Anthony Summers - The Eleventh Day

In its most recent, 2009, edition, the makers of Loose Change no longer bothered to veil its message. They changed the title to Loose Change 9/11—An American Coup . “America was hijacked on September 11, 2001,” an earnest voice intones at the end, “by a group of tyrants ready and willing to do whatever is necessary to keep their stranglehold on the United States of America. A group beyond any one man [a picture of President Bush appears on the screen], or any one administration [a picture of President Obama appears]. Until there is a new investigation into the events, we will not go away. We will not be silent. Ask questions. Demand answers.”

David Griffin, usually careful to appear judicious, academically careful, at one stage acted as script consultant for Loose Change . He has, moreover, been quoted as saying he is doing what he can “to get the cabal who engineered 9/11 for imperialistic and plutocratic reasons stopped before they do still more damage to our country and our planet.” The “cabal” he had in mind, Griffin had long since made clear, was the Bush administration.

Many who have voiced support for the professor, to one degree or another, have been educated, professional people. Richard Falk, Princeton University’s Milbank professor emeritus of international law—and currently the United Nations’ special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories of Palestine—lent credibility to Griffin’s first book with a glowing foreword. Falk has written, “It is not paranoid to assume that the established elites of the American governmental structure have something to hide, and much to explain.”

PROFESSIONALS WITH IDEAS like Griffin’s have associated themselves with Internet groups reflecting their expertise—Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and so on. Such skeptics include men and women from differing fields of expertise, some distinguished, some even prominent. Here is a sample.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth, originally headed jointly by James Fetzer, now professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota—a specialist on the philosophy of science—and Steven Jones, professor emeritus of physics at Brigham Young University, focused specifically on the collapses. Following a series of disagreements and a split into two separate groups—with perhaps a thousand members between them—Fetzer and Jones offer differing perspectives.

According to Fetzer, members of his group “believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.” Fetzer claimed that his group has “established beyond reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers were destroyed by a novel form of controlled demolition from the top down … and that, whatever may have hit the Pentagon, multiple lines of argument support the conclusion that it was not a Boeing 757.” Perhaps, he theorized, “high-tech weapons of the directed energy kind” were used against the Trade Center.

Dr. Jones has called for “discretion and discipline” and strict adherence to “the Scientific Method.” He, too, however, espouses the hypothesis that the Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. He, too, asserts that 9/11 was an “inside job,” that “the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9/11 … just does not add up.”

The academic doubters found apparently reputable allies in other walks of life. Glenn MacDonald, a former Army Reserve major who runs a Web journal called MilitaryCorruption.com, thought he could see something in the footage of the underside of Flight 175, as it tore toward the South Tower. “I have seen attachments that look like that—on military aircraft … It could have been even a missile.…”

Morgan Reynolds, who served as chief economist in the Department of Labor under President Bush, has described the official wisdom on the collapse of the Trade Center as “bogus,” explicable only as “professional demolition.” “We know,” said Paul Roberts, an assistant secretary of the treasury under President Reagan who himself has some engineering training, that “it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel-columned buildings, to ‘pancake’ at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.”

Seven CIA veterans have found fault with the official account. William Christison, a former director of the Agency’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis, has been vocal on the collapses. In a lengthy article, he declared himself impressed by the “carefully collected and analyzed evidence” suggesting that the two Trade Center Towers and Building 7 “were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” He had time, too, for the theory that the Pentagon was hit not by an airliner but perhaps by a “missile, a drone, or … a smaller manned aircraft.”

Military men and members of parliaments in several foreign nations have raised questions about the towers’ collapse. A bevy of show business figures and celebrities—including actors Charlie Sheen and Marion Cotillard, director David Lynch, comedian Rosie O’Donnell, and singer Willie Nelson—have drawn attention to the issue. So has former Minnesota governor turned television star Jesse Ventura, who showcased 9/11 on his television show Conspiracy Theory . Most significant, however, have seemed the views of professionals with seemingly relevant backgrounds.

Joel Hirschhorn, a former engineering professor who has often testified to congressional committees, believes that studies by scholars and professionals in relevant fields “reveal the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the Twin Towers.… Why have the government and official investigations not come to the same controlled demolition conclusion?”

Dwain Deets, former director for aeronautical projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, stated that “The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved.” Larry Erickson, a retired aerospace engineer and research scientist for NASA; David Griscom, a research physicist for the Naval Research Laboratory; and Robert Waser, a former research and development engineer with the U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, all joined their names to a petition signed by a thousand architects and engineers requesting a new investigation.

Because the attacks began in New York, because they killed so many people, and because the Twin Towers were iconic, the strike on Washington, D.C., has tended to take second place in the public mind. The crash at the Pentagon has also preoccupied the skeptics, though, and appearances suggest they are in impressive company.

Colonel George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (retired), a former aircraft accident investigator, commercial pilot, and airframe mechanic, said that—on the evidence as he saw it in 2006—“any unbiased rational investigator” would conclude no Boeing 757 was involved in either the crash at the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania.

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Latas, aerospace engineer, airline captain, and former president of an Air Force accident board, found discrepancies between the Flight Data Recorder information on Flight 77 and the 9/11 Commission’s account.

Former Army Captain Daniel Davis, who served with Air Defense Command before becoming a senior manager at General Electric Turbine [jet] Engine Division, declared himself puzzled by the seeming lack of substantial airplane wreckage at the Pentagon. “Where,” he wanted to know, “are all of those engines?”