2006: The 5th Anniversary

Interspersed amongst articles concerning United 93 and World Trade Center came articles which can be classed as belonging to the fifth anniversary season for media coverage of 9/11 alternative theories. One of the first of these was a Monday 7th August, 2006 Guardian article headlined “9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving”.

Education writer Justin Pope concentrates on the controversy surrounding 9/11 alternative theories, rather than the substance of the theories themselves. He does present arguments both for and against 9/11 alternative theories, whilst the article is the first to cover one of the more prominent 9/11 alternative theory groups - Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He gives a brief summary of their main ideas from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website: “the ‘World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions’ and ‘the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.’”

Pope quotes Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, to associate 9/11 alternative theories with more radical and unpalatable ideas: “However, ‘with academic freedom comes academic responsibility. And that requires them to teach the truth of their discipline, and the truth does not include conspiracy theories, or flat Earth theories, or Holocaust denial theories.’”

Liquid Bombs

Following the terror alert over the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners which was first reported on 10th August, there were a number of articles which referenced 9/11 alternative theories.

“Just whose side is Pakistan really on?” was published on 13th August, 2006. After detailing Pakistan’s role in the war on terror, Times journalist Christina Lamb writes that, “Many Muslims are reluctant to accept the role of fundamentalists in terror attacks. Their scepticism is fed by conspiracy theories that continue to spread on the internet. Among the most virulent are: Bin Laden was never involved in 9/11, but has been used by Washington to justify spending on the military and intelligence services. Bin Laden has been dead more than five years and the US used lookalikes and fake tapes of his voice to issue new threats.”

The mention of look-alikes by Lamb is a reference to the belief amongst some conspiracy theorists that the December 2001 tape of Osama bin Laden in which he admits to carrying out the 9/11 attacks was in some way faked. The evidence, they allege, is that the person in the video looks different from the widely disseminated images of Osama bin Laden which became famous in the hours and days after the attacks.

This section is followed by the frequently used tactic of promoting Israeli based conspiracy theories and linking them with more popular ones. She writes, “The Israelis were quickly fingered in the Arab world as suspects after the towers collapsed, killing 2,752. This theory is often bolstered with the false claim that 4,000 Jewish employees did not turn up for work that day. Conspiracy theorists say the impact of the planes did not have the power to demolish the towers. The buildings had been rigged with explosives.”

Lamb’s treatment of the Pentagon based conspiracy theories is more straightforward: “The relatively limited damage suffered by the Pentagon despite being hit by a passenger jet is held up as evidence that it was a faked attack. Some suspect a guided missile was used.”

Denial

The following day, the Times again attacked 9/11 alternative theories in, “They are in denial over terrorism” published on 14th August, 2006. Mary Ann Sieghart again links Israel and Jews to the alternative theories as she writes, “Rather than face up to the fact that there are now worryingly high numbers of radicalised young Muslims, some of whom have murderous designs against their compatriots, these Muslims would prefer to delude themselves that the whole thing is a Western plot. A staggering 45 per cent of British Muslims, according to a poll by Channel 4, believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the US and Israel. How could they, in the face of such overwhelming evidence? We know who the hijackers were, and they weren’t CIA or Mossad agents. They were angry young Muslims.”

She continues, “If the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld knew of the attack that was about to happen, what was he doing sitting in the Pentagon, which was hit by one of the aircraft? If Israelis were in on the plot, why didn't they tell Daniel Lewin, a former Israeli commando, who struggled with Mohammed Atta and other hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to crash into the towers? No, it is as preposterous to deny that Islamist terrorists undertook the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks as it is to deny that the threat of similar attacks in the future exists.”

Loony

Whilst these references to 9/11 alternative theories in the Times were made only in passing, “Moderate Muslims must offer hotheads an alternative view” by the Sun’s political editor Trevor Kavanagh tackles them head on. Published on Monday 14th August, 2006, the article employs a variety of techniques used to discredit 9/11 alternative theories.

Kavanagh opens the article with, “Some loony keeps sending me messages that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy” before using terms such as “rant”, “laughable cyber-joke”, “dangerous theories”, “claptrap” and “fantasists” to paint 9/11 alternative theorists in a negative light.

But it is perhaps the accompanying cartoon which is of greater interest. It depicts a Muslim man pointing as the second plane impacts the Twin Towers with the caption, “Look, you see, it’s not a plane – it’s a US Missile.” This refers to an increasingly controversial idea amongst 9/11 alternative theorists that missiles rather than planes were used to target the World Trade Centre. By focusing on one of the more incredible 9/11 alternative theories, the Sun seeks to discredit others by association.

Internet

A few days later, on Friday 18th August 2006, the BBC Newsnight blog covered alternative theories in a general article titled, “On internet conspiracy theories.” Beneath a photograph of a stylised alien, the opening paragraph concludes, “You lot can say what you like about Diana and flying saucers and JFK, but hacks stick to the evidence, at least until they get down the pub.”

Having set the tone of the article, the writer then discusses three rules to apply when assessing the “CT” (conspiracy theory) and the “OV” (official version) of events. Within these points, 9/11 alternative theories are mentioned twice: “The September 11 CT that said 'Flight 93 was brought down by the airforce not the passengers' was once a widely held internet CT, but then decent taped evidence came along and undermined it among all but the most cynical” and “But the background to the World Trade Centre attacks had an utterly compelling received wisdom, whereas the CTs just never remotely fitted with how any sensible person expects the world to behave.”

By sandwiching sentences about 9/11 alternative theories in with ones about more unbelieveable ideas, the writer is able to dismiss and ridicule them by association. Examples of the latter include “So just because you see a weird flying saucer and the OV claims it's marsh gas, don't assume it's therefore an alien spaceship” and “Just because there are oddities in the photos from the moon landings, that doesn't mean that they were mocked up in the Nevada desert.”

In addition to rubbishing 9/11 alternative theories by association, the writer makes a couple of candid admissions concerning possible reasons why alternative theories in general have not received fairer media coverage. After admitting that some journalists “entertain such notions in private” the journalist concludes, “So which CTs should you buy into? Well you'll just have to make your own minds up. I've got a mortgage to pay.”

Inside Job

Following August’s ‘silly season’ in the British media, coverage of 9/11 alternative theories began in earnest just a few days into September. The coverage in the days leading up to the fifth anniversary was more frequent than previous years and reasonably balanced.

On Tuesday 5th September 2006, the Mail continued in it’s unexpected role as one of the fairer media outlets covering 9/11 conspiracy theories when it published “Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'”. The article quotes extensively from members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, with quotes from just one person arguing against 9/11 alternative theories.

After a brief introduction, journalist Jaya Narain discusses Professor Steven Jones, who became one of the most prominent and credible 9/11 alternative theorists after the online publication of a paper questioning the collapse of the three buildings at the World Trade Centre site. The subject of much controversy, the paper is yet to be published in a mainstream academic journal, although 9/11 alternative theorists present the paper as ‘academic’ and ‘peer reviewed’. It has however been published online, initially on the physics section of Brigham Young University website (although this was later withdrawn by Jones at the university’s request after Jones was placed on paid leave) and in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, an online publication. It has also been published in a recent book, “9/11 and American Empire (Volume I) Intellectuals Speak Out”.

In the article, Jones is not ridiculed by Narain – on the contrary his position is presented fairly accurately: “Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes. He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.”

Narain then introduces “Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law” to cast doubt on the assertions of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He is quoted as saying, “To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards. After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time.”

Such arguments are often countered by 9/11 alternative theorists by referring to such operations as the Manhattan Project, which according to Wikipedia “would eventually employ over 130,000 people… and result in the creation of multiple production and research sites operated in secret…at over thirty different sites spread across the United States, Canada, and in the United Kingdom…The existence of these sites and the secret cities of Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Hanford were not made public until the announcement of the Hiroshima explosion and remained officially secret until the end of WWII.”

The article then continues with a quote from “University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett” who himself has been the subject of controversy. Barrett touches on some of the psychological arguments used by 9/11 alternative theorists to explain why their ideas are not more widely believed: “People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it.”

9/11 was a hoax

On the same day as the Mail, the Guardian ran a very similar article almost certainly culled from the same New York Times source. “Who really blew up the twin towers?” by Christina Asquith uses many of the same quotes, including those from Steven Jones and Christopher Pyle.

On balance, the Guardian article paints 9/11 alternative theories in a slightly more positive light. In addition to highlighting Jones’ doubts about the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7, it delves more deeply into the background of who in America could have been behind such a plot.

Asquith writes, “For most of the world, the story of 9/11 begins at 8.45am on September 11 2001, when American Airlines flight 11 smashed into the North tower of the World Trade Centre. But, tumble down the rabbit hole with Jones, and the plotline begins a year earlier, in September 2000. A neoconservative group called Project for a New American Century, which included the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the vice-president, Dick Cheney, brought out a report arguing for a global expansion of American military and economic supremacy, and for the US to transform itself into a ‘one-world superpower’. The report warned that ‘the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor’.”

Asquith also takes the highly unusual step of quoting an expert who participated in the US government’s study of the WTC collapses who actually recognises some of the alternative theorists concerns. Although “Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims ‘bad science’” he also admits that, “Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire” and, “The collapse of WTC 7 was also unusual.”

Asquith then uses an entire paragraph to detail the reports which back up the official theory: “Since the attacks, the US government has issued three reports into the events of the day, all of which involved hundreds of professors, scientists and government officials. The 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group, issued a 500-page, moment-by-moment investigation into the hijackers' movements, concluding that they were connected to Osama bin Laden. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, filed 10,000 pages of reports examining the towers' collapse. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency weighed in, examining the response to the attacks.”

Here however, Asquith is ignoring certain evidence often cited by alternative theorists to back up their claims. They point out for example that Osama bin Laden is not indicted for 9/11 on his page on the FBI top most wanted fugitive website. Furthermore, Asquith fails to mention the recently released NIST FAQ factsheet which explains that in relation to WTC7, “NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.”

CIA

A few days later, the Telegraph ran another article about Scholars for 9/11 Truth on Friday 8th September 2006 headlined “The CIA couldn't have organised this...” Written by Michael Shelden, a professor of English at Indiana State University, the article’s main thesis is that the mistakes in the subsequent war on terror make it unlikely that anyone in the US governmental apparatus would be capable of organising the 9/11 attacks and keeping it a secret. After a run down of Steven Jones’ ideas that, “the burning jet fuel from the two airliners that crashed into the buildings could not have generated enough heat to cause the structures to collapse,” Shelden seeks to discredit Jones by highlighting one of his other controversial ideas, “Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America.”

Shelden writes, “Jones is convinced, for example, that Jesus was wandering through ancient Mexico around AD 600, paying calls on various Mayan villagers. He has published "evidence" that the Mayans were well aware of the "resurrected Lord" centuries before the Spanish priests crossed the Atlantic and gave them the Good News.”

Shelden later attempts to paint 9/11 alternative theorists in general in a negative light as he writes, “the people who were most likely to believe in the 9/11 conspiracies were those who ‘regularly use the internet but who do not regularly use ‘mainstream" media’’. Alone in a darkened room with paranoid cyber-friends as your only company, you can easily begin to entertain all sorts of bizarre notions, especially when trying to make sense of an event as grotesque as the collapse of two skyscrapers.”

James Fetzer, another senior member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth also comes in for criticism, because he “thinks that JFK was killed by several shooters and that the moon landing in 1969 may have been a hoax.”

Towards the end of the article, Shelden lays out his incompetence theory: “The most persuasive argument against a conspiracy is the profound incompetence that subsequent events have revealed at every level among the supposed conspirators. 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 tucked alongside the Hudson River.”

David Ray Griffin

Just two days before the fifth anniversary on Saturday 9th September, 2006, the Guardian published “Full house as leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist has his say” The article by Audrey Gillan publicises a London meeting organised by the “British 9/11 for Truth Movement.”

Overall, the article is generally factual and refrains from using the usual tactics to discredit 9/11 alternative theorists. In one paragraph however, Gillan writes, “websites show countless images that ‘back up’ the claims, chatrooms are screaming with conspiracists...” Using such language is an attempt to pour scorn on the “growing number of disbelievers.”

Despite having covered the meeting before it happened, there were no news articles in the Guardian or elsewhere which followed up with a post meeting report.

9/11

On the day of the anniversary itself, the media completely ignored 9/11 alternative theories. This could in part be due to feeling the need to respect the families of those who died, as well as feeling that the topic had been sufficiently covered in the previous days and weeks.

That 9/11 alternative theorists were ignored is slightly surprising, however, due to the fact that some of them gathered outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square in London. This was the same location where most of the British media were covering the memorial service organised by the US Embassy. Examples of such reporting can be found from the BBC, Times, Express and Guardian. But it was left to the political activist website Indymedia to report on the protest. (video / photos / photos)