ConclusionThe events of September 11, like most of the crimes organized by the state, have two aspects: the terrorist acts themselves and their cover.The organized cover was multilateral, it involved some organizations, but the central and most important part of the cover was the Report of the Commission for the Investigation of the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Acts. The September 11 commission for the investigation of the September 11 attacks was considered independent (it was given the unofficial name Independent Commission 9/11) and diligently played this role. For example, in the prolog to the Report of Commission, Thomas Kean, the chairman and Hamilton the Vice-chairman mentions that it was assayed to be autonomous, neutral, and accusative. Although most Americans originally divided this confidence, 42 percent of Americans believe that the Commission 9/11 concealed facts that contradict the official version of the September 11 attacks4. Below paper will explain why the Report of the Commission 9/11 is, in fact, a cover of giant proportions (Claassen 359–364).Competing Conspiracy TheoriesThere are two main interpretations of the events of September 11, and both are conspiracy theories. The official interpretation states, acts of terrorism were planned by Al-Qaeda independently, and Osama bin Laden was the leader of these attacks. According to an alternative interpretation, the terrorist acts could not be carried out without the support of the US government.Most people who have not read the Commission Report probably assume that the commission has studied all the relevant evidence to find out which of the theories is more likely to correspond to reality. Keene and Hamilton imply this when they say that the commission sought to give a complete assessment of the events connected with the September 11 attacks. In fact, the commission simply assumed the truth of the official conspiracy theory, thus limiting itself to an account of those events that could confirm this theory. All the facts that would prove an alternative theory, according to which the September 11 attacks were carried out with the support of the US government, were either omitted or distorted. I will give some examples.Hijackers and Osama bin LadenThe official version of the hijacking of planes by nineteen Arabs raises many questions. One of those questions is that although these people were portrayed as supremely righteous Muslims, Atta and some others consumed cocaine, alcohol, loved pork, gambling, and striptease as mentioned by Wall Street Journal. The second is that, according to reports, several hijackers remained alive after 11 September. Whatever it was, the commission would have to check the veracity of this information. But the commission does not mention them (Gil-Rivas, Virginia et al. 1063–1068).There are also a lot of questions about the allegations that Osama bin Laden directed the terrorist attacks. And the questions are, in fact, very serious, because on the official FBI website about Osama bin Laden there are no September 11 attacks on the list of crimes for which he is wanted. When the Reform spokesman Rex Tomb was asked why the September 11 attacks are not on the list of crimes for which Osama bin Laden is being sought, he replied: The reason why September 11 is not mentioned on the page about Osama bin Laden is that the FBI does not Has evidence of his involvement in the September 11 attacks. The report of Zelikova, however, does not contain information about the FBI’s doubts.Building 7 of WTCThe Commission also omitted many significant details of the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center. This collapse is extremely important, because if the collapse of the twin towers, although not quite scientifically, but still partially attributed to the impact of aircraft, then the plane did not crash into building 7. However, it collapsed strictly vertically at speed close to the speed Freefall. It is, in fact, even brighter than the towers (the explosions started there at the top26) illustrated the characteristic features of a planned directional explosion. Commission 9/11, however, omits these facts (Gil-Rivas, Virginia et al. 1063–1068).The commission also does not mention that the firefighters were evacuated from Building No. 7 a few hours before it collapsed because someone let out a rumor that it would collapse, although, judging by all the photographs available, the fire was only on several floors of the 47- Storey Building (Claassen, Cynthia A. et al. 359–364).The commission, again, could include in the Report several interesting quotations from archival records. For example, Decosta Wright, a medical worker, says: It seems to me that the fourth floor was burning … Guys, are you going to put out a fire there? Chief Thomas McCarthy says: They waited for the building of the 7th World Trade Center to collapse. There was a fire on three different levels … they were just blazing. You know, it’s amazing, in Lower Manhattan, the heat of the day, the main skyscraper is burning, and they say, yes, we know. In the Report of the Commission and there is not a word about the decision not to extinguish the fire, which was based on information that the building would collapse.The Commission Report also does not say anything about the statement of the reporter Peter DeMarco, which indicates the explosions:At 17:30 there was a roar. The windows on the upper level of the building flew out. Then all the windows flew out on the 39th floor of the building, then on the 38th. Bach! Bach! Bach! It was all that could be heard until the building drowned in a rising dust cloud.The commission does not say anything about the statement of the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, in the program of the PBS radio station, in which he claimed that they together with the fire department chief, fearing an increase in the number of victims, decided that it would be better to leave the building, after which they saw how it collapses.The commission paid no attention to any of these facts, and what is striking, did not even mention that building seven collapsed (Claassen, Cynthia A. et al. 359–364). In 7 hours after the two towers collapsed, they were followed by a 47-story seventh building of the World Trade Center. According to the site 911review.org, the video clearly shows that the destruction was caused not by fire, but by controlled explosions: among researchers on the Internet, this version is the most popular (Gil-Rivas, Virginia et al. 1063–1068).Counter argumentsMany supporters of conspiracy theories refer to the preliminary report of the Federal Agency for Emergency Management, which stated that the building of the 7th WTC suffered relatively little damage before its collapse. With more time and resources available, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) put forward a different hypothesis: the building of the 7th WTC was damaged much more than was anticipated in the Agency’s report (Skitka and Elizabeth 743–756). Our most important finding was the fact that the southern facade of the building was badly damaged by debris: about 30% of the building’s area (about ten floors) was gutted a quarter in depth. Employees of the Institute also established previously unidentified damage caused to the upper floors and the southeast corner of the structure.Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology believe that it is the combination of strong flames and damages of the structure have led to the fall, although it is not clear that this was a decisive factor. Analysis Institute indicates that the drop in building WTC 7 was an example of so-called progressive collapse in which some structural damage to the parts leads to deformation, causing the complete destruction of the building. The video falls seventh building WTC visible cracks on the facade directly before two penthouse fell one by one. All construction collapsed inward: the eastern side of the bias canula for a western.According to a study by (NIST), the main reason for the destruction was the unusual construction of the structure: the columns near the visible fractures held a huge weight, approximately 185 square meters of each floor area. Our analysis showed that if you remove at least one column on one of the lower floors, this will cause a vertically progressive collapse, followed by a collapse of the entire section, Sander says. There are two more elements that could play a role: firstly, the beams on the design of fifth and seventh floors was planned in such a way as to transfer the weight from one column to the other. When the columns in the southern part were damaged, a lot of pressure was transferred to the remaining columns, triggering an overload (Silver, Roxane Cohen et al. 1623–1634).Secondly, the flame on the fifth floor raged for 7 hours. Fighting fire in the seventh building of the World Trade Center was not conducted, says Sander. Researchers believe that the fire fueled the tanks with diesel fuel, which many tenants kept for refueling emergency generators. Many canisters were undersized, but the generator on the fifth floor was linked to a big container of oil in the underground room with fuel injection under pressure. Sander states: Our working hypothesis is that this line under pressure has fueled the fire for a long time.Building 7 of the WTC could withstand the physical damage caused by it or a prolonged fire, but these factors together, as well as the unusual construction of the building, was enough to cause a chain reaction and eventually lead to collapse (Neria and Ben 429–46).ConclusionThe destruction of the Building 7 was a surprise for construction engineers. Before September 11, the magazine wrote the New Civil Engineer is quite frankly we could not assume that the structure of this scale could suffer a similar fate. Despite the fact that the damage from the blows of aircraft has been very serious, they affected only a few floors of Building 7. For engineers, it became a challenge to figure out how such local damage caused the total progressive collapse of three, one of the biggest in the world of buildings. In an interview on the BBC, this in October 2001, British architect Bob Halvorson quite successfully predicted that followed numerous debates about how could the World Trade Center collapse in the manner he did. The full analysis should include architectural and engineering WTC plans, witness statements, videos, destruction, debris survey data, and so on. d. Highlighting the difficulty of the task, Halvorson said that the destruction of the WTC towers is far beyond ordinary experience.Works CitedClaassen, Cynthia A. et al. Effect of 11 September 2001 Terrorist Attacks in the USA on Suicide in Areas Surrounding the Crash Sites. British Journal of Psychiatry 196.5 (2010): 359–364. Web.Gil-Rivas, Virginia et al. Parental Response and Adolescent Adjustment to September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks. Journal of Traumatic Stress 20.6 (2007): 1063–1068. Web.Neria, Yuval, Laura DiGrande, and Ben G Adams. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks: A Review of the Literature among Highly Exposed Populations. The American Psychologist 66.6 (2011): 429–46. Web.Silver, Roxane Cohen et al. Mental- and Physical-Health Effects of Acute Exposure to Media Images of September 11, 2001, Attacks and the Iraq War. Psychological Science 24.9 (2013): 1623–1634. Web.Skitka, Linda J, Christopher W Bauman, and Elizabeth Mullen. Political Tolerance and Coming to Psychological Closure Following September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks: An Integrative Approach. Personality and social psychology bulletin 30.6 (2004): 743–756. Web.