FEATURE ARTICLES

[Newspolls.org, August 2, 2006]

More than a third of the American public suspects 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, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll. The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be. Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" -- the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet -- quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be. 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."

"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 commission.) His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al Qaeda five years ago. "A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. "Many say the government planned the whole thing. Of course, we don't think the evidence leads that way at all."

The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. Conspiracy groups for at least two years have also questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destruction. 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 military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists. That lower percentage may result from an effort by the conservative Washington-based Judicial Watch advocacy group to debunk the claim. The group filed claims under the Freedom of Information Act and got two fill loops released from Pentagon security cameras.

"Some people claim they can't see anything, but I see a plane hitting the Pentagon at incredibly high speed," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "I see the nose of the plane clearly entering the frame of one video and the tail of the plane entering the Pentagon in the other video." Many conspiracy Web sites have posted the video loops and report the films are inconclusive or were manipulated by the government. "Some folks will never be convinced," Fitton said. "But I'm hoping that these videos will dissuade reasonable people from falling into a trap with these conspiracy theories."

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture," said the poll's findings reflect public anger at the unpopular Iraq war, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration. "What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said. "Although the Iraq war was not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, people are now looking back at 9/11 with much more skepticism than they used to."

Conspiracy-believing participants in the poll agree their suspicions are recent. "I certainly didn't think of conspiracies when 9/11 first happened," said Elaine Tripp, 62, of Tabernacle, N.J. "I don't know if President Bush was aware of the exact time it was going to happen. But he certainly didn't do enough to stop it. Bush was so intent on having his own little war." Garrett Johnson, 19, of Manassas, Va., said it was "well after the fact" before he started questioning the official explanation of the attacks. "But then people I know started talking about it. And the Internet had a lot to do with this. After reading all of the different articles there, I started to think we weren't being told the truth."

The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University has tracked the level of resentment people feel toward the federal government since 1995, starting shortly after Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Forty-seven percent then said they, personally, feel "more angry at the federal government" than they used to. That percentage dropped to 42 percent in 1997, 34 percent in 1998 and only 12 percent shortly after 9/11 during the groundswell of patriotism and support for the government after the attacks. But the new survey found that 77 percent say their friends and acquaintances have become angrier with government recently and 54 percent say they, themselves, have become angrier -- both record levels.

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. "We know that there are a lot of people now asking questions," said Janice Matthews, executive director of 911Truth.org, one of the most sophisticated Internet sites raising doubts about official explanations of the attacks. "We didn't have the Internet after Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Kennedy assassination. But we live in different times now."

Matthews' Web site averaged 4,000 "hits" a day last year, but currently has at least 12,000 visits every 24 hours. The site, according to its online policy statement, is dedicated to showing the public that "elements within the U.S. government must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened the way in which they did."

Participants in the poll were asked to respond to "several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years." Five conspiracy theories were described and participants were asked if each was "very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely." The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."

The poll found that a majority of young adults give at least some credence to a 9/11 conspiracy compared to less than a fourth of people 65 or older. Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11. The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

911 TRUTH ORG WEBSITE

A QUICK COURSE ON THE SHORTEST PATHS TO 9/11 TRUTH

THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2000

CONSPIRACY PLANET

[Chrsitian Science Monitor, August 3, 2007]

Four Russian and two foreign explorers aboard a pair of deep-sea submersibles made an unprecedented journey Thursday to probe the remote seabed beneath the North Pole. To symbolize Moscow's claim to the polar territory and all its resources, they planted a tricolor Russian flag made of titanium in the "yellow muck" nearly three miles down, before returning safely to the small fleet of research ships on the icebound surface.

"The landing was smooth, the yellowish mud is around us, no sea creatures are visible," expedition leader Artur Chilingarov signaled from one of the Mir minisubs, according to the official ITAR-Tass agency. Before making the dive, Mr. Chilingarov, Russia's most famous Arctic explorer and a deputy speaker of parliament, made clear that the effort is not just about expanding the horizons of science. "We are here to define the outer limit of Russia's territory," he said. Also along for the ride were Australian Michael McDowell, described by Russian media as a researcher, and Swedish pharmaceutical tycoon Frederik Paulsen, who reportedly helped to finance the Russian expedition.

"This is a serious and risky operation," Sergei Balyasnikov, press spokesman for the St. Petersburg-based Arctic Research Institute, told the official RIA-Novosti agency. "It is an extremely important act for Russia ... like raising a flag on the Moon." As milder temperatures make exploration of the Arctic seafloor possible for the first time, Russia's biggest-ever polar mission appears to have beaten all potential rivals in the race to stake out a claim at the Earth's cap. The rock samples and other data gathered by the subs will be used to support Russia's claim to own 460,000 square miles of hitherto international territory – an area larger than France and Germany combined in a region estimated to contain 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas reserves.

The issue of who owns the North Pole, now administered by the International Seabed Authority, has long been regarded as academic since the entire region is locked in year-round impenetrable ice. But with global warming thinning the icecaps, the question has vaulted to the front burner.

"The No. 1 reason for the urgency about this is global warming, which makes it likely that a very large part of the Arctic will become open to economic exploitation in coming decades," says Alexei Maleshenko, an expert with the Carnegie Center in Moscow. "The race for the North Pole is becoming very exciting." The US Geological Survey estimates that one-quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas reserves lie beneath the Arctic Ocean. Experts at the Russian Institute of Oceanology calculate that the saddle-shaped territory that Russia is planning to claim may contain up to 10 billion tons of petroleum, plus other mineral resources and vast, untapped fishing stocks.

The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention establishes a 12-mile offshore territorial limit for each country, plus a 200-mile "economic zone" in which it has exclusive rights. But the law leaves open the possibility that the economic zone can be extended if it can be proved that the seafloor is actually an extension of a country's geological territory. In 2001, Russia submitted documents to the United Nations (UN) claiming that the Lomonosov Ridge, which underlies the Arctic Ocean, is actually an extension of the Siberian continental shelf and should therefore be treated as Russian territory. The case was rejected.

But a group of Russian scientists returned from a six-week Arctic mission in June insisting that they had uncovered solid evidence to support the Russian claim. That paved the way for the current expedition, which includes the giant nuclear-powered icebreaker Rossiya, the huge research ship Akademik Fyodorov, two Mir deep-sea submersibles – previously used to explore the wreck of the Titanic – and about 130 scientists.

The dive beneath the North Pole involved collecting evidence about the age, sediment thickness, and types of rock, as well as other data – all of which will be presented to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The commission is a body of scientists chosen by parties to the Law of the Sea Convention to support Russia's claim to the territory. "The goal of the expedition is not to reserve Russia's rights but to prove that our shelf reaches the North Pole," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters Thursday.

The longer-term purpose, says Anatoly Sagelevich, one of the Mir pilots, is to get used to permanently working in that environment. "The Arctic region is rich in natural resources, but we must find a reliable method of their development," he says. "This expedition is very important for the solution of this complicated task. No one has ever tried to dive and work under the Arctic ice."

Canada and others also eye region

Other northern countries are getting into the race. Canada, which has the second-longest Arctic coastline, is currently conducting a $70 million project to map the seabed on its side of the Lomonosov Ridge, in what experts suggest is a prelude to making its own submission to the UN. Earlier this month Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to build eight new ice-capable patrol ships and a deep water Arctic port to defend Canada's stake. "Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic: We either use it or lose it," Mr. Harper said. "And make no mistake, this government intends to use it."

Norway and Denmark (because of Denmark's claim over Greenland) are also possible entrants. The US could claim Arctic territory adjacent to Alaska, but is hampered by Congress's failure so far to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention.

Three years ago, US lawmakers were already warning of the detrimental impact of failing to ratify the Convention. In a May 2004 speech advocating ratification, Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana – then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – told his audience at Washington's Brookings Institute that the UN "will soon begin making decisions on claims to continental shelf areas that could impact the United States' own claims to the area and resources of our broad continental margin." He specifically mentioned Russia's ambitions, as well.

"Russia is already making excessive claims in the Arctic," said Senator Lugar. "Unless we are party to the Convention, we will not be able to protect our national interest in these discussions."

The Associated Press reports that Congress is considering an $8.7 billion budget reauthorization bill for the Coast Guard that includes $100 million to operate and maintain the nation's three existing polar icebreakers. The bill also authorizes the Coast Guard to construct two new vessels. According to a report from Russian press agency Novosti, a senior US official said Tuesday that Congress would ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to join a commission to examine Russian and other nations' claims to Arctic territory. The US Coast Guard says that an icebreaker, the USCGC Healy, will leave Seattle for the Chukchi Cap above the Arctic Circle, for research purposes, on Aug. 6.

Possible disputes in future

Some experts are concerned about the potential for future conflict over Arctic territory and resources, and the Russian media highlighted reports of a "US spy plane" that allegedly shadowed the North Pole expedition this week. But others say that existing international law is adequate to enable boundaries of influence to be negotiated between the key players as global warming unlocks the north's treasures.

"I don't see why this issue should worsen relations between Russia and other countries," says Pavel Zolotaryov, deputy director of the official Institute of USA-Canada Studies in Moscow. "We can solve our differences on the basis of information. And [after this expedition], Russia will be able to say that we've been there and conducted the research" to bolster Russia's territorial claims in the region.