9/11 Truth Movement - Internal Critiques

Internal Critiques

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals within the United States government may have played a role in some aspects of the attacks, whether it be cover-up or complicity, alternative theories differ about what may have happened. There have been a number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the methods and theories of other members in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Sites such as 911 Research and 911 Review typically include essays or pages analyzing claims in the movement which are erroneous, have little basis in evidence, or which appear to misinform readers.

While Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice states that they advocate the use of the scientific method and civil research activities over public debate, Jim Fetzer's group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "has emphasized that science can only proceed by considering a full range of alternative hypotheses", and held a conference which invited the public to "review the most hotly debated 9/11 theories and evidence". The range of hypotheses considered at the conference held by Fetzer's group was described in a Madison Times article, which stated: "Saturday focused on many of the more popular theories, beginning with inconsistencies at the site of the Pentagon crash and moving on to a controlled demolition of the towers. By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never existed at all."