from AmericanChronicle Website














'Intelligence failures' prior to 9/11, Iraq war: Planned strategies?
by Steve Hammons

October 31, 2005

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.


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.


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.


Back to Contents




The '9/11 Truth Movement' raises questions about 9/11 attacks

by Steve Hammons
November 1, 2005

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.

- The Pentagon was actually hit by a missile or drone of some kind, not a large airliner.

- 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 to Contents


CIA inspector general blamed own officers; scapegoats for intel on 9/11, Iraq?

by Steve Hammons
November 4, 2005

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.

Back to Contents


9/11 questions explored in new documentary 'Loose Change - 2nd Edition'

by Steve Hammons
April 2, 2006


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.


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.


Covering familiar ground on one point, the documentary indicates that a passenger jetliner did not hit the Pentagon. Rather, they suggest the attack may have involved a military-type aircraft and a cruise missile, not a Boeing 757.

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.


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.


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.



see the complete "Loose Change" Video


For more information, visit:

Back to Contents


Mistakes’ or ‘plans’ in 9/11, Iraq invasion and occupation, War on Terror?

by Steve Hammons
July 11, 2006

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Back to Contents



New Oliver Stone movie about 9/11 brings Americans together

by Steve Hammons
August 2, 2006

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.

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.

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.

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.

Back to Contents



Poll results on 9/11 attacks show many Americans have suspicions

by Steve Hammons
August 4, 2006

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Back to Contents



Army intelligence analyst who questions official 9-11 story is honorable patriot

by Steve Hammons
August 30, 2006

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.

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 officials assisted 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.”

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.

Back to Contents