 2009-04-03. content · cite

In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and 8 other authors, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'. The paper concludes that super-thermite chips were discovered in the dust. Four major Danish newspapers, as well as the Danish scientific journal Videnskab, reported on the publication.

"Forskere: Sprængstof i støvet fra WTC". Jyllands-Posten. content · cite

"Dansker genopliver konspirationsteori om 11. september". Kristeligt Dagblad. content · cite

"Konspirationsteorier om 9/11 får nyt liv". Politiken. content · cite

"Dansk forsker: Eksplosivt nanomateriale fundet i støvet fra World Trade Center". Videnskab. content · cite

Debris removal

Original text

Text as of April 30, 2009

Diff:

Some of the steel from the Twin Towers was removed and sent to scrap yards before engineers were allowed access to the site on October 6, 2001. Webster Griffin Tarpley, an author, has criticized the official response to the crime scene, saying that the cleanup process resulted in the destruction of most of the evidence, identifying the New York City Mayor's office as a key player in this regard.^[1]

The debris removal process began shortly after the attacks, and concluded in May 2002.^[2] Robert F. Shea of FEMA testified to the House of Representatives that, "Because of the importance of the rescue effort at the World Trade Center complex, it was clear that information would have to be gathered without interfering with response and rescue activities. Based on this fact, the FEMA-ASCE team first visited the site on October 6, [2001] but gathered information from others who had been on-site before this date."^[3]

A call to action by Bill Manning, the chief editor of the trade journal Fire Engineering, is often quoted in this connection. In a January 2002 editorial, Manning called the early ASCE investigation (which would later turn into the FEMA building performance study) a "half-baked farce" and said that "the destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." He said that the cleanup of the WTC site differed in many respects from that of other engineering disasters.^[4] In defense of the decision to dispose of the steel, Mayor Bloomberg said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do."^[5] David Ray Griffin notes that this is exactly what Manning had worried about when he warned that "the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, allegations against a "speedy removal" of the steel hampering the engineering investigations appear to be unfounded, according to Dr. Gene Corley, head of the BPAT team and one of the lead engineers for the investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which began in September 2002. He testified to the House of Representatives in March 2002 that, "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".^[3]

↑ Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2007-05-07). "Chapter VI: The Collapse of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7". 9/11 Synthetic Terror (4th ed.). Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press. ISBN 978-0930852375..
↑ "FOXNews.com - Silent Tribute Marks End of Ground Zero Search - U.S. & World". Foxnews.com. May 30, 2002. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
1 2 "Learning From 9/11-Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center". Commdocs.house.gov. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
↑ ""Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse". 2002-01-04. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
↑ Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris EastDay.com via China.org.cn, January 24, 2002

Sources

Shin, Paul H. B. (March 7, 2002). "WTC Probe Ills Bared". Daily News. Retrieved May 10, 2009. content · cite

"[...] About 80% of the structural steel from the World Trade Center was scrapped without being examined by even one fire expert, mostly because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence, the experts said.

"The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse," said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation. [...]

The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency."

Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris EastDay.com via China.org.cn, January 24, 2002 content · cite

In defense of the decision to dispose of the steel, Mayor Bloomberg said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do."^[1] David Ray Griffin notes that this is exactly what Manning had worried about when he warned that "the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals.

↑ Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris EastDay.com via China.org.cn, January 24, 2002

""Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse". 2002-01-04. Retrieved 2009-01-04. content · cite

A call to action by Bill Manning, the chief editor of the trade journal Fire Engineering, is often quoted in this connection. In a January 2002 editorial, Manning called the early ASCE investigation (which would later turn into the FEMA building performance study) a "half-baked farce" and said that "the destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." He said that the cleanup of the WTC site differed in many respects from that of other engineering disasters.

"FOXNews.com - Silent Tribute Marks End of Ground Zero Search - U.S. & World". Foxnews.com. May 30, 2002. Retrieved 2008-10-30. content · cite

The debris removal process began shortly after the attacks, and concluded in May 2002.

"Learning From 9/11-Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center". Commdocs.house.gov. Retrieved 2008-10-30. content · cite

Robert F. Shea of FEMA testified to the House of Representatives that, "Because of the importance of the rescue effort at the World Trade Center complex, it was clear that information would have to be gathered without interfering with response and rescue activities. Based on this fact, the FEMA-ASCE team first visited the site on October 6, [2001] but gathered information from others who had been on-site before this date."

[...]

However, allegations against a "speedy removal" of the steel hampering the engineering investigations appear to be unfounded, according to Dr. Gene Corley, head of the BPAT team and one of the lead engineers for the investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which began in September 2002. He testified to the House of Representatives in March 2002 that, "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

Eric Lipton (Aug. 22, 2008). "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says". New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) content · cite

GAITHERSBURG, Md. — [...] But the collapse of 7 World Trade Center — home at the time to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service and the Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center — is cited in hundreds of Web sites and books as perhaps the most compelling evidence that an insider secretly planted explosives, intentionally destroying the tower. [...]

But S. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, based here in the suburbs of Washington, also rejected that theory on Thursday, even as he acknowledged that the collapse had been something of a puzzle.

“Our take-home message today is the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” Dr. Sunder said at a news conference at the institute’s headquarters. “It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.” [...]

Conspiracy theorists have pointed to the fact that the building fell straight down, instead of tumbling, as proof that explosives were used to topple it, as well as to bring down the twin towers. Sixteen percent of the respondents in a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll said it was very likely or somewhat likely that explosives were planted.

During the last four decades, other towers in New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles have remained standing through catastrophic blazes that burned out of control for hours because of malfunctioning or nonexistent sprinkler systems. But 7 World Trade Center, which was not struck by a plane, is the first skyscraper in modern times to collapse primarily as a result of a fire. Adding to the suspicion is the fact that in the rush to clean up the site, almost all of the steel remains of the tower were disposed of, leaving investigators in later years with little forensic evidence. [...]

The investigators determined that debris from the falling twin towers damaged structural columns and ignited fires on at least 10 floors at 7 World Trade Center, which stood about 400 feet north of the twin towers. But the structural damage from the falling debris was not significant enough to threaten the tower’s stability, Dr. Sunder said.

Normally, fireproofing on a skyscraper should have been sufficient to allow such a blaze to burn itself out and leave the building damaged but still standing. But investigators determined that the heat from the fire caused girders in the steel floor of 7 World Trade Center to expand. As a result, steel beams underneath the floors that provided lateral support for the tower’s structural columns began to buckle or put pressure against the vertical structural columns.

These fires might have been fed partly by the diesel from tanks and a pressurized fuel line, which were on the fifth to the ninth floors, Dr. Sunder said. But the analysis showed that even in the worst case, the diesel fuel-fed fire would not have burned hot enough or long enough to have played a major role in weakening the structure. The investigators determined that the fire that day was fed mainly by office paper and furnishings. [...]

Skeptics have questioned whether explosives were planted at the three towers at ground zero, and at the Pentagon as well, often contending that the Bush administration had planned the catastrophes to provide a justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. What started as a small number of such conspiracy theorists ballooned into a movement of sorts, largely fed by Internet sites and homemade videos.

Dr. Sunder said the investigators considered the possibility that explosives were used, but ruled it out because the noise associated with such an explosion would have been 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert, he said, and detectable from as far as a half a mile away. He said that interviews with eyewitnesses and a review of video taken that day provided no evidence of a sound that loud just before the collapse.

The skeptics — including several who attended Thursday’s news conference — were unimpressed. They have long argued that an incendiary material called thermite, made of aluminum powder and a metal oxide, was used to take down the trade center towers, an approach that would not necessarily result in an explosive boom. They also have argued that a sulfur residue found at the World Trade Center site is evidence of an inside job.

Dr. Sunder said the investigators chose not to use the computer model to evaluate whether a thermite-fueled fire might have brought down the tower, since 100 pounds of it would have had to have been stacked directly against the critical column that gave way, which he said they did not believe had occurred.

To the skeptics, it was a glaring omission.

“It is very difficult to find what you are not looking for,” said Shane Geiger, who contributes to a Web site that follows the topic and who had come to Maryland from Texas to quiz Dr. Sunder about his findings, with a bumper sticker on his laptop computer that says, “9-11 was an inside job.” [...]

Within moments after the news conference ended, leaders of a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth held their own telephone conference briefing, dismissing the investigation as flawed.

“How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?” said Richard Gage, a California architect and leader of the group. [...]

Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2007-05-07). "Chapter VI: The Collapse of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7". 9/11 Synthetic Terror (4th ed.). Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press. ISBN 0930852370. content · cite

Some of the steel from the Twin Towers was removed and sent to scrap yards before engineers were allowed access to the site on October 6, 2001. Webster Griffin Tarpley, an author, has criticized the official response to the crime scene, saying that the cleanup process resulted in the destruction of most of the evidence, identifying the New York City Mayor's office as a key player in this regard.

New sources and discussion

Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson

Sources

"WTC destroyed by bombs, not planes, senator says". Arizona Capitol Times. June 10, 2008. content · cite

She also gave a speech on the floor of the Arizona Senate that included her support for the demolition theory, its proponents, and its relevance to current foreign policy in the US. Johnson said in her speech:

You don’t have to embrace every theory about 9/11. Indeed, there are some that should be soundly rejected. But if you believe, as these scientists, architects and engineers do, that the buildings were brought down by explosive demolition, then you must also agree that we need a new investigation. I have no preconceived notions about who did it and I am not pointing the finger of blame at anyone. But I do think that the worst attack on U.S. soil in American history deserves the best investigation possible.

"AZ legislator wants McCain to hear Sept. 11 suspicions". Tucson Citizen. June 3, 2008. content · cite

In June 2008, Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson delivered a letter to the office of U.S. Senator John McCain asking him to meet with a group of professionals to discuss the events of 9/11.

Criticism of the NIST report

Text

Text as of April 24, 2009

The controlled demolition theory is also offered to explain a belief that the towers collapsed close to free fall speed. Most estimates agree that the structures offered little resistance to the progress of the collapses and that they took about 50% longer than a free falling object dropped from the tops of the towers. Without explosives to destroy the internal support structure of the WTC towers, argue proponents of controlled demolition, the fall of the towers would violate the principle of conservation of momentum.^[1]^[2] Others say that these claims are only supported by intuition without any quantitative analysis. They point to their own analyses posted on a website suggesting that the fall may be explained without violating the principle of conservation of momentum and without requiring any explosives.^[3]^[4]