På dansk (og norsk)

In English



Since the terror attacks on September 11’th 2001 the theories of conspiracy have been florishing, and still are.
This is a link collection to only part of the debates focusing on background articles, analysis, comments and polemics from the debunking point of view. All collected by the heart of the compiler’s scepticism towards parts of the conspiracy ideas.

Bjarne A. Frandsen
September 2006. Revised September 2016.

See also the webliography 9/11: Imperialism and Terror after September 11th (Modkraft.dk/Tidsskriftcentret).

Against the Current

Jack Ceder: Another look at 9/11 (No. 114, January/February 2005)
“Griffin’s book together with various similar books and videos give strong supporting evidence for the claim that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.”

David Finkel: A Reichstag fire on steroids? (No. 114, January/February 2005)
“… if populist skepticism is in order, then a little Marxist common sense is appropriate too – and from that standpoint, the fullblown ‘inside job’ theory of 9/11, which Griffin clearly favors though he tactically stops short of unconditionally endorsing it, makes no sense at all.”

Jack Ceder: A rejoinder on 9/11 (No. 115, March/April 2005)


Debate: The ultimate 9/11 ‘Truth’ showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi, Part I + Part II + Part III (October 6, 2008)
“The two writers lock horns over the accuracy of Griffin’s recent book, 9/11 Contradictions.”

George Monbiot: Short changing 9/11: popular documentary takes us nowhere (February 17, 2007)
“The English author charges that infatuation with the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change turns opponents of the Bush government into ‘gibbering idiots’.”

Matt Taibbi: Before the 9/11 conspiracies, there was the Oklahoma bombing (October 24, 2006)
“Much of the faulty logic and circumstancial evidence that justifies the 9/11 conspiracies are repeats of the theories that abounded in Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing.”

Matt Taibbi: The idiocy hehind the ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement (September 26, 2006)
“Why the ‘9/11 Truth’ movement makes the Left behind series read like Shakespeare.”

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
“… an association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the ‘collapses’ of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001.”

Centre for Research on Globalisation

Themes: 9/11 Key articles + Foreknowledge of 9-11
“A compilation of CRG articles and documents in support of a 9-11 investigation.”


Alexander Cockburn: The 9/11 conspiracists: vindicated after all these years? (September 2, 2011)
“Across those ten years have the charges that it was an ‘inside job’ – a favored phrase of the self-styled ‘truthers’ – received any serious buttress? The answer is no.”

Alex Doherty: Britain’s 9/11 ‘Truth Movement’: Who’s responsible? (September 18, 2007)
“Initially an internet based affair, the UK conspiracy advocates have developed national and local campaigning groups who organize public meetings, teach-ins and film showings and they have become a visible and vocal presence at anti-war demonstrations.”

Manuel Garcia Jr.: Forgetting 9/11 (September 12, 2007)
“Because I have written about the physics of the World Trade Center fires and collapses of September 11, 2001, I have recently been asked by several people to comment on “9-11″ during this sixth anniversary of the event.”

Christopher Ketcham: What did Israel know in advance of the 9/11 attacks? High-Fivers and art student spies. A CounterPunch Special Investigation (March 7, 2007)

Alexander Cockburn: The 9/11 conspiracists and the decline of the Anmerican Left (November 28, 2006)
“Five years after the attacks, 9/11 conspiracism has now penetrated deep into the American left … Into the theoretical and strategic void has crept a diffuse, peripatic conspiracist view of the world that tends to locate ruling class devilry not in the crises of capital accumulation, or the falling rate of profit, or inter-imperial competition, but in locale (the Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, Ditchley, Davos) or supposedly ‘rogue’ agencies, with the CIA still at the head of the list. The 9/11 ‘conspiracy’, or “inside job”, is the Summa of all this foolishness.”

Manuel Garcia, Jr.: The Physics of 9/11: We see conspiracies that don’t exist, Part 1-3 (November 28, 2006)
“The aim of this article is to supply some understanding of physics as it relates to several of the features of the 9/11 events, so that readers can expand their range of rationality and hence their political maturity.
In Part 2: The Thermodynamics of 9/11, of this report, I address the topic of heat, a prominent feature of many conspiracy theories about the collapse of the WTC buildings.
In Part 3: Dark Fire, I address the collapse of WTC 7.”

Diana Johnstone: In defense of conspiracy: 9/11 in theory and in fact (September 15, 2006)
“I feel that the extreme version of the 9/11 conspiracy, complete with demolition and Pentagon missile, gives a bad name to conspiracy theory in general … It seems to me, on balance, that the evidence is so weak for this particular conspiracy theory that its popularity calls for a psychological explanation … Even in the case of 9/11, there is what I would call a ‘soft’ version of the conspiracy theory that deserves investigation, and that is the possible role of secret agents who may have infiltrated the al Qaeda plot enough to know what was afoot, but let it happen.”

Alexander Cockburn: The 9/11 conspiracy nuts: how they let the guilty parties of 9/11 slip off the hook (September 9/10, 2006)
“August Bebel said anti-Semitism is the socialism of the fools. These days the 9/11 conspiracy fever threatens to become the ‘socialism’ of the left, and the passe-partout of many libertarians … The nuts disdain the real world because, like much of the left and liberal sectors, they have promoted Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons to an elevated status as the Arch Demons of American history, instead of being just one more team running the American empire.”

The Crisis Papers

Ernest Partridge: The 9/11 Conspiracy: a skeptic’s view (April 25, 2006)
“First of all, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission is a travesty. Too many phenomena are unexplained. The evidence must be revisited and validated, and the critics’ anomalies explained … Second, the critics of the official version should, as much as possible, get their facts straight, whereupon they must then cease presenting falsehoods as evidence; e.g., that the debris was shipped immediately, uninspected, to Asia; that the OV assumes and claims that steel melted; that no physical evidence of the plane was found at the Pentagon, etc.”

Debunking 911
“Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories and controlled demolition homepage.”
With links: 9/11 conspiracy debunking sites

Democracy Now!

9/11 Debate: ‘Loose Change’ filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics editors of ‘Debunking 9/11 Myths’ (September 11th, 2006)

The New Pearl Harbor: A debate on a new book that alleges the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks [David Ray Griffin versus Chip Berlet] (May 26th, 2004)

In These Times

Terry J. Allen: The 9/11 Faith Movement (July 11, 2006)
“Conspiracy hypotheses often consist of a vast pile of circumstantial evidence shaped into a seemingly coherent whole with the strong glue of faith. Debunk one or even many allegations and the pile still stands, impressive in its bulk and ideological coherence. If size were all, it would convince Pyrrho himself.”


Jump Cut

Christopher Sharrett: Without restraint: 9/11 videos and the pursuit of truth (No. 50, Spring 2008)
” This close critical reading of many of the prominent 9/11 Truth videos analyses 9/11 and the supporters and critics of the official narrative (left and right) within the context of past state-sanctioned crimes.”

John Molyneux’ blog

What’s wrong with conspiracy theories (September 18, 2011)
” … however understandable this phenomenon is, it is also a problem because conspiracy theories are an obstacle either to making sense of the world or to changing it. This article, therefore, will look at what is wrong with the conspiracy theory approach to the world.”

Journal of Debunking 9/11
“The Journal of Debunking 911 is a free online publication dedicated to educating the public on the collapse of the three World Trade Center structures on September 11 2001.”

Ryan Mackey: On debunking 9/11 debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s latest criticism of the NIST World Trade Center investigation (pdf) (Vol.1, No.4, May 2008, 313 p.)

Loose Change
“This film shows direct connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States government.”
Critique and debate:

Loose Change (film) (Wikipedia.org)

Screw Loose Change: Dedicated to exposing the lies, distortions and myths in the movie Loose Change

9/11 Debate: ‘Loose Change’ filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics editors of ‘Debunking 9/11 Myths’ (Democracy Now!, September 11th, 2006)

Le Monde Diplomatique

Alexander Cockburn: US: the conspiracy that wasn’t (December 2006)
“The left in the United States remains distracted by fantastic stories about conpiracies hatched by the Bush administration: in many of these, even the 9/11 attacks are believed to have been an inside job. Yet the chief, and most fearful, characteristic of the Bush administration has been its low level of practical management abroad and at home.”

Alexander Cockburn: Conspiracy disproved (December 2006)
“The conspiracy theory that the World Trade Centre towers were demolished by explosive charges previously placed within them is probably impossible.”

Pascal Lardellier: A tangled web (September 2006)
“The net is the perfect medium for counter-information, analysing available data on the 11 September attacks, challenging official findings on the events and exploiting conspiracy theories.”

The Nation

Christopher Hayes: 9/11: The roots of paranoi (December 25, 2006)
“Public paranoia and a credulous establishment media that have failed to aggressively report on 9/11 have allowed a cult-like ‘Truth Movement’ to fill in the gaps.”

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

NIST WTC 7 investigation finds building fires caused collapse (August 21, 2008)
“The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation.”

WTC Disaster Study

World Trade Center Study Frequently Asked Questions

9-11 Commission
“The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) ”¦ The Commission released its first interim report on July 8, 2003.”
The final report: The 9/11 Commission Report (July 2004, 585 p.)

Deborah J. Gerner and Chris Toensing: Editorial (Middle East Report, Issue 232, Fall 2004)

9/11 Report : Joint Congressional Inquiry
Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 – by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 24, 2003.

David Corn: The 9/11 investigation (The Nation, August 4, 2003)

Salim Muwakkil: Intelligence report (In These Times, August 4, 2003)

Seth Ackerman: Who knew? The unanswered questions of 9/11 (In These Times, September 3, 2003)

9-11 Research
“9-11 Research is an ongoing effort to discover the truth about the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 2001. To that end we provide a growing hypertext documentary of the attack and its aftermath, easily browsed archives of evidence, and a body of original analysis based on that evidence.”
“En af de mest seriøse konspirationsteoretikeres hjemmeside” (Ingeniøren)

NIST: World Trade Center Disaster Study
“In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7.”

Popular Mechanics

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – The World Trade Center (March, 2005)
“PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.”
The article is later expanded to a book: Debunking 9/11 myths. Edited by David Dunbar & Brad Reagan (New York, 2006, 170 p.)

The Progressive

Matthew Rothschild: Enough of the 9/11 conspiracies, already (September 11, 2006)
“At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific. It is more than passing strange that progressives, who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere. And they aren’t necessary to prove the venality of the Bush Administration. There’s plenty of that proof lying around. We don’t need to make it up.”

Public Eye

Theme: Post 9/11 Conspiracism
“9/11 conspiracy theories on the left suggest that the US government attacked the World Trade Center itself, while on the right some suggest that Jews planned it. Why are these and other conspiracy theories persisting? Five years after the devastating attacks on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories about the causes and culprits continue to spread. PRA Researcher Chip Berlet offers a roundup of what and why.”

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
“The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon. [We] believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.”
See also:

Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Scientific American

Steven Ashley: When the Twin Towers fell (October 09, 2001)
“One month after the attack on the World Trade Center, M.I.T. structural engineers offer their take on how and why the towers came down.”


Chris Mohr: 9/11 and the science of controlled demolitions (September 11, 2011)
“Is there any scientific validity to the claims of 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracists about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings?”

John Ray: How skeptics confronted 9/11 denialism (June 4, 2008)
“In just under four years, the 9/11 ‘truth movement’ has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest.”

Phil Molé: 9/11 conspiracy theories: the 9/11 Truth Movement in perspective (September 11, 2006)
“On the 5th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center, Phil Molé takes a look at the ‘9/11 Truth Movement’ and shares with us his experience attending a weekend conference held in Chicago, organized by 911truth.org.”

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9/11 conspiracy theories, with External links.

September 11, 2001 attacks

Collapse of the World Trade Center

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

World Socialist Web Site

Patrick Martin: What the September 11 commission hearings revealed, Part 1-4 (April 22, April 26, April 27 and 1 May 2004)
“The independent commission investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington has held five days of televised public hearings ”¦ The plausible answer is that at some level the US government stood down its defenses deliberately.”

Bill Vann: September 11: after two years, cover-up begins to unravel (11 September 2003)
“Today marks the second anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks ”¦. A myriad of unanswered questions persist about how the most powerful military-intelligence apparatus in the world failed to either detect such a terrorist plot or interfere with it once it was launched.”

Patrick Martin: Was the US government alerted to September 11 attack?, Part 1-4 (16 January, 18 January, 22 January and 24 January 2002)
“This series has reviewed evidence that US intelligence agencies had ample advance information about the September 11 attacks, from specific details of the methods and the likely targets to the identities of a number of the hijackers, including the alleged principal organizer, Mohammed Atta. There are other troubling and unresolved issues, such as the failure to scramble air defense fighters in time to intercept any of the jetliners.”
“Some critics of the left have dubbed serious political arguments as conspiracism, and a sensible response has been issued by the WSWS website” (Chip Berlet)

A World to Win

Paul Feldman: A conspiracy too far (18 July 2011). Review of Kathryn S. Holmsted, Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 (Oxford University Press, 2008)
“In some detail she covers the origins of US involvement in World War One, Pearl Harbour, McCarthyism in the 1950s, the Kennedy assassination, the Nixon/Watergate period, CIA conspiracies and secret experiments as well as 9/11.”

World War 4 Report

Bill Weinberg: 9-11 and the New Pearl Harbor (September 1, 2006)
“The mini-industry which has sprung up around 9-11 ‘conspiracy theory’ … has merely replicated the dogmatism of the ‘official version’. Worse, the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled ‘researchers’ is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the ‘official version’. The ostentatiously named ‘Truth movement’ is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.”


McNeill interview with Noam Chomsky (January 31, 2005)
“On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I’ll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time. As for the theories, I don’t think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly.” Scroll down.

Theme: Conspiracy theory debates
“After 9/11 the tremendous flurry of conspiracy reports, discussions, assertions, and explorations led to a few essays on ZNet, by ZNet regulars – and so some in other periodicals as well – assessing the whole approach of conspiracy theorizing. There was some debate as well.”
See here especially: Conspiracies or institutions: 9-11 and beyond. By Stephen R. Shalom and Michael Albert (June 2, 2002)


Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy theories (2006, 4:46 min.)

Noam Chomsky discusses 9/11 conspiracy theorists (7:25 min.)

See also

Conspiracism (PublicEye.org)
“Topic Portal Page.”

John Rees: Conspiracy theory: the answer is more left-wing theory not less (Counterfire, March 4, 2019). “Ruling class power can’t be understood as a conspiracy.”



Indtast din kommentar
Indtast dit navn her

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.