Was 9/11 an inside job?

Simpleicons Business sand-watch-with-content-falling-inside.svg Subject classification: this is a history resource.

The September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. forever changed the landscape of US culture and geopolitics around the globe. Is the official explanation of who conducted the attacks accurate and reliable? Or is it possible that some US government agents had inside information or even planned the attack itself?

9/11 was an inside job

Arguments for

  •   Argument for There is evidence of insider trading shortly prior to the attacks[1][2], which suggests that many people anticipated the attack. It's hard to imagine that such information would reach the ears of traders yet remain unknown to surveillance networks.
    •   Objection The 9/11 Commission Report only seems to mention possible insider trading in a one-paragraph endnote to chapter five, and they seem to write the abnormal trading off as a coincidence and state that the (unnamed) traders had no connection with the attacks.
      •   Objection A significant portion of these trades were made through Alex Brown inc. whose former president A. B. Krongard was appointed executive director of the CIA on March 16, 2001.[3] This was not mentioned in the 9/11 commission report. Krongard also had ties with Israel.[4] Perhaps an incidental connection but it seems like a very relevant detail, and apparently he is of Jewish descent.
  •   Argument for There is evidence of a Zionist motive for involvement in the middle east, according to the comments of Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 commission[5].
  •   Argument for There is strong evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to oppose the petrodollar system, rejecting payment in USD less than a year before 9/11/2001[6], which would have undermined the power and authority of the The Federal Reserve, an independent central bank that was chartered shortly before the great depression and has controlled the supply of USD ever since.
  •   Argument for We should ask ourselves "Cui Bono?" The people of the United States had very little to gain from the war, so the answer is mostly Israel and foreign money lenders. Paul Wolfowitz was 28th United States Deputy Secretary of Defense, appointed in March 2001, is often called the "architect of the Iraq war" and has been a longtime supporter of Israel[7]. It was an "inside job" in the sense that US government has been subverted and used against the interests of US people.
  •   Argument for Besides the twin towers, one more building in the World Trade Center complex collapsed, namely the 7 World Trade Center. This building was not hit by any plane, nor did it receive much more debris damage than any of the other buildings surrounding the twin towers. It did catch on fire and burn for some hours, but not nearly enough to make the building collapse as completely and as fast as it did, at nearly free-fall speed for the first few seconds of its collapse[8]. Prior to 9/11 no steel-framed high rise building had ever collapsed because of fire. But if the fire didn't cause the collapse, then the only remaining explanation is a controlled demolition, which would implicate high-level government officials. As extra support, some suspicious "drills" were reported that day on the building.[citation needed]
    •   Objection The fires did not knock out all of the supports at once. They weakened the supports around column 79, causing floors 8 to 14 to collapse in the inside of the building[citation needed]. This set off a chain reaction of columns failing from the east side to the west side[9]. So the collapse was not instant and can be explained by fires.
    •   Objection There was no evidence of the explosives required for a controlled demolition.
      •   Objection Evidence can be found in [10][11]. The microscopic iron spheres found at ground zero were a direct byproduct of thermitic material, such as thermite, being used to weaken the structure before its collapse. This coupled with the red hot steel pouring from windows, "as if it had melted in a foundry", quoted from well documented news footage of a NYPD firefighter, is definitive proof enough there was some sort of control going on behind the chaos.
        •   Objection A random quotation from a random firefighter is not definitive proof of anything, except that in the midst of chaotic panic the firefighter said something that is vague enough to support any conclusion one wants to support.
  •   Argument for Husley (2019) [12] says that "...The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building....".
    •   Objection No tests were conducted for the presence of explosives residue and operational protocol stipulates that these tests should have occurred[citation needed].
    •   Objection Certainly, there was a chain reaction; however, this chain reaction could have been caused by the building's resistance to gravity.
  •   Argument for The September 11 attacks were a thinly-veiled excuse to invade Iraq in order to establish US dominance, get oil, and to vindicate the first Bush Presidency's defense of Kuwait in the 1990s during the first Persian Gulf War.
    •   Objection Although the United States may have used this terrorist attack as a pretense for empire-building, that doesn't mean they caused it or allowed it to happen with prior knowledge. It's possible and even plausible that once the attack occurred they simply saw an opportunity and took it. It's also reasonable that different actors in the federal government had some complex motivations including retribution for the attacks as well as expansionism.
    •   Objection The USA imports little oil from the Middle East, with around 50% coming from North America and less than 15% from the Persian Gulf. It's not cheap oil if it requires shipping across the 12,000 miles between the two locations. Thus, oil is not an exhaustive explanation for the attack to have been planned.
  •   Argument for Osama Bin Laden has been an ally of the CIA before during the Afghan-Soviet war. So, it would be plausible that he had a connection with the US government in order to mount the attack via his terrorist cell and give the government an excuse for invasion in the middle east, an invasion which did produce many exclusive oil contracts afterwards, including those of Halliburton, an enterprise related to Dick Cheney and the Bush administration.

Arguments against

  •   Argument against Any possible motive for the US government to plan the attacks would not need to be executed this way.
    •   Objection Citizens experiencing fear or anger are easier to manipulate. This is being used as a tool to herd the population into further wars.
  •   Argument against The events of 9/11 can be explained far more simply as terrorist attacks than a complex conspiracy with unclear motivation.
    •   Objection Simple explanations is what simple people crave. The motivation was simple and clear. Use this "terrorist" attack to expand the Patriot act and make citizens support being spied on for the greater good of the country, as well as an increase of US´ economic and political power.
  •   Argument against There is no evidence of members of the conspiracy, even though this would require the perfect silence of large amounts of individuals at different levels of the Government, when the government has a difficult time keeping far less scandalous secrets hidden. Someone would have leaked reliable and verifiable information at some point and every journalist in the world would be keen to break the biggest story in the 21st century.
    •   Objection "Absence of evidence" is no evidence at all (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam [13])
    •   Objection They also have less reason to keep "far less scandalous" secrets hidden. Why would they resort to strong-arm tactics and censorship to cover up minor scandals? That makes no sense.
    •   Objection There is no argument provided here, but only simple lawyer's tricks, purpose-built to attack the credibility of the opposition. What the US government claimed happened was a complex conspiracy involving an international terrorist organisation. The US government has so far been unable to prove this, making it a theory. Somehow, many people in US (and worldwide) seem to have been convinced that critically questioning the US government's theory about an al Qaeda conspiracy makes one a conspiracy theorist. The very logic of language itself reveals the lunacy in slandering those who dispute the US government's 9/11 narrative with egregious smear attacks like, "conspiracy theorist".
    •   Objection When there is leak of even the most minor sort, the groundwork has already been laid to discredit their mental well being. Short of Dick Cheney himself, there isn't any credibility in low level or anonymous leaks.
    •   Objection They sign NDAs and it's probably difficult to "leak" information anonymously due to the advanced SIGINT capabilities of various governmental agencies e.g. the NSA.
    •   Objection There's no guarantee that any given journalist isn't actually an informant. Snowden lives in constant fear of extradition and cannot return to his home country on pain of lifelong imprisonment. His situation gives us information about the mindset, culture, and motivations of the people involved in such organizations. They can do no such thing as "leak information", or rather, they cannot be relied upon to do so.
  •   Argument against Soon after the event, Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack.
    •   Objection Al-Qaeda are probably not above claiming responsibility for something they didn't actually do if it furthers their organisation's goals. If 9/11 were an inside job, Al-Qaeda would probably claim responsibility anyway either unprompted or at the suggestion of whatever secretive cabal really did it.
    •   Objection This is simply false. Whoever perpetrated the attack tried to fabricate evidence implicating the leader of al Qaeda in the form of a video tape. This video tape has been declared fraudulent by numerous scholars, including Professor Bruce Lawrence who, according to the Daily Mirror (UK), is the world's "foremost authority on (Osama) bin Laden"[citation needed].
    •   Objection The actual Osama bin Laden gave two public interviews after 9/11 occurred in which his identity was confirmed. He categorically denied all involvement in both. The solitary link the US government has between al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks is the written confession of a man claiming to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who provided his confession after being waterboarded a reported 183 times at Guantanamo Bay[citation needed]. Moreover, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was reported by the Asian Press to have died during an ISI raid in Karachi in 2002. There is literally no proof the man being held in US custody is even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the first place.
      •   Objection Professor Bruce Lawrence is a Humanities Professor of Religion at Duke University and publishes books about the Islamic faith[citation needed]. The only public comment he has ever made even slightly related to the 9/11 attacks is that he believes that Islam has no connection with terrorism[citation needed].
      •   Objection The Daily Mirror is a British tabloid that has published stories that were later revealed to be a hoax[citation needed].

See also

Notes and references

  1. Poteshman, Allen M. (2006). "Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001". The Journal of Business 79 (4): 1703–1726. doi:10.1086/503645. ISSN 0021-9398. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/503645. 
  2. "9/11 conspiracy theories". Wikipedia. 2021-03-31. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1015278683. 
  3. "Mystery of terror 'insider dealers'". The Independent. 2014-04-04. Retrieved 2021-05-31.
  4. Atkinson, Bill. "Alex. Brown chief bullish on Israel despite violence". baltimoresun.com. Retrieved 2021-05-31.
  5. "IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser". Inter Press Service. 2004-03-29. Retrieved 2021-05-31.
  6. Dowell, William (2000-11-13). "Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2021-05-31.
  7. "Thousands in US rally for Israel". 2002-04-15. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
  8. WTC911demolition (2011-10-02), WTC Building 7 Collapse - 23 angles, retrieved 2019-06-16
  9. Thompson, Kristy D. (2011-06-30). "Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation". NIST. Retrieved 2019-06-16.
  10. "How to Debunk WTC Thermite".
  11. "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center - evidence for energetic materials" (PDF).
  12. "World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) University of Alaska Fairbanks". ine.uaf.edu. Retrieved 2022-12-23.
  13.  "Absence of evidence & Argumentum ad Ignorantiam wiki page".