A Guide to the 9/11 Truth Movement

Most reliable sites:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

actual academic/scientific articles, weighing probability of accuracy of each piece of evidence

http://911research.wtc7.net/

analysis sounds trustworthy, not simply conspiracy theories
talks intelligently about the fires (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/index.html) and the design (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)
also has large collection of photos

http://www.911review.com/

summary of coverup and lies
history of all 9/11-related events since the 90s
uses quotes from actual news articles and testimony
companion website to http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://www.oilempire.us/

points out flaws in other pro-demolition-theory/anti-official-story sites
also http://www.oilempire.us/cointelpro.html for other hoaxes (in a similar fashion as http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

exact quotes from news sources
mostly mainstream but no reason to suspect lying or deliberate conspiracy
good for fact-checking

The official story:

Pro-demolition-theory/anti-official-story (demolition theorists claiming the official story is a conspiracy):

http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_9-11_index.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html: FEMA was in New York on Sept. 10

http://www.oilempire.us/movies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Conspiracy
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

C4 explosives planted in steel during construction of towers
tops of towers tipping the wrong way
very interesting picture of part of concrete core still standing momemtarily after steel as collapsed/fallen away

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

explosives normally planted in tall buildings during construction of in order to aid demolition

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
http://serendipity.nofadz.com/wtc.htm
http://www.911review.com/index.html
http://killtown.911review.org/oddities.html

"coincidences" leading up to 9/11

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

articles

http://nomoregames.net/

provides collapse article as well as links to other sites, many of which I've been to

http://thewebfairy.com/

discredited by http://911research.wtc7.net/
good pictures of History Channel's controlled demolitions, though

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

challenge to disprove demolition theory
a summary of evidence which is the ultimate disproval of the "pancake" theory

http://www.physics911.net/

600% redundancy of steel core
why cellphone calls were faked
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm analyzes collapse mechanism of thermite theory and possibility that the towers were designed for easy placement of explosives

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2487

ways explosives could have been planted

http://www.serendipity.li/

discredited by http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/nt_impact.html

http://www.911review.org/

discredited by http://www.911review.com/911review/index.html

http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/ka_fucking_boom/ciametc.html

discredited by http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=585, but thermobarics article seems accurate

http://www.reopen911.org/

unfortunately promotes "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax

Anti-demolition-theory/pro-official-story ("myth debunkers" claiming the demolition theorists are wrong):

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

the official engineering explanation
attributes progressive collapse to buckling of steel weakened from the fires
believes the towers had too much inertia to topple sideways

however, note that the greater mass would also lead to a greater force of gravity, and therefore a greater torque on any unstable part of the towers (such as the top section of the South tower, which began to rotate)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://911motive.tripod.com/

inward "bowing" of perimeter columns right before collision

however, note that since only the core was destroyed, of course the tower would have started to implode

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

where http://911motive.tripod.com/ gets its info

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

Pro-demolition-theory/anti-anti-demolition-theory ("myth debunkers' myth debunkers" claiming the "myth debunkers" are wrong):

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

temp. of burning jet fuel is 536°F

http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.911wideopen.com/

recommended by http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html for debunking "pod" theories

Flaws in pro-demolition-theory/anti-official-story pointed out by other pro-demolition-theory/anti-official-story:

http://www.oilempire.us/movies.html

"911busters.com/911-Commission.html
911 busters has a lot of great information on line, but it also pushes the no plane hoax (so be careful!)"

http://www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html

"promoters of "no plane" hoaxes
sabotaged the 9/11 truth movement"
"911truth.org" promotes Metro "passengers exclaiming that they had seen the Pentagon Missile while waiting for a train at the Pentagon Metro station -- which is underground"
general info about historical hoaxes

http://www.911wideopen.com/

recommended by http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html for debunking "pod" theories

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

recommended by http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html for debunking "no planes", "pod", and "UFO/whatzit" theories

Neutral/ambivalent:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

very detailed timelines of all major 9/11 events
confirmation that Flight 93 shot down by F-16 fighter jet or, more likely, missile
confirmation of mysterious white jet flying low and C-130 military cargo jet nearby
recommended by http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/2004.html

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Palisades observatory seismometer recordings showing earthquakes prior to collapse

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/

article describing the various alternatives to the official story
presents good demolition theory arguments but doesn't seem to believe them himself
statistics of who New Yorkers blame for 9/11

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

article with statistics on number of Americans believing alternate 9/11 theories
unfortunately, the graph of anger at government is misleading:

the years on the X axis aren't spaced evenly
the Y axis doesn't start at 0

Debate/forums:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=495

nuclear, thermite, thermobarics, and gravity collapse discussed (John A. is the main skeptic of the demolition theories)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=570 has a picture of the warping of the steel when the South Tower began to rotate (it looks like the break in the Titanic, except that the Titanic did not disintegrate), and discusses creation of a simple fusor (fusion reaction that doesn't require fission to start it), but has a very convincing description of why thermobarics were used
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=645 describes why a plane (or a plane and a missile) hit the pentagon, but also obsesses about "nuclear devices"
MMC and Barkley seem to be the most trustworthy posters

http://www.majorwager.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=84&threadid=156301&enterthread=y&STARTPAGE=2

hoaxes (i.e. "no planes" theories) and their promoters' credibility discussed

Mainstream sites with evidence for demolition:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/08/28/steel_type_in_wtc_met_standards_group_says?mode=PF

"Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers"

http://www.nceplus.co.uk/fastsearch/ArchiveArticleAssetPT/?AID=22081

"NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations."
"'NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost'"

http://www.csmonitor.com/slideshows/upfromgroundzero/intro.html

mentions explosive nature of collapse ("as the 100-story buildings tumbled--explosively--to the ground")

You are visitor number since 9/11/2006.