Was 9/11 an inside job?
The records read show al Qaeda hijackers carried out the attacks, and that the CIA failed to act on what it knew, which it admits. Saudi help to two hijackers and informed put-option trading are disputed; demolition of WTC 7 rests on no independent record; a missile at the Pentagon is contradicted.
- ✓ Confirmed11 Sep 2001Nineteen al Qaeda hijackers take over four airliners; two hit the Twin Towers and one crashes in Pennsylvania
- ✓ ConfirmedJan 2000 – Aug 2001The CIA tracks two future hijackers but does not watchlist them until late August 2001
- DisputedTheoryPeople working for the Saudi government knowingly helped the hijackers
- DisputedTheorySomeone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited from trades
- UnverifiedTheoryWTC 7 was brought down deliberately with explosives or incendiaries
- ✕ DisprovenTheorySomething other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
Nineteen hijackers flew four airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001, and 2,973 people died. This case reads the official story and the five biggest theories against the same records, including what the CIA, the FBI and the military later admitted or were caught getting wrong.
The question Who carried out the attacks of 11 September 2001, what did the US government know beforehand, did anyone help the hijackers, and do the claims of an inside job hold up against the records?
What the records say
The documented story holds up: 14 of 14 timeline steps are Confirmed by the records (score 100).
5 theories checked: 1 disproven, 2 unverified, 2 disputed. A theory is rated by its key claim.
A federal judge lets the families' lawsuit against Saudi Arabia go forward
confirmedCredible: two independent tier-2 reports. See the step
Down the rabbit hole
The ground line is the documented timeline. Each tunnel is a theory that branches off it; every chamber is a step, coloured by how well the records support it. The deepest chamber is the theory’s key claim. Tap one to open it.
Main timeline
Oldest first- Jan 2000 – Aug 2001confirmed
The CIA tracks two future hijackers but does not watchlist them until late August 2001
The CIA knew in early January 2000 that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar had gone to a meeting of suspected terrorists in Malaysia, and that one had a US visa. Its own Inspector General found officers did not recommend watchlisting them in time and that “there was no coherent, functioning watchlisting program”. The 9/11 Commission found the same lost trail.
T1CIA Inspector General, accountability report, June 2005pp. xiii–xivinvolved party: Central Intelligence AgencyT19/11 Commission Report, 2004p. 266 - 1 Feb 2000confirmed
Hazmi and Mihdhar meet Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi, at a restaurant near Los Angeles, and he helps them settle in San Diego
Bayoumi was supported by a contractor for the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, where he had worked for over 20 years. The Commission wrote: “We do not know whether the lunch encounter occurred by chance or design.” A 2016 FBI memo and a 2025 court ruling later read it differently (see the Saudi branch).
T19/11 Commission Report, 2004pp. 217–218T2CBS News, 12 Sep 2021 - 6 Aug 2001confirmed
The President's daily brief carries an item titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US”
It was the 36th brief item that year on Bin Ladin or al Qaeda and the first about an attack inside the United States. It said FBI information showed “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings”. President Bush told the Commission it was “historical in nature”.
T19/11 Commission Report, 2004pp. 260–262 - 6–10 Sep 2001confirmed
Purchases of put options on the parent companies of United and American Airlines surge days before the attacks
Put options pay off only if a share price falls. The Commission calls the volume “highly suspicious trading on its face” for United's parent on 6 September and American's on 10 September, then explains why it says the trades were innocent (see the put-options branch).
T19/11 Commission Report, 2004p. 499, n. 130 - 11 Sep 2001confirmed
Nineteen al Qaeda hijackers take over four airliners; two hit the Twin Towers and one crashes in Pennsylvania
American 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46:40 and United 175 the South Tower at 9:03:11. United 93 crashed near Shanksville at 10:03:11 after the passengers fought back. The Commission timed each impact from radar and other records.
T19/11 Commission Report, 2004pp. 7–8, 30, 32–33 - 11 Sep 2001, 9:37confirmed
American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the west wall of the Pentagon
The Commission puts the impact at 9:37:46 after a 330-degree descending turn. All 64 people aboard and 125 in the building died. Security-camera stills of the impact were released in March 2002.
T19/11 Commission Report, 2004pp. 9–10, 314T2BBC News, 8 Mar 2002 - 11 Sep 2001confirmed
Both towers collapse; 2,973 people are killed in the attacks
The South Tower fell at 9:58:59 and the North Tower at 10:28. The Commission counts 2,973 dead, including 343 New York firefighters, 37 Port Authority police and 23 New York police officers.
T19/11 Commission Report, 2004pp. 285, 305, 311 - 11 Sep 2001, 5:20 p.m.confirmed
World Trade Center 7, a 47-storey building not hit by a plane, collapses after burning for almost seven hours
It had been evacuated and no one died in it. It housed the city's emergency operations office and, the BBC reported, local offices of the CIA, the Defense Department and the Secret Service. NIST times the collapse at 5:20:52 p.m.
T1NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC 7 report, Nov 2008p. xxxvinvolved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)T2BBC, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11, 16 Feb 2007“Was WTC7 deliberately demolished”T19/11 Commission Report, 2004p. 305 - 2002 – Jan 2003confirmed
Congress's joint inquiry finds hijackers got help from people who “may be connected” to the Saudi government, and that section is kept secret
Part Four of the House and Senate intelligence committees' joint inquiry found hijackers “received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government”, but said it did not test that information itself. It was the report's only wholly classified section and stayed secret until 2016.
- Jul 2004confirmed
The 9/11 Commission reports, and finds that earlier official accounts of the air defence response were wrong
It says “inaccurate government accounts” made it look as if the military had time to respond to two hijackings, and that NORAD statements about why fighters were scrambled “were incorrect”. It also found the CIA director's testimony to Congress on sharing a key identification with the FBI was not true.
T19/11 Commission Report, 2004pp. 34, 267T2BBC, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11, 16 Feb 2007“Could the US Air Force have prevented the attacks?” - Sep 2005confirmed
NIST says plane damage, stripped fireproofing and fire brought the towers down, and finds no evidence of demolition
Its report says the towers would have stood but for the dislodged fireproofing and multi-floor fires, and that “NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses” of controlled demolition.
T1NIST NCSTAR 1, towers report, Sep 2005pp. xxxvii, 146involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute) - 15 Jul 2016confirmed
The 28 secret pages are released, with redactions
The House Intelligence Committee posted the declassified section. Its chairman said it holds “unverified leads” rather than vetted conclusions; the ranking member said the investigators who followed were never able to find enough evidence to support them.
- Sep 2021confirmed
A presidential order forces out an FBI memo on Saudi help to two hijackers that had been withheld from the victims' families
Executive Order 14040 (3 Sep 2021) ordered review of an FBI memo of 4 Apr 2016 that had been “identified but withheld in full during discovery” in the families' lawsuit. Released on 11 September, it describes “significant logistic support” to Hazmi and Mihdhar.
T1Executive Order 14040, 3 Sep 2021sec. 2(a)involved party: US executive branch (its FBI had withheld the record the order names)T2CBS News, 12 Sep 2021T2NPR, 12 Sep 2021 - 28 Aug 2025confirmed
A federal judge lets the families' lawsuit against Saudi Arabia go forward
Judge George Daniels found “reasonable evidence” that Bayoumi and the Saudi imam Fahad al-Thumairy were employed by the kingdom to help the hijackers, so Saudi Arabia is not immune from suit. The ruling decides jurisdiction only; the claims must still be proved at trial, and Saudi Arabia denies them.
Branches
Go down oneA branch is only as strong as its weakest step so far. The count is how many sources back each step.
“Building 7 was a controlled demolition”
Was World Trade Center 7 brought down on purpose with explosives or incendiaries, rather than by fire?
The New York Times reported in June 2006 that controlled demolition was “the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement”. The BBC later wrote that once the official tower report came out, the focus shifted to Building 7.
- 15% Americans who believe a wider conspiracy including the US government was behind 9/11 (GfK NOP for the BBC) as of Jul 2011 T2BBC News, 29 Aug 2011
- 3,667 Architects and engineers listed on the AE911Truth petition for a new investigation (the group's own count) as of 17 Oct 2026 T3AE911Truth home page, petition counter
- 36,019 Members of the public listed on the same petition (the group's own count) as of 17 Oct 2026 T3AE911Truth home page, petition counter
- 912,448 YouTube views, “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out” (AE911Truth) as of 17 Oct 2026 T3YouTube: AE911Truth, “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”, 2012
- 495,298 YouTube views, “Solving the Mystery of Building 7” (AE911Truth) as of 17 Oct 2026 T3YouTube: AE911Truth, “Solving the Mystery of Building 7”, 2015
- 420,643 YouTube views, “SEVEN”, the AE911Truth Building 7 film as of 17 Oct 2026 T3YouTube: AE911Truth, “SEVEN”, 2021
- 181,759 Wikipedia views, “World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories”, Oct 2025 to Sep 2026 as of 17 Oct 2026 T1Wikimedia page views, “World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories”
Building 7 fell at free-fall speed for over two seconds
Free fall means nothing below was resisting, which proponents say no natural collapse can produce. They say NIST first denied it.
The premise: confirmedTrue. NIST's final report says the north face fell “at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s” over about eight storeys. NIST's own FAQ confirms its August 2008 draft had instead said the fall took 40% longer than free fall, and that it re-measured after public comment. NIST attributes the free-fall stage to buckled exterior columns giving “negligible support”.
T1NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC 7 report, Nov 2008pp. 45, 48involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)T1NIST, questions and answers on the WTC 7 investigationQ. 6, Q. 32involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)No tall steel building had ever totally collapsed from fire
Building 7 was not hit by a plane, so fire alone would be unprecedented.
The premise: confirmedTrue, and NIST says so itself: it calls WTC 7 “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires”. A 2007 BBC report adds that FEMA's earlier fire hypothesis was, by FEMA's own account, of low probability.
T1NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC 7 report, Nov 2008p. xxxvinvolved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)T2BBC, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11, 16 Feb 2007“Was WTC7 deliberately demolished”A four-year university study found fire did not cause the collapse
The University of Alaska Fairbanks study modelled the building and NIST's own collapse scenario.
T2Hulsey, Quan and Xiao, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2020abstractinvolved party: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (funded the study and campaigns for a new investigation)The premise: confirmedTrue that it concluded “fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11” and that every column failed almost at once. It was funded by AE911Truth, the group making the claim ($316,153), and is a university report, not a journal paper. It says its result is contrary to NIST and to private engineering firms that studied the collapse.
T2Hulsey, Quan and Xiao, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2020abstract, pp. ii–iii, 3involved party: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (funded the study and campaigns for a new investigation)T2University of Alaska Fairbanks, WTC 7 project pageThe 9/11 Commission report never mentions that Building 7 collapsed
The official report on the attacks is silent on the third tower to fall.
The premise: confirmedTrue on our search of the report's full text: the building appears only as the headquarters of the city's emergency office, never its collapse. The Commission's task was the attacks and the government's response; the building study was left to NIST.
T19/11 Commission Report, 2004full textNO TIEROur text search of the 9/11 Commission Report
- confirmed
NIST's 2008 report says fire, not explosives, brought down WTC 7
It says thermal expansion from uncontrolled office fires led to the failure of one critical column, Column 79, and then the whole building. On explosives it says “NIST concluded that blast events did not occur”, arguing the smallest charge would have been heard half a mile away.
T1NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC 7 report, Nov 2008pp. xxxv–xxxvi, 48–49involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)StartStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - confirmed
NIST's final report concedes 2.25 seconds of free fall that its draft had not
The August 2008 draft gave a collapse time 40% longer than free fall; the November 2008 final report, after public comment, describes a free-fall stage of about eight storeys. NIST says this did not change its findings.
T1NIST, questions and answers on the WTC 7 investigationQ. 6, Q. 32involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)T1NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC 7 report, Nov 2008p. 48involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - confirmed
A 2020 study funded by AE911Truth says fire could not have caused the collapse
Hulsey and colleagues at the University of Alaska Fairbanks say NIST's key girder could not have walked off its seat and that the collapse was a “near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building”.
T2Hulsey, Quan and Xiao, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2020pp. 3–5involved party: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (funded the study and campaigns for a new investigation)T2University of Alaska Fairbanks, WTC 7 project page= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - disputed
Whether fire alone could have caused the collapse is disputed on the records
The only two detailed analyses read disagree, and each comes from a party: NIST, whose investigation is in question, and a study paid for by the group making the claim.
T1NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC 7 report, Nov 2008p. 48involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)T2Hulsey, Quan and Xiao, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2020p. 3involved party: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (funded the study and campaigns for a new investigation)▼ WeakerStrength so far:disputed· 2 sources on this step - unverified
Key claim: WTC 7 was brought down deliberately with explosives or incendiaries
No record read shows explosives, an explosive sound of the size NIST says would be needed, or anyone placing charges. Even the study funded by proponents concludes only that every column failed at once, not who or what caused it.
T2Hulsey, Quan and Xiao, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2020abstractinvolved party: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (funded the study and campaigns for a new investigation)T1NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC 7 report, Nov 2008p. xxxviinvolved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)▼ WeakerStrength so far:unverified· 2 sources on this step
Bullshit meter
- Key claim: WTC 7 was brought down deliberately with explosives or incendiaries. Unverified.
- Key claim contradicted by tier 1? Not by an independent record. NIST, whose own investigation is in question, rejects explosives; the only full re-analysis, paid for by the claim's main proponents, says fire could not have done it. No independent record shows explosives were used.
Fluff meter: possibly planted
- Can’t be traced to an original record. Absent: it rests on real records, chiefly NIST's own measurements and video of the collapse.
- First appeared from new or anonymous accounts. Not measured.
- Coordinated identical wording. Not measured.
- Cited source doesn’t exist. Absent: the NIST reports, the FAQ and the Alaska study all exist and were read.
- Later contradicted. Not measured by an independent record: the only rebuttal read is NIST's own.
● present · ○ absent · – not measured. Lists signals only. It never accuses anyone.
Personal interest meter
- National Institute of Standards and Technology, its own investigation is what the claim disputes; it changed its free-fall account between draft and final report. T1NIST, questions and answers on the WTC 7 investigationQ. 32involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute)
- Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, funded the Alaska study ($316,153) and campaigns for a new investigation. T2University of Alaska Fairbanks, WTC 7 project page
“Has a documented interest” only, each one sourced. Never an implication of guilt.
Correlation meter
- Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, The same two hijackers are at the centre of the CIA's watchlisting failure (foreknowledge) and of the Saudi-support question. T1CIA Inspector General, accountability report, June 2005p. xiiiinvolved party: Central Intelligence Agency
- Agency testimony found untrue (see the JFK case), As with the CIA's handling of the Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commission found the CIA director's testimony to Congress on a key point “was not the case”. T19/11 Commission Report, 2004p. 267
Links to other cases appear once those cases exist.
Who worked on this
This case was assembled by the site from public records. Contributions are not open yet. Nothing here is invented, so the counts are zero.
This is the first published version of the case.
Sources
- T1The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (created by Public Law 107-306, 27 Nov 2002). Read in full from the Commission's PDF (file created 17 Jul 2004); page numbers are the printed page numbers.. www.9-11commission.gov
- T1involved party: Central Intelligence Agency Office of Inspector General Report on Central Intelligence Agency Accountability Regarding Findings and Conclusions of the Report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, IG 2003-0005-IN, June 2005; redacted version approved for release 19 Mar 2015 (document C06184107). Read from the FOIA copy posted by The Black Vault; page numbers are the executive-summary page numbers.. documents.theblackvault.com
- T1Report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (House and Senate intelligence committees), Part Four, “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters”, pp. 415–443, declassified with redactions and posted 15 Jul 2016, with the inquiry leaders' covering letter of 29 Jan 2003 to the Director of Central Intelligence. Scanned images read by eye; page numbers are the printed report page numbers.. intelligence.house.gov
- T1“Intel Committee publishes declassified ‘28 pages’”, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 15 Jul 2016, with statements by Chairman Devin Nunes and Ranking Member Adam Schiff. intelligence.house.gov
- T1involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute) NIST NCSTAR 1, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005, 298 pp. Page numbers are the printed page numbers.. nvlpubs.nist.gov
- T1involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute) NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 2008, 130 pp. Page numbers are the printed page numbers.. nvlpubs.nist.gov
- T1involved party: National Institute of Standards and Technology (its own World Trade Center investigation is what the demolition claims dispute) “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation”, National Institute of Standards and Technology (dated 19 Sep 2011, updated 10 Sep 2021; page updated 5 Apr 2022). www.nist.gov
- T2involved party: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (funded the study and campaigns for a new investigation) J. L. Hulsey, Z. Quan and F. Xiao, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Final Report”, Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, INE Report 18.17, March 2020, prepared for and funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. A university report with two named external reviewers, not a journal paper. Page numbers are the printed page numbers.. files.wtc7report.org · copy read: ine.uaf.edu
- T2“World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7): A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7”, project page of the Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks (lists funding, budget and dates). ine.uaf.edu
- T3“Free-Fall Acceleration | World Trade Center Building 7”, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website. A record of what the group argues.. ae911truth.org
- T3Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth home page, petition counter (“Join thousands of other architects and engineers in calling for a new investigation”). The counts are the group's own.. www.ae911truth.org
- T3“Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 - w/ Ed Asner”, AE911Truth channel, YouTube, published 25 Feb 2015. www.youtube.com
- T3“SEVEN | The New 9/11 Building 7 Film | Watch It Today”, AE911Truth channel, YouTube, published 21 Jul 2021. www.youtube.com
- T3“9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (Free 1-hour version) AE911Truth.org”, AE911Truth channel, YouTube, published 6 Sep 2012. www.youtube.com
- T1Wikimedia REST API page-view counts (English Wikipedia, all access, human users), article “World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories”, monthly, Oct 2025 to Sep 2026. wikimedia.org
- T1Wikimedia REST API page-view counts (English Wikipedia, all access, human users), article “9/11: The Big Lie” (Thierry Meyssan's book), monthly, Oct 2025 to Sep 2026. wikimedia.org
- T1Wikimedia REST API page-view counts (English Wikipedia, all access, human users), article “September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories”, whose first section is on insider trading, monthly, Oct 2025 to Sep 2026. wikimedia.org
- T1Wikimedia REST API page-view counts (English Wikipedia, all access, human users), article “Able Danger”, monthly, Oct 2025 to Sep 2026. wikimedia.org
- T1Wikimedia REST API page-view counts (English Wikipedia, all access, human users), article “Omar al-Bayoumi”, monthly, Oct 2025 to Sep 2026. wikimedia.org
- T1Wikimedia REST API page-view counts (English Wikipedia, all access, human users), article “The 28 pages”, monthly, Oct 2025 to Sep 2026. wikimedia.org
- T2Mike Rudin, “Why the 9/11 conspiracies have changed”, BBC News Magazine, 29 Aug 2011 (reports a GfK NOP telephone poll for BBC's The Conspiracy Files, July 2011, 1,000 adults each in the UK and US). www.bbc.co.uk
- T2“9/11 conspiracy theories”, BBC News, The Conspiracy Files companion page, last updated 16 Feb 2007. news.bbc.co.uk
- T2“US releases 9/11 Pentagon video”, BBC News, last updated 16 May 2006. news.bbc.co.uk
- T2Paul Reynolds, “Conspiracy theorists down but not out”, BBC News, last updated 17 May 2006. news.bbc.co.uk
- T2“In pictures: Pentagon crash”, BBC News, 8 Mar 2002 (five security-camera stills, AP). news.bbc.co.uk
- T2Jon Henley, “US invented air attack on Pentagon, claims French book”, The Guardian, 1 Apr 2002. www.theguardian.com
- T2Chris McGreal, “9/11 conspiracy theories debunked”, The Guardian, 5 Sep 2011 (lists the main claims, including insider trading in the airlines' stock). www.theguardian.com
- T2Alan Feuer, “500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11”, The New York Times, 5 Jun 2006 (reports two Zogby International polls). www.nytimes.com
- T1involved party: Department of Defense (its officials' handling of Able Danger is what the allegations question) Report of Investigation, “Alleged Misconduct by Senior DoD Officials Concerning the Able Danger Program and Lieutenant Colonel Anthony A. Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve”, Case H05L97905217, Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Investigations, Department of Defense, 18 Sep 2006. The official copy returned an error; read from the copy released by the Defense Intelligence Agency under FOIA (12 Jan 2021) and posted by The Black Vault. Page numbers are the printed page numbers.. media.defense.gov · copy read: documents2.theblackvault.com
- T3“Weldon Rejects DoD Report on ABLE DANGER and Harassment of Military Officer”, statement of U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, 21 Sep 2006, as posted by the Federation of American Scientists. A record of what he states.. irp.fas.org
- T2Laura Sullivan, “Biden Declassifies Secret FBI Report Detailing Saudi Nationals' Connections To 9/11”, NPR, 12 Sep 2021. www.npr.org
- T2Catherine Herridge and Andres Triay, “FBI's investigation into 9/11: First document released following Biden's promise to declassify materials”, CBS News, updated 12 Sep 2021. www.cbsnews.com
- T1involved party: US executive branch (its FBI had withheld the record the order names) Executive Order 14040 of September 3, 2021, “Declassification Reviews of Certain Documents Concerning the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”, 86 FR 50439 (9 Sep 2021). Read in the Federal Register's full-text edition.. www.federalregister.gov · copy read: www.federalregister.gov
- T2Aaron Katersky, “Federal judge in New York allows families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia”, ABC7 New York / ABC News, 29 Aug 2025 (on the ruling of 28 Aug 2025 in In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, S.D.N.Y.). abc7ny.com
- T2William S. Dodge (George Washington University Law School), “District Court Denies Saudi Arabia's Motion to Dismiss 9/11 Claims”, Transnational Litigation Blog, 2025 (summarises and quotes Judge Daniels's decision). tlblog.org
- T328Pages.org, “Saudi government links to 9/11 shouldn't stay secret” (home page, founded by Brian McGlinchey). A record of what the campaign argues.. 28pages.org
- T1Allen M. Poteshman, “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”, The Journal of Business 79 (4), July 2006, pp. 1703–1726 (doi 10.1086/503645). Peer-reviewed; only the abstract was read, from the RePEc record because the publisher's page blocked access.. doi.org · copy read: ideas.repec.org
- NO TIEROur own text search (17 Oct 2026) of the full text layer of the Commission's PDF (586 PDF pages; 13 of them, all title pages, maps or photo pages, carry little or no text) for “WTC 7”, “7 WTC”, “Building 7”, “7 World Trade”, “WTC7”, “Salomon”, “47-story” and “5:20”. Only “7 WTC” occurs (5 times), each time as the city emergency office's headquarters.