Inquiries by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence
Committee into ‘intelligence failures’ have blamed intelligence
officers and intelligence agencies.
Some former CIA officers and others have expressed concerns that the
commission’s and the committee’s investigations of so-called
intelligence failures before 9/11 and before the Iraq invasion
seemed to make scapegoats of dedicated intelligence professionals.
The ‘intelligence failures’ that led to the 9/11 attacks, and the
‘intelligence failures’ that led to the invasion of Iraq have
parallels and links that seem to pose difficult questions for many
Americans.
What if they were not failures by good intelligence officers, but
planned strategies and manipulations by others? What if they were a
kind of psychological operation (PSYOP) perpetrated on the American
people, Congress and on our military and intelligence services?
Additional questions have centered on whether the invasion of Iraq
was related to legitimate worries about weapons of mass destruction,
or rather a complex combination of various factors that included
allies in the region, oil, defense industry profits, U.S. domestic
politics and other factors.
When, or if, the Senate Intelligence Committee or some other
investigative body, such as a special prosecutor, do look into these
issues, a comprehensive report hopefully will shed light on these
questions, reveal the truth and hold those responsible accountable.
The American people deserve more thorough investigations,
particularly the families of those killed on 9/11 and American
troops who have fought, been severely injured and died in the Iraq
war, and their loved ones.
9/11 COMMISSION
The 9/11 Commission did not report on a wide range of suspicious
circumstances that indicated the 9/11 hijackers may have been under
surveillance by U.S. officials or intelligence operations of other
countries, outside and inside the U.S.
It did not answer all questions about U.S. air defense exercises and
drills prior to and during 9/11 that reportedly confused U.S. air
defense forces and air traffic controllers.
The commission did not report on allegations that certain powerful
people reportedly claimed ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ was needed to
persuade the American people to support aggressive military
activities in the Middle East, including the invasion of Iraq.
As has been widely reported, immediately after the 9/11 attacks,
some government officials were focused on Iraq, even though there
was no evidence of Iraq’s involvement.
Some people seem to think the commission assisted in a cover-up.
SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
The Senate Intelligence Committee has reportedly made limited
progress in inquiring into allegations that intelligence used to
justify the invasion of Iraq was manipulated or ‘cooked.’
Some claim that pressure was applied to intelligence officers to
agree with reasons put forth for the Iraq war and slant intelligence
and intelligence analysis in the same way and for the same reason.
An example of one of these areas of concern has been repeated
statements to the American people by government officials about
connections between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks -- links
that were frequently implied by government officials, but which
apparently lacked adequate reasonable evidence.
Sen. Pat Roberts, the committee chairman, reportedly promised that
the committee would follow-up its initial investigation and report
with an inquiry into whether intelligence was manipulated or even
fabricated in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Such a follow-up inquiry would certainly need to include looking at
The Office of Special Plans (OSP), a group created in the Pentagon
and supervised by Douglas Feith. There have been allegations that
the OSP was tasked with finding or even creating intelligence to
justify the invasion of Iraq.
Some Americans and people around the world are wondering more about
the 9/11 attacks. Questions are being asked, information is
surfacing and allegations are being made.
The "9/11 Truth Movement" is a phrase being used to describe a wide
range of people and organizations in the U.S. and internationally
who are asking these questions and digging up information that
appears, on the surface, to be quite serious, if true.
Are these people conspiracy nuts? Delusional? Paranoid?
Some of these allegations do include stories of conspiracy, as well
as cover-up and a possible 'false flag' operation. A false flag
action is one in which one party carries out an attack or helps
facilitate an attack, but does so in a way so that blame is put on
another party or nation.
Researchers within the 9/11 Truth Movement put forth interesting
information and hypothesize about possible motivations for some
people to want an event like the 9/11 attacks to occur.
One of the major questions being asked is who inside and outside of
the U.S. Government had foreknowledge that a terrorist attack was
being planned using airliners as weapons, or that such an attack was
likely. And if so, did they deliberately allow the attacks to occur
so this 'new Pearl Harbor' event would create a desired climate in
America.
Along this line of thinking is the suspicion that people in and
outside the government thought such an attack could happen, and did
not try to aggressively prevent it, feeling like a 'new Pearl
Harbor' would be beneficial in the long run. The benefits of such an
attack would be to increase defense spending, take aggressive
military action in the Middle East, launch an invasion of Iraq and
affect the domestic political situation within the U.S.
The idea that officials within our government would allow innocent
Americans to be killed to advance other goals and agendas is
difficult for many to believe. Surely this is impossible. Yet, 9/11
investigators keep coming up with information that makes some people
wonder. Sending American troops to their deaths is one thing,
allowing the killing of innocent civilians seems like quite another.
The investigative reports, facts, theories, allegations and
hypotheses are spelled out in several books, films and Web sites.
Below are a few of the many pieces of information and allegations
being made about the 9/11 attacks:
- Financial investments of various
kinds immediately before the 9/11 indicate that there was quite
specific pre-knowledge of the attacks and how they would be
carried out.
- Intelligence agencies from several countries had specific or
more general knowledge about the 9/11 attacks. Some foreign
intelligence agencies warned the U.S., and some agencies allowed
the attacks to happen to further their own agendas. The
hijackers were previously identified and tracked by intelligence
personnel from the U.S. and other governments.
- Warnings were given to certain people not to fly around the
time frame 9/11, or not to be in the Twin Towers.
- The Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition
using professionally-placed explosive charges.
- Something happened that interfered with the U.S. Air Force's
ability to scramble fighter jets in a timely manner to respond
to the hijacking of the airliners. Multiple air defense 'drills'
were underway that confused the situation and obscured the
nature of the events unfolding on 9/11 for air traffic
controllers, NORAD, the Air Force and others.
- The airliner that went down in Pennsylvania was actually shot
down by an armed aircraft of some kind.
- Certain people and countries wanted the U.S. to suffer a
traumatic terror attack to advance their agendas in the Middle
East.
- Certain people wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq and realized a
'new Pearl Harbor' event would be needed to persuade the
American people, Congress, the military and the intelligence
community to go along with an invasion.
- The invasion of Iraq was not related to weapons of mass
destruction, but rather a complex combination of various factors
that included allies in the region, oil, defense industry
profits, U.S. domestic politics and other factors.
These allegations, questions and some
actual facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks are contributing to the
apparent growth of the 9/11 Truth Movement. As investigators
continue to look into these matters, more information will
undoubtedly surface in the months ahead.
Americans and the international community will certainly continue to
wonder about these issues and be curious as to if there is any truth
to them. The questions do not seem to be going away.
Back in August, the CIA inspector general issued a report that named
several high-ranking intelligence officers for alleged “intelligence
failures” regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon.
Among those reportedly singled out for criticism were George Tenet,
Jim Pavitt and Cofer Black. Other CIA officers were also reportedly
named.
Have the CIA and its officers become scapegoats and whipping boys
for the 9/11 attacks (and the faulty prewar Iraq intelligence)?
Or,
are there other hidden factors beneath the surface?
Does this CIA
report somehow serve as a diversion or smokescreen to obscure deeper
facts involved?
Could there have been motive and opportunity for purposely allowing
the 9/11 hijackers to complete a terrible “Pearl Harbor” terrorist
act on U.S. soil?
Who would benefit by allowing a terrorist event
like 9/11 to take place?
And how might they have benefited?
It is well documented that certain groups believed that “a new Pearl
Harbor” would be necessary to motivate the American people and
Congress to support the invasion of Iraq. And there was certainly a
great motivation on the part of some groups to invade Iraq.
Even after 9/11 though, more had to be done to convince the
intelligence community, the military, Congress, the American people
and the international community that an invasion of Iraq was needed,
and that an invasion of Iraq was directly related to the 9/11
attacks.
Great efforts were made to make this case. So great, in fact, that
intelligence was reportedly manipulated, slanted or even completely
fabricated.
Many in the CIA stood up to, and stood against these kinds of
activities. CIA officers reportedly resisted going along with false
intelligence analyses, sometimes under great pressure.
Because of this, groups like the Office of Special Plans were
created to go around not only the CIA, but the larger intelligence
community, to find intelligence that justified an invasion of Iraq.
The Office of Special Plans operated through the office of Douglas Feith, then undersecretary of defense, and under
Paul Wolfowitz,
then assistant secretary of defense.
Although the CIA inspector general’s report focuses on Central
Intelligence and its officers prior to 9/11, other areas of the
federal government might be worthy of a second look regarding the
9/11 attacks. For example, two interesting aspects of 9/11 have been
brought up in hearings and investigations regarding the following
organizations:
- The Justice Department
In previous hearings, the acting
head of the FBI stated under oath that prior to 9/11, the U.S.
attorney general told him to quit bringing warning reports about
terrorist attacks and that the AG did not want to hear them. The
AG then denied, under oath, saying this to him.
- The U.S. Air Force
According to reports, during the
very time frame of the 9/11 attacks, U.S. air defense forces
were conducting drills and exercises that may have diverted
resources from the area, and/or confused U.S. air defense forces
and air traffic controllers. In addition, the usual command and
control authority reportedly may have been changed during that
time frame.
These are just two more pieces of the
puzzle of 9/11. There seem to be many more, some known, some
undisclosed, some whispered about.
To some observers, many CIA officers seem to have demonstrated a
measure of accountability, responsibility and ethical behavior prior
to 9/11 and the Iraq war.
Civilian appointees in the Defense Department, State Department and
elsewhere have sometimes shown less of these qualities. High-ranking
Army officers also have escaped responsibility and accountability.
And elected officials have sometimes demonstrated great skill in
evading legal and moral responsibility and the consequences of their
actions.
Undoubtedly, more information will come out about all these events.
Like the military intelligence officers of the “Able Danger” team,
others will also reveal more information about 9/11, the invasion of
Iraq and maybe even more.
The American people need to be ready to face new information with
courage. Like many of the CIA officers and others in the
intelligence community who have fought for truth and integrity. Like
the 9/11 families and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who are
fighting, dying and being terribly injured -- their loved ones,
parents and children grieving with deep wounds in their hearts and
souls.
Produced by Korey Rowe and directed by Dylan Avery, the documentary
LOOSE CHANGE - 2ND EDITION explores many troubling questions about
the 9/11 attacks using scientific analyses, eyewitness accounts,
historical facts, television news footage and many other resources.
The gut-wrenching television news coverage from that day is combined
with detailed examination of hard data, theories and apparently
unusual circumstances. It is a fast-paced yet steady presentation of
objective analysis and uncomfortable possibilities.
Rowe and Avery cover many of the discrepancies in the preliminary
explanations about what actually occurred on 9/11 in regard to the
World Trade Center attacks, the Pentagon attack and the crash of
Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
They also look at important background information regarding motive
and opportunity of possible perpetrators, as well as who might have
benefited from the attacks.
This documentary goes beyond the theory that the attacks by 19
hijackers might have been allowed to happen through incompetence or
to achieve some desired outcome in manipulating the American and
international public and media.
LOOSE CHANGE - 2ND EDITION clearly tries to make the case that the
attacks were something quite different: They were part of a complex
plan organized from within.
WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS
By looking in depth at the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin
Towers and Building 7, the documentary uses scientific analyses of
why it is unlikely that the impact of the aircraft and heat of the
fires caused the buildings' collapse.
In short, that heat from the fires and trauma from the impact of the
aircraft could not have brought down these buildings.
Based on witness accounts, including those of FDNY firefighters and
TV news reporters, this documentary indicates that the buildings
were brought down by pre-planted explosives, set to create a
controlled demolition. Audio of firefighters' radio transmissions
that report multiple secondary explosions are included.
Unusual activities at the WTC prior to 9/11 include the disarming of
security cameras and the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs, according to
sources used in the documentary.
Other factors are explored, including information about the planes'
"black boxes," explosions in the basement levels of the buildings
and other unusual aspects of the attack on and collapse of the WTC
buildings.
Surveillance video cameras in the area were confiscated and the
video has never been released.
Air traffic controllers reportedly thought the aircraft was a
military plane based on its speed and maneuvers.
The type of damage done to the Pentagon also appears inconsistent
with a 757 crash. The
lack of aircraft parts on the scene is another
anomaly. Parts that were found do not match those of a 757,
according to data presented in the documentary.
It reports that witnesses smelled cordite, an explosive. The
fireball upon impact resembled and explosion from cordite, not jet
fuel.
FLIGHT 93
Witness testimony from the area near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, is
presented that describes a white military-type jet near the site of
the crash of Flight 93.
Other theories about that crash and a mysterious small white jet
have speculated that Flight 93 was shot down.
However, this documentary makes the claim that the flight actually
did land in Cleveland, where the passengers disembarked due to a
"bomb threat" and were taken to a facility nearby.
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Rowe and Avery have put together one of many conspiracy scenarios
that have been suggested about the events of 9/11. They don't try to
answer every single question, and they raise many new ones. For the
questions they do try to answer specifically though, the information
presented does make the viewer think and wonder.
Their use of a wide range of video, audio and print resources as
well as visual and computer-generated representations, help the
viewer grasp many of the complex factors being examined.
LOOSE CHANGE - 2ND EDITION is available for viewing on the Web and
on DVD. It is a work worth seeing and hearing that makes us wonder
about what occurred on 9/11 and if we have been told all the facts.
Of greater concern, it makes us consider our roles as Americans,
patriots and human beings in a very difficult time in the life of
our nation.
In recent years, much been written and discussed about alleged
“mistakes” made prior to the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, the
occupation of Iraq, the so-called “War on Terror,” the attempted
capture of Osama bin Laden and the dramatic increase in national
spending and the national debt.
While some have claimed that mistakes were made and that these
mistakes led to problematic outcomes, others have suggested that the
apparent failures or blunders were actually part of larger and
hidden plans. Some combination of mistakes and planned outcomes
might also be in play.
In examining important events and developments over the last five
years, these differing views seem to emerge as something worth
considering carefully, although some seem outlandish and little more
than conspiracy theories.
However, the claims that mistakes could actually be part of
well-thought-out planning can be explored by addressing the
following topics which are typically used as the major examples of
various “mistake theories” and “plan theories:”
9/11 attacks
Invasion of Iraq
Occupation of Iraq
War on Terror
Capture of Osama bin Laden
Dramatically increased
federal spending and national debt
It may be worth noting that in the cases
of many of the current elected and appointed national leaders
pulling the strings in Washington, D.C., and those behind the
scenes, they have been accused of many things. But, for most of
them, being stupid is not one of the accusations.
Below are just some of the theories that these recent developments
were either based on mistakes or on plans. And, as mentioned, some
combination of the two could be considered.
9/11 ATTACKS
Mistake theory:
Our intelligence and law enforcement
services and those of our allies failed to understand, detect
and prevent the 9/11 planning and attacks.
Plan theory:
The attacks were predicted by our
own and allied intelligence and law enforcement services and
were, at a minimum, allowed to happen. The motivation was to
create “A New Pearl Harbor” that would facilitate other agendas
such as invading Iraq and establishing permanent bases there,
boosting defense spending, protecting allies in the region and
attaining domestic political advantage.
INVASION OF IRAQ
Mistake theory:
Our intelligence services believed
that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq and reported it
to political leaders who felt this was an unreasonable risk.
Plan theory:
There was ample evidence that there
were no significant WMDs in Iraq that would pose a serious
threat to the United States. The WMD threat was just a
convenient way to make a case for invasion. The real reasons had
more to do with securing Iraq’s oil supply, establishing
permanent bases there, boosting defense spending, protecting
allies in the region and political advantage.
OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
Mistake theory:
Despite recommendations by seasoned
military leaders and others, U.S. troop levels were not
sufficient for smooth occupation and establishment of peace and
order in Iraq. Disbanding the Iraqi army, allowing chaos in the
streets and other mistakes resulted in a significant ongoing
insurgency, near-civil war and deaths and injuries to U.S.
troops and Iraqi civilians.
Plan theory:
If the goal was actually to stay in
Iraq indefinitely, it might have been counterproductive to
establish order, a working government, some measure of social
cohesion and peace. If all had gone smoothly in the
post-invasion occupation, many would call for U.S. forces to
leave Iraq, mission accomplished. The turmoil and violence there
actually provide a rationale for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq
indefinitely.
WAR ON TERROR
Mistake theory:
Dehumanizing torture at Abu Ghraib
and Guantanamo, war crimes and atrocities allegedly committed by
U.S. personnel, inadvertent “collateral damage” of death and
injury to Iraq civilians including women and children, and other
factors have made more people worldwide hostile toward the U.S.
This has created more potential terrorists and increased the
resolve of terrorists and enemies.
Plan theory:
Creating a never-ending threat of
terrorism, and amplifying and expanding the hostility to the
U.S. create continued opportunity for increased defense
spending, military intervention and political advantage.
CAPTURE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN
Mistake theory:
After the successful CIA and
Army
Special Forces-led invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. forces and
leaders missed an opportunity to capture bin Laden in Tora Bora
due to mistaken tactical decisions.
Plan theory:
U.S. leaders might not have wanted
to capture bin Laden. His family is associated with powerful
business interests and connections in the U.S. Keeping him at
large might create a more vivid picture of an ongoing terror
threat.
DRAMATICALLY INCREASED FEDERAL SPENDING AND
NATIONAL DEBT
Mistake theory:
The billions of spending on the Iraq
War, related expenditures and other unrelated spending has been
a mistake by leaders that will cause future severe difficulties
for the U.S.
Plan theory:
The billions spent on defense and
war will enrich those who are politically connected. In
addition, the tremendous overspending helps “Starve the Beast.”
The Starve the Beast view is that if U.S. social safety net
programs like Social Security cannot be defeated politically,
then by simply creating significant financial stresses on the
U.S. Government in future years, these programs can be curtailed
or eliminated due to future fiscal limitations.
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
There seem to be many ideas and viewpoints about the alleged
mistakes, plans and secret agendas that may be in play. It is
obviously difficult to come to a clear conclusion on many of these
topics.
Only the most naïve will take events and government actions at face
value, for there are often many agendas going on behind the scenes.
Legitimate and not-so-legitimate factors exist on many levels.
As outlandish and far-fetched as some of the views seem, it may be
worthwhile for us to consider all possibilities and to look beneath
the surface for answers.
Oliver Stone’s new film WORLD TRADE CENTER, starring Nicholas Cage
as a New York Port Authority police sergeant on 9/11, has won praise
for depicting the tragedy, trauma and courage during and after the
9/11 attacks.
Does this portrayal of the pain, suffering and heroism of that day
conflict with allegations that the 9/11 plot involved an inside
conspiracy that has not yet been fully revealed?
There does not seem to be any reason why these views should be in
conflict. The search for the truths about 9/11 obviously includes
the horrible deaths and suffering of the victims, pain felt by their
families as well as the honor and sacrifice displayed by police
officers, firefighters and many others.
HONORING THE FALLEN, PURSUING JUSTICE
Whether there is any truth to suspicions, indications and
circumstances that point to an “inside job” conspiracy, such views
in many ways seem to be part of the same universal reactions to
9/11: Shock, sadness and determination to get to the bottom of the
events on that terrible day.
The idea that people could plan and carry out an attack that killed
thousands of innocents on 9/11 through a highly complex plot stirred
anger in us and a need to hold those responsible accountable.
As an immediate result of the 9/11 attacks, military operations were
launched against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Shortly after, the
invasion of Iraq was begun. Though the connection between 9/11 and
Iraq’s former leadership has certainly been called into question,
Americans were told that there was a connection.
The American people believed that anyone connected to the 9/11 plot
should be pursued and punished.
This is the same motivation driving many Americans who support the
“9/11 Truth Movement,” a substantial portion of the American
population who suspect or believe that there was an inside and yet
to be fully uncovered conspiracy to create, facilitate or allow a
“New Pearl Harbor.”
They also believe that those involved in the complex plot of the
9/11 attacks should be pursued and brought to justice because of
this terrible crime that killed innocent people and the courageous
cops and firefighters who responded.
POINTS OF AGREEMENT
What are some of the basic common denominators that we all believe
about the 9/11 attacks and those beliefs or suspicions of the 9/11
Truth Movement?
Conspirators, some identified and
perhaps some not, believed that the hijacking of passenger
planes and crashing them into major targets would further their
cause or causes.
The plot focused on the mass murder
of thousands of Americans and damage to U.S. landmarks.
The conspiracy included terrorists
infiltrating the U.S., avoiding detection by CIA, NSA,
FBI and
other law enforcement authorities, as well as roving
intelligence agents from other countries who operate within the
U.S. and internationally.
The plan required the ability to
navigate and pilot airliners into targets in a precise manner.
U.S. air defenses needed to be
overcome through stealth and confusion. The multiple air defense
training exercises underway on 9/11, though not known to the
hijackers, contributed to the confusion.
The shock and horror of the attacks
would have the desired affect of making the American people feel
vulnerable, thereby causing fear in the U.S. population.
The innocent people who were killed
on 9/11 are a tragic loss. Burned alive, forced to jump out of
skyscrapers, crushed by rubble, killed when their planes
crashed. Cold-blooded murder.
The police officers, firefighters,
paramedics, military personnel, air traffic control officials
and many others responded honorably and bravely in the face of
an overwhelming crisis.
Of course, there are many other details
about the attacks and events leading up to and after them. Some are
widely accepted, some debated, some apparently covered up, some
speculated about and some still creating confusion and possible
deception.
FILM FACES PAST, HELPS PREPARE FOR
FUTURE
Regardless of the accuracy of all of claims made by those in the
growing 9/11 Truth Movement, most Americans can agree that the
effort by Stone in his new film is a worthwhile one.
The overwhelming truth of 9/11 is that it was a horrible crime, like
other horrible crimes when innocent people are killed. WORLD TRADE
CENTER brings this truth to us in a way that is clear and necessary.
Necessary because an attack like 9/11 may happen again. It may be
even more severe. The anger and determination of those who hate the
policies of the U.S. Government and do not like some aspects of the
culture of America have only grown in recent years, and for many
reasons.
Those who want to manipulate the American people and Congress
through violence and fear, through attacking our liberties, our
Constitution and Bill of Rights are still a threat. These may be
enemies foreign and domestic.
Revisiting and more fully understanding the 9/11 attacks is
necessary because it has been nearly five years since that day, and
memories do fade. And we sometimes want to repress and forget
terrible things we have seen in our lives.
It may be helpful to look back to that day to consider all that has
happened since 9/11: Large numbers of U.S. military deaths and
severe injuries in the open-ended war in Iraq, new laws and policies
affecting fundamental elements of our democracy and many other
developments, some positive and some quite disturbing.
The courage and dedication Stone depicts in the movie are also
things we should remember. Remember and cultivate these qualities.
Because they too, may be needed as we go forward to strengthen and
protect our country, uncover the full truth of the 9/11 plot and
bring all of those responsible to justice.
In a news report published this week, co-authors Thomas Hargrove of
the Scripps Howard News Service and Guido H. Stempel III, director
of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University, presented
results of a poll that found more than one-third of the American
public,
“suspects that federal officials assisted in the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United
States could go to war in the Middle East.”
The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University telephone
survey of 1,010 adults was conducted from July 6 to July 24 and the
margin of error in the poll is 4 percentage points.
To some people, the more than one-third percentage seems high. To
others, it seems low. Are Americans who already have concerns or are
developing suspicions simply paranoid or even unpatriotic? Or, is
there actually an adequate basis for views that the whole story
about 9/11 has not yet been revealed?
An additional question to consider is whether the percentage of
Americans with these suspicions will increase as more credible
information is presented and covered by the media.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SUSPICION
In looking at the concerns that Americans and people internationally
have about the 9/11 attacks, there are many factors to consider.
Some people report being suspicious about many of the specific
circumstances involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Respected scientists, former U.S. Government officials, former
high-ranking U.S. military officers and other credible people have
also expressed serious concerns about particular elements of the
attacks.
According to the article by Hargrove and Stempel, the poll found
that,
“thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is ‘very
likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that federal officials either
participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon or took no action to stop them ‘because they wanted the
United States to go to war in the Middle East.’”
In addition, Hargrove and Stempel wrote that results of the poll
concluded that,
“16 percent of Americans speculate that
secretly
planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the reason the
towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. Sixteen percent said
it's ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that ‘the collapse of the
Twin Towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in
the two buildings. Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by
a cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by
terrorists.”
ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF ATTACKS
On the point of concern that some U.S. officials knew about the
coming attacks in advance, one aspect of many that has been focused
on is the multiple military exercises planned and ongoing during the
time frame around 9/11.
According to reports, many U.S. military aircraft and air defense
assets were dispersed from their normal bases and redirected from
their normal duties to participate in these exercises.
Some of the exercises reportedly involved hijacked jets, and air
traffic controllers and other officials experienced confusion about
the real hijacked aircraft and the simulations planned in the
training exercises.
Although this may have just been an unfortunate coincidence, some
skeptics of the official story have pointed out this circumstance.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) audio tapes of
military air defense officials’ communications on 9/11, released
this week and the subject of
a detailed article in VANITY FAIR
magazine, do show the confusion of that day by NORAD, air defense
and air traffic control personnel.
Also this week, news reports revealed that the 9/11 Commission
considered testimony from Pentagon and government aviation officials
given to the commission about the air defense activities on 9/11 to
be false. Commissioners considered requesting legal action from the
Department of Justice because of the inaccurate testimony.
Reports that FBI and U.S. military officials, as well as friendly
foreign intelligence agencies, were detecting elements of the
planned attacks and trying to report warnings to U.S. Government
officials, with no apparent result, have also triggered concerns.
In addition, reports have circulated that foreign intelligence
agents may have had the hijackers under surveillance during the
run-up to the attacks.
Again, whether these are indications of officials “allowing” the
9/11 attacks to occur certainly have not been proven, but raise
suspicions among many.
COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDINGS
As to poll results that question whether the World Trade Center
buildings were brought down by pre-planted explosives, the manner in
which they collapsed straight down has been cited as a strong
indicator.
New York City firefighters and other witnesses reported seeing and
hearing what seemed like demolition-type explosives as the buildings
collapsed.
Physics Professor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University stated in
a televised C-Span panel discussion last weekend that scientific
analysis of metal recovered from the site indicated residue from
enhanced explosives.
Other engineering experts have stated that jet fuel alone from the
crashed jets should not have been able to bring down the WTC
buildings. Building 7 was not even hit by a plane, yet it collapsed
in the same way.
PENTAGON ATTACK
On the issue of whether a passenger airliner struck the Pentagon,
most questions have centered on the small size of the hole in the
building, the fact that it punched through several rings of the
reinforced structure and that what wreckage was found did not seem
to be that of an airliner.
Some experienced military witnesses reportedly stated they smelled
explosives rather than jet fuel on the scene. The flight path of the
craft on radar, according to some reports, did not seem to be that
of a passenger airliner.
MOTIVATION FOR 9/11
Regarding the poll result finding that Americans suspect that the
9/11 attacks were planned or allowed to occur “because they wanted
the United States to go to war in the Middle East,” this alleged
desire by some to take the U.S. to war has been a widespread
concern.
That some people very much wanted the U.S. to go to war has been a
concern and allegation apart from any connection to the 9/11 attacks
and a suspicions of wider and deeper 9/11 plot.
It is well-documented that several individuals and groups felt it
was appropriate to invade Iraq. One organization even wrote in an
elaborate report that a “New Pearl Harbor” would be needed to
motivate the American people to support markedly increased military
operations in the Middle East and around the world.
Current government leaders have given their rationale (WMDs,
spreading democracy and peace, etc.) and other people have claimed
additional less-noble motivations. These doubters allege that these
additional motivations include:
Creating political support
for government officials in power
Centralizing power within
the U.S. Government
Creating new laws and
policies within the U.S.
Expanding U.S. military
dominance in the world
Accessing oil resources in
the region
Creating a base of
operations for further military action in the region
Supporting allies in the
region
Ramping up government
defense spending and profits for contractors
Creating economic
opportunities for private businesses in Iraq
Allegations of these kinds of
motivations have some reasonable basis, but again, have not been
conclusively proven.
MEDIA AND PUBLIC OPINION
In the article by Hargrove and Stempel about the opinion poll, they
reported,
“The survey also found that people who regularly use the
Internet but who do not regularly use so-called ‘mainstream’ media
are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies.
People who regularly read daily newspapers or listen to radio
newscasts were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies.”
This finding could reflect several factors. The freedom of the
Internet has certainly allowed for a wide range of information,
data, speculation, rumors and theories to be presented for public
consumption. Much of this information on the Web may far-fetched or
clearly inaccurate while other aspects may seem quite valid.
People who use the many kinds of media platforms available on the
Web to get news and information certainly have a wider array of
resources to attempt to get an accurate view of the overall picture.
The unreliable information on the Web may also cause confusion and
invalid conclusions by the public.
The major TV networks’ news programs and major newspapers and
magazines have provided limited coverage of questions and anomalies
about the 9/11 attacks.
Part of this undoubtedly has been the desire to be patriotic in a
time of war, an honorable objective for all of us. Another
motivation may be to stay in the good graces of the people currently
in power in Washington, D.C., perhaps less honorable.
Still another element is that it has taken nearly five years for
much of the information questioning the official story of 9/11 to be
adequately investigated, compiled and presented in a manner that
makes a reasonable case for suspicion about the 9/11 attacks.
Coverage of these topics in the mainstream media could realistically
be expected to become more thorough in the future. The possibility
or probability of improved media coverage is based on the adequate
credibility of some, but not all, claims of questionable aspects and
circumstances of the 9/11 attacks.
The poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio
University seems to have provided valuable insight into public
opinion and some of the specific issues about views of the 9/11
attacks.
Ohio University’s Scripps College of Communications, the E.W.
Scripps School of Journalism and the School of Telecommunications
are considered some of the top such programs in the U.S.
Ohio University alumni include Roger Ailes, president of FOX News,
Matt Lauer, co-host of NBC’s Today show, Clarence Page, columnist
for the Chicago Tribune, George Voinovich, U.S. senator and former
Ohio governor as well as actors Ed O’Neil, Richard Dean Anderson,
Paul Newman and many other distinguished people in the media,
government, the military and other walks of life.
This most recent poll is one of many conducted by Survey Research
Center at Ohio University that attempt to measure the thoughts,
feelings and beliefs of the American people.
It seems appropriate that Ohio University, envisioned and founded in
the late 1700s and early 1800s by veterans of the American
Revolution, and built on the western frontier of the new nation, is
a source to help Americans gain insight into ourselves, pursue truth
and understand important issues about defending our country from
enemies, foreign and domestic.
A U.S. Army sergeant, Iraq War veteran, Purple Heart recipient and
intelligence analyst has been accused of sending an e-mail
containing “messages disloyal to the United States.”
The reason for this accusation? He wrote that circumstances
surrounding the 9-11 attacks raise questions about the official
story, according to published reports.
Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell has served in the Army for 19
years and was injured in Iraq in 2004. He is stationed at Ft. Sam
Houston near San Antonio, Texas.
Outcomes of the charge that he wrote “disloyal” e-mails could
include court martial, dishonorable discharge or other actions
against him.
If Buswell does have questions about some of the unusual aspects of
the 9-11 attacks, he is not alone.
MANY AMERICANS HAVE QUESTIONS
Retired high-ranking military officers, experts in engineering and
physics, former U.S. Government officials and many other citizens
from all walks of life have taken note of aspects of 9-11 that, to
them, raise reasonable questions.
Even the co-chairmen of the 9-11 commission recently stated they
were given false testimony by Pentagon and federal aviation
officials during the commission’s hearings.
Are all of these people disloyal to the United States, as Sgt.
Buswell has been accused of being?
Or, are they reasonable Americans, using common sense and normal
intelligence to perceive the many disturbing circumstances about the
9-11 attacks.
Buswell, like many of us at one time or another, has taken an oath
to defend our nation and our Constitution against enemies, foreign
and domestic.
In this case, he seems to have simply been voicing his views and
questions, based on the many credible reports indicating that the
official story of 9-11 is, at best, incomplete.
At worst, some people say it was a plot by a group of insiders to
purposely allow terrorists to complete the attacks so as to create
“a new Pearl Harbor.”
Such a Pearl Harbor-like event would create fear and anger in
Americans, give current government officials immense power, allow
the invasion of Iraq, dramatically increase defense spending and
profits as well as other outcomes deemed desirable by certain
elements within the U.S. and elsewhere, according to some observers.
In a recent survey conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center
at Ohio University, 36 percent of respondents,
“suspect that federal
officialsassisted in the 9-11 terrorist attacks or took no action
to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle
East.”
DISLOYAL OR A PATRIOT?
Buswell’s case raises obvious questions about not only the 9-11
attacks themselves, but also about Americans who see unanswered
questions and suspicious circumstances.
Are those who consider the possibility of an “inside job” simply
conspiracy nuts, paranoid or disloyal to our country?
Or, are many who raise these kinds of questions down-to-earth
patriots who just read all of the available evidence and conclude
that there is more to it than the official version?
No specific government officials were apparently named by Buswell in
his e-mail. He did not seem to state any disloyalty to current
civilian leaders in office.
He simply looked at the same anomalies about the attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon and concluded that
something is
not right in the official story.
He seems to be analyzing the intelligence information and coming to
reasonable conclusions about apparent inconsistencies.
Of course, others do seem to have their own ideas about “insiders”
who would have motive, opportunity and are psychologically and
morally capable of allowing or facilitating the 9-11 attacks. Some
people have named names of who might be reasonable suspects for
involvement in such a conspiracy.
But Buswell did not do this.
His case raises many questions that we must wrestle with. If it
turns out that certain government officials or others were somehow
involved in the 9-11 attacks, will our country be able to handle the
shock and disruption that subsequent legal action would cause?
As individuals and as a nation, are we intelligent, courageous and
honorable enough to get to the bottom of the questions about 9-11?
Could the truth be so ugly and upsetting that we continue to deny
the obvious, and tell people like Buswell that his analysis is
“disloyal?”
The time seems to have come when we probably should recognize that
many of the 9-11 analyses like Buswell’s about troubling questions,
inconsistencies and disturbing circumstances are legitimate.
They also seem, in many cases, to be honorable and patriotic.
