Questions about 9/11 attacks include wide range of factors

Steve Hammons
September 6, 2006

The idea that the full story of the 9/11 attacks has not yet been revealed is something that is troubling and disturbing for many people.

The terrible deaths of so many innocent Americans, as well as the deaths of peace officers and firefighters who responded to the emergency, is a psychological and emotional trauma that is still with us.

A direct result of the 9/11 attacks was the U.S. invasion of Iraq, where many more Americans have died and been terribly wounded.

Some Americans and people internationally reportedly suspect that there is more information that will shed light on the attacks.

In various books, films, articles and research papers, on Web sites and in talks to audiences, researchers have put forth information that they claim indicates more facts are yet to be revealed.

The new documentary film titled 9/11: PRESS FOR TRUTH is one of the most recent efforts to explore these concerns in depth.

Often, some types of “conspiracy theory” views are met with the reaction that to question the official story is to “blame America” or “blame our government.”

However, on closer examination, many of the questions about 9/11 do not blame America or the U.S. Government. Rather, these questions often seem to look at a wide range of foreign involvement.

There are claims that the funding and support for the terrorists who hijacked the planes has not yet been fully revealed or understood by many Americans.

These same sources of funding may still be in operation to launch future attacks on the U.S. and on U.S. interests.

There are suspicions that groups within foreign intelligence services may have known much more about the plans for the attacks than is generally known.

Some foreign intelligence services reportedly warned U.S. authorities. Agents of foreign intelligence services are alleged to have been operating within the U.S. prior to and at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

Claims of various levels of involvement by foreign intelligence services sometimes also examine the relationships between these operations and the security efforts of U.S. officials.

It is true that some researchers do explore the possibility that a limited number of persons within the U.S., perhaps including current or former U.S. Government officials, could have had some kind of involvement or prior knowledge of the attacks.

For many people, this is a very difficult view to accept and requires more evidence and corroboration by other legitimate and credible investigators.

A recent poll conducted by 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."

Media coverage of this poll focused on the “one third of Americans” who suspect involvement of some U.S. officials.

It should be noted, however, that this poll apparently focused on Americans’ views of their government. The poll did not necessarily measure opinions that there are other unanswered questions about 9/11 not directly related to persons who could be current or former government officials and their actions or inaction.

In other words, the poll did not examine views that foreign involvement might be more extensive than generally known.

The poll did not examine any financial incentives by persons within and outside of the U.S.

The poll apparently did not include questions about the known public pronouncements by certain civilian groups that a “new Pearl Harbor” could have the beneficial effects of increasing U.S. military activity around the world, especially in the Middle East.

As a result, the “one third” often quoted in regard to this poll seems to be a limited measure – it is simply reflective of those polled who suspect the involvement of some U.S. officials, not the larger issue of other different kinds of unanswered questions.

It could be that if a wider range of questions were asked about 9/11, the number of respondents who have some kinds of suspicions could be significantly higher.

It may be important to consider that motive, opportunity and means to commit any crime are some of the factors that law enforcement officers typically analyze. In examining the 9/11 attacks, these same points are frequently the focus of researchers.

There have been reports that overlapping motivations came together in a “perfect storm” that resulted in the attacks.

An examination of opportunity and means to facilitate the attacks may provide a more limited circle of suspects, according to some research.

The vast amount of information, disinformation and propaganda about 9/11 often seems to simultaneously provide the light of truth and darkness of deception about that terrible day and subsequent developments.

Sorting out credible reasons for legitimate questions and suspicions is a difficult task.

But, steadily, more valid information seems to be surfacing that may one day resolve any remaining questions and inform Americans about the full story.