Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T15:32:30.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012


Following Clarke (2002), a Lakatosian approach is used to account for the epistemic development of conspiracy theories. It is then argued that the hypercritical atmosphere of the internet has slowed down the development of conspiracy theories, discouraging conspiracy theorists from articulating explicit versions of their favoured theories, which could form the hard core of Lakatosian research programmes. The argument is illustrated with a study of the “controlled demolition” theory of the collapse of three towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Asquith, Christina. 2006. “Who Really Blew Up the Twin Towers?” The Guardian, 5 September. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from,,1864657,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bažant, Zdeněk and Mathieu, Verdure. 2007. “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center & Building Demolitions.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics 133(3): 308–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Carl and Bob, Woodward. 1974. All the President's Men. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2001. Thomas Kuhn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Blanchard, Brent. 2006. “A Critical Analysis of The Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint.” Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 1(2): 111.Google Scholar
Brewer-Giorgio, Gail. 1988. Is Elvis Alive? New York: Tudor.Google Scholar
Clarke, Steve. 2002. “Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32: 131–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Steve. 2006. “Appealing to the Fundamental Attribution Error: Was it All a Big Mistake?” In Coady, D. (ed.), Conspiracy Theories: the Philosophical Debate, pp. 135–40. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Coady, David. 2003. “Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17: 197209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, Kimberley. 1997. The Jew of Linz – Wittgenstein, Hitler and their Secret Battle for the Mind. London: Random House.Google Scholar
Dunbar, David and Brad, Reagan. (eds.) 2006. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. New York: Hearst.Google Scholar
Goodman, Amy. 2004. “The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks.” Democracy Now, 26 May. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from Scholar
Griffin, David Ray. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, David Ray. 2005. “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, Authorised Version (with references and notes).” Retrieved August 6, 2007, from Scholar
Griffin, David Ray. 2006. Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, David Ray. 2007. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, David Ray and Richard, Falk. 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Northampton, MA: Interlink.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1971. The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Hufschmid, Eric. 2002. “Painful Questions.” Endpoint Software. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from Scholar
Jones, Steven E. 2006. “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?Journal of 9/11 Studies 3: 147.Google Scholar
Jones, Steven E. 2007. “Revisiting 9/11/2001 – Applying the Scientific Method.” Journal of 9/11 Studies 11: 5581.Google Scholar
Keeley, Brian. 1999. “Of Conspiracy Theories.” The Journal of Philosophy 96: 109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kunst, Heinke, Groot, Diederik, Latthe, Pallavi, Latthe, Manish, and Khalid, Khan. 2002. “Accuracy of Information on Apparently Credible Websites: Survey of Five Common Health Topics.” British Medical Journal 32: 581–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Research Programmes.” In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 91195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Mark. 1966. Rush to Judgement: A Critique of the Warren Commission's Inquiry into the Murders of John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald. Austin, TX: Holt Rhinehart.Google Scholar
McMichael, J. 2001. “Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!” Public Action News Service. October 21, Revised November 25, 2001. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from Scholar
Morello, Carol. 2004. “Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet.” The Washington Post, October 7th, p. B01. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from–2004Oct6?language=printer.Google Scholar
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.9– Scholar
National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2006. “Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Frequently Asked Questions.” Retrieved August 6, 2007, from Scholar
Partridge, Ernest. 2006. “The 9/11 Conspiracy: a Skeptic's View.” The Crisis Papers. April 27. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from–29.htm.Google Scholar
Pigden, Charles. 1995. “Popper Revisited, or What is Wrong with Conspiracy Theories.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 25: 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vedder, Anton and Robert, Wachbroit. 2003. “Reliability of Information on the Internet: Some Distinctions.” Ethics and Information Technology 5: 211–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walch, Tad. 2006. “Controversy Dogs Y.'s Jones”. Utah News. 9 September. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from,1249,645200098,00.htmlGoogle Scholar