A wide range of views and concerns currently exist about the 9/11 attacks and the actions and inaction of some former and current government officials and others.
A continuum of questions and perspectives spans many aspects of the attacks, people involved in one way or the other and interpretation of a large number of circumstances and factors.
This continuum includes the more or less official story that has been made public, views that there are contributing circumstances that have not fully examined and perspectives that the attacks were either allowed to happen or assisted in happening by people not yet fully publicly identified.
CONTINUUM OF VIEWS
At an easily-accepted end of the continuum is the belief that recent U.S. Government administrations and our aviation, intelligence and security communities were not as attentive to the threat of a 9/11-type attacks as they should have been.
Taking this perspective to another level is the perspective that there was serious incompetence in the failure to identify the threat, prepare for it and prevent it.
A step further along this path is the idea that excellent work in identifying the threat by people in the FBI, our intelligence services, military intelligence and national security officials did occur. But, for some reason, these warnings were stalled or stopped by higher-ups in various chains of command.
This idea starts to dovetail with views that go beyond incompetence at higher levels: A suspicion that there was some other reason why warnings about such a terrorist attack were ignored or played down.
Here the viewpoints start to delve into opinions that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen on purpose.
And this is where the most controversial, difficult and unpleasant scenarios take shape. These ideas focus somewhat on certain key people such as those who publicly stated that a “new Pearl Harbor” would be needed to motivate the American people and Congress for massively increased military spending and operations worldwide.
This is where the idea of a conspiracy other than that of the actual hijackers, their handlers and their foreign supporters comes in.
Further along the continuum is the view that a very limited number of people in key positions not only knew the 9/11 attack was coming and allowed it, they actually purposely helped it happen through either specific actions, inaction or some combination of both.
This type of view was reflected in a recent widely-reported poll result: The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that 36 percent of Americans polled said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that some U.S. officials either participated in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
DETAILS, ANGLES, CIRCUMSTANCES
In all the questions and concerns about aspects of the 9/11 attacks, many details have been pointed out, allegations made, interpretations put forth, different angles explored and significant circumstances claimed.
Some viewpoints seem outlandish and others seem reasonable to many. Some seem like wild speculation with little or no evidence while others appear logical or at least possible.
The views about general circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following:
- FBI agents, national security officials and military intelligence programs such as ABLE DANGER were raising red flags about a pending attack, but their intelligence was not responded to adequately by the appropriate chains of command.
- Certain people and groups publicly indicated that a “new Pearl Harbor” would probably be needed to provoke Americans to expand military operations worldwide and create a more robust and dominant U.S. military presence internationally.
- There was strong motivation on the part of some to launch an invasion of Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, but a justification for the American people and the international community was needed, according to some views. Invading Iraq was to be part of a larger effort to reshape the Middle East.
Specific claims and allegations about the actual 9/11 attacks include, but are not limited to, the following. These are not necessarily in any order of validity, chronology or importance:
- Several air defense military maneuvers and training activities occurred around the time frame of 9/11. These exercises depleted available U.S. Air Force air assets and caused confusion among military and civilian air traffic controllers and air defense personnel.
- Stock market transactions, known as “put options,” were made regarding the stock of the two airlines involved prior to the 9/11 attacks. These kinds of transactions are based on stock going down, not up. These particular transactions were especially unusual.
- Certain officials, such as San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, were reportedly advised not to fly around the time frame of 9/11.
- A foreign intelligence network involving dozens of agents allegedly was actively operating in the U.S. in the time frame leading up to 9/11, according to published reports. These intelligence operatives quickly and quietly left the U.S. immediately after 9/11, assisted by certain U.S. officials, it has been claimed.
- Thermite, a substance used to enhance explosives, was found in molten steel at the WTC site, according to Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones.
- At the Pentagon, the debris and type of damage done to the building is not consistent with the impact of a passenger jet, according to some determinations by experts.
- In Shanksville, Pennsylvania, again, the debris field at the alleged impact site seemed inconsistent with the crash of a passenger jet, some people state.
INADEQUATE INVESTIGATIONS?
Regardless of the views about various allegations and theories on all of the factors involved in the 9/11 attacks, there seems to be a more accepted sense that the 9/11 commission may have missed certain information.
Some important witnesses were reportedly not interviewed. Relevant information was not followed up on and explored further, according to some reports.
There seems to be a fairly common view that the commission was controlled and constrained in a way that resulted in its investigative findings being slanted and inadequate.
Now, there are calls for further inquires by Congress, an independent special prosecutor and/or some other investigative efforts.
The need for more thorough research and investigation may or may not be needed, depending on how one sees the claims and counterclaims about 9/11.
However, as long as the apparently significant “loose ends” about the attack remain, and credible, qualified people continue to raise what seem to be legitimate questions, Americans and people around the world will probably keep wondering if there is more to the 9/11 story than has yet been publicly revealed.
