How 9/11 became a hotbed for conspiracy theories that experts STILL have to debunk years later
Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, researchers and engineers are still working to debunk conspiracy theories that emerged almost immediately after the World Trade Center towers collapsed. David Dunbar, an investigator who co-authored Popular Mechanics' widely cited 2005 debunking, told the Daily Mail that persuading committed conspiracy theorists remains extremely difficult, as many are too emotionally and psychologically invested in alternative explanations to accept expert findings. He traced much of the movement's origins to broadcaster Alex Jones, who claimed within hours of the attacks that the towers had been brought down by controlled demolition rather than the plane strikes.
Investigators from the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that the planes severed utility shafts in the towers' cores, spreading burning jet fuel that fed fires for 56 minutes before both structures collapsed within six minutes of each other. This directly contradicted claims that the impacts occurred too high to cause structural failure. Dunbar also addressed the popular claim that "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams," explaining that while jet fuel's burning temperature does fall short of steel's melting point, the steel did not need to melt — it only needed to lose enough structural strength to bend and buckle, which prolonged fires achieved.
- Experts still debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories 25 years after the attacks
- Alex Jones pushed early "controlled demolition" claims about the Twin Towers
- NIST found jet fuel fires weakened steel enough to cause collapse, not melting
New here? Start with this
Since 2001, the September 11 attacks have generated a persistent set of alternative theories about how and why the World Trade Center towers collapsed, alongside the official account that hijacked planes brought the buildings down. These theories, including claims that the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than the plane impacts and fires, took hold within hours of the attacks and have circulated widely ever since, helped along by early broadcasters and later by the internet and social media.
Official investigations, including detailed engineering studies by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, examined how the buildings actually failed, looking at factors such as fire duration, damage to internal structures and the behaviour of steel under extreme heat. Researchers and engineers have used this evidence to respond to specific claims made by sceptics of the official account, though such rebuttals stretch back two decades.
The subject remains significant because 9/11 was one of the most consequential events of recent history, reshaping security policy, foreign affairs and public life in many countries, and the conspiracy theories surrounding it are often cited as an early and influential example of how misinformation can take hold and persist despite detailed technical evidence.