9/11 The Myth And The Reality: Dr. David Ray Griffin

[Dave]

Dave you make me happy! That's exactly what I am thinking.

 

Bush has a runaway budget, horriable foreign-policy, "faith-based" initiatives, and numerous other things he's done wrong, but you never hear about that.

 

It's always "Bush is an evil criminal mastermind so smart he can attack his own country and get away with it and use this as a platform to steal our civil liberties and launch illegal wars."

 

I wouldn't mind the Bush bashing if if was actually done on the right topics. I'm going to make another thread about it later though.

Before you do that, read this website.

 

 

Hilarious! Conspiracy theorists are betrayed by the very paranoia on which their theories are based!

Just remember that conspiracies do not have to make sense. Actually, the less sense they make, the harder they believe in it.

 

 

Speculation.

You're right at this point it is speculation. There is not concrete evidence here.

More speculation that's solidly based on conjecture. That's the problem with conspiracy theories; they are never wrong. NOTHING can ever prove them wrong because there is always another "what if" coming along or more conjecture. I want proof, not conjecture.

Yes, this can be a pathology of conspiracy theories.

That is the EXACT pathology of all the 9/11 conspiracies.

I don't find this is the case with 9/11 though--there are a lot of excellent questions being raised that were not at all properly addressed in the 9/11 Commission Report.

All of those questions are based on the mythology and mythinformation from the 9/11 conspiracies.

[integral]

That is the EXACT pathology of all the 9/11 conspiracies.

All of those questions are based on the mythology and mythinformation from the 9/11 conspiracies.

Hmm Dave, I can agree with you that some of the points that are brought up by 9/11 conspirists are weak and can be considered mythinformation.

However, I cannot agree with you on dismissing outright the valid points and questions that are being raised.

 

 

I mean, lets look at just the first chapter of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, and some of the legitimate and rational points it brings up:

 

1. Six of the alleged hijackers have been reported to be still alive by sources including the Associated Press, the BBC, and the Telegraph.

Dr. Griffin writes: "In spite of these revelations by mainstream news sources, however, The 9/11 Commission Report simply repeats in the first few pages, the FBI's original list of nineteen names, then later gives their photographs."

 

2. Aviation sources have said that Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, "was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm."

However, the 9/11 Commission Report itself, contradicts this by saying that: "Hanjour's application to become a pilot was repeatedly rejected, that he was considered a "terrible pilot," and that as late as July 2001 he had still such poor piloting skills that an instructor refused to go up with him a second time."

 

3. There is not solid proof that the 19 hijackers were on the four planes--the released flight manifests contain no Arab names!

Dr. Griffin writes: "The Commission evidently simply repeated the official story about 19 Arab hijackers with no investigation into serious questions that have been raised about it."

[Dave]

Hmm Dave, I can agree with you that some of the points that are brought up by 9/11 conspirists are weak and can be considered mythinformation.

However, I cannot agree with you on dismissing outright the valid points and questions that are being raised.

What valid points?

1. Six of the alleged hijackers have been reported to be still alive....

So? None of the ones that flew the planes are alive.

2. Aviation sources.....

If you are going to use a sorce, name it.

3. There is not solid proof that the 19 hijackers were on the four planes...

So? You have no "solid" proof that anyone was on any of the planes that hit the towers. They all got vaporized.

 

None of the above is proof, or even evidence, that Bush either knew of the exact attack plans, or ordered them.

[integral]

What valid points?

Well Dave, I'm quite surprised that you disagree with the validity of the 3 points I listed.

 

 

I'm curious, what do other forum members think of these points?

 

So? None of the ones that flew the planes is alive.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here Dave. Could you elaborate?

 

If you are going to use a sorce, name it.

Here's the Washington Post article where it's from.

 

 

Here's some more evidence that it was a very difficult maneuver from Capt. Russ Wittenberg, former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions, and a commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. An interesting side note is that Capt. Wittenberg has piloted, in his career, two of the exact planes that were hijacjked on 9/11.

 

"[Flight 77] could not have flown at those speeds which they [9/11 Commission] said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous."

 

So? You have no "solid" proof that anyone was on any of the planes that hit the towers. They all got vaporized.

Even though they all did get vaporized, the airlines would have a exact record of everyone that boarded the airplanes.

 

None of the above is proof, or even evidence, that Bush either knew of the exact attack plans, or ordered them.

Yes you are correct. I do not have the proof required to make that claim.

I probably should have made myself more clear. With the 3 points I listed I was trying to prove was that the 9/11 Commission was a farce.

 

 

Here's a damning quote on the 9/11 Commission, from nobody less than the past Director of the FBI (1993-2001) himself, Louis Freeh. This is a huge name. I'm shocked that this was not all over the mainstream media. This is from the Wall Street Journal:

 

"Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of [lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed] Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it 'was not historically significant.' This astounding conclusion—in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings—raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a 'new' commission."

[The Paineful Truth]

I think 911 can be laid directly at the feet of bureaucratic empire building and incompetence. And the two leading facilitators of that were Jamie Gorelick, asst. atty. general who built up the wall between intelligence agencies (and then, amazingly, was given a seat on the 911 Commission), and Sandy Burger, former NSA, who removed classified documents before testifying before the Commission and only received a slap on the wrist.

 

WTF!

 

Field agents had come up with an amazing amount of information about the hijackers (it was no coincidence that the names and other information about them was released within 24 hours of 911), but mid level bureaucrats either didn't want to push the information on up due to fear of ridicule, the hassle, or just mindless obeisance to the wall. FBI agent Harry Samit testified under oath that "criminal negligence, obstruction and careerism" by his FBI superiors thwarted an opportunity to prevent the September 11th attacks due to his inability to obtain a warrant to look at Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop.

 

I personally believe the members of Able Danger, but it's been so thoroughly supressed that we'll amost certainly never be able to verify any of the information they claimed to have had.

 

Say what you want about Bush and Iraq later on (especially the occupation), but he was set up for 911. He was only in office 7 months, and half of that time was spent fighting to get key memebers of his cabinet approved, especially Attorney General. I do question why he didn't dismantle "the wall" immediately--political pussyfooting as has characterized so much of his administration I expect.

[SpaceMonk]

The usual claim: "The destruction of the WTC looks like the controlled demolition of skyscraper."

 

My question: What does a non-controlled demolition of a skyscraper look like?

This link has some pictures of what an uncontrolled collapse looks like (about 3/4 down the page), in comparison to the collapse of WTC7 (which never got hit by any planes...).

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

 

No molten steel?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet%2B9/11

 

How does steel melt to that level without something more than kerosine?

Maybe Thermite?

http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm

 

What do 'conspiracy believers' get out of it?

Wrong question. It's what the perpetrators get out of it.

 

The 'Project for a New American Century' document, written by many members of the Bush administration including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc, describes their aim as being the complete dominance of America in the world, and never to let any foreign power grow close to rivalling it.

This required a build up of the army and war against certain countries.

 

It also says that all this would take a very long time to achieve, without a new 'Pearl Harbour' event to galvanise the people.

Voila!

One stolen election later: 9/11.

Woops! We 'accidentally' stuffed up the intelligence on that one... Tragic incompetence, but at least now we get to launch the P.N.A.C!

 

Rumsfeld even wanted them to go into Iraq straight away, for no good reason, but had to settle for Afghanistan first...

[Mr. Neil]

The usual claim: "The destruction of the WTC looks like the controlled demolition of skyscraper."

 

My question: What does a non-controlled demolition of a skyscraper look like?

This link has some pictures of what an uncontrolled collapse looks like (about 3/4 down the page), in comparison to the collapse of WTC7 (which never got hit by any planes...).

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

For anyone actually interested, here is my original quote, with the point of my argument reinstated to its proper context.

 

My favorite piece of "evidence" is the alleged evidence of controlled explosions, as suggested by the windows blowing out as the towers fall, as if that couldn't also be the result of air pressure caused by the floor's pancaking from above.

 

The usual claim: "The destruction of the WTC looks like the controlled demolition of skyscraper."

 

My question: What does a non-controlled demolition of a skyscraper look like?

 

 

If those were controlled demolitions, they were pretty sloppy, especially that of the south tower, which actually buckled.

As you can see, the question I asked was in fact rhetorical. The point was that the so-called "demolition" was not as neat and clean as everyone claims, and the alleged "explosions" seem more consistant with a collapsing floor hypothesis, in which the windows are simply being blown out as the floors collapse in on themselves.

 

Further, I acknowledge that the WTC7 collapse was uniquely uniform among all collapses, but we also have the firefighter testamonies themselves which indicate that the building was already moving before they evacuated.

[Dave]

Well Dave, I'm quite surprised that you disagree with the validity of the 3 points I listed.

I only questioned the validity of one. "Aviation sources" can not be a valid claim since "aviation sources" could be someone that flies only single engine planes on weekends. Unnamed sources aren't very reliable.

So? None of the ones that flew the planes is alive.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here Dave. Could you elaborate?

I'm not sure what you want here. Elaborate on what? They're dead. What are you trying to insuinate here?

"[Flight 77] could not have flown at those speeds which they [9/11 Commission] said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.

So? They got the speed of the plane wrong. Doesn't matter since it is quite obvious, and we had proof, that the planed did in fact hit the towers.

Even though they all did get vaporized, the airlines would have a exact record of everyone that boarded the airplanes.

Why would such a record be necessary? We know the planed hit the towers. Lack of this record you want does not mean that Bush ordered the event.

Yes you are correct. I do not have the proof required to make that claim.

I probably should have made myself more clear. With the 3 points I listed I was trying to prove was that the 9/11 Commission was a farce.

Three, mostly irrelevant, "errors" don't support your argument.

[crazy-tiger]

Dave... Flight 77 went into the Pentagon, not the towers...

 

 

That aside, the problem with the claims that it needed extraordinary skill to pull off the maneuvers is that it's based on eyewitness testimony of people who will have seen it from a distance, caught just a glance of it, and who lack any experience with how planes fly, (making then very unreliable, at best...) or were based on the motions of the blip on the radar which tells you just about NOTHING about what the plane is doing.

 

That casts grave doubt on the claim that it was "flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm."

 

 

Add to it that it didn't hit it's target... since it hit the ground and slid into the Pentagon... there's even more doubt that it was a trained pilot flying with extraordinary skill.

 

 

 

Isn't it funny how a quick check of what the claims are based on shows that the claims are refuted by what they're based on...?

[Dirac]

And for the record, I don't believe the government had advanced and detailed knowledge of the attack as it happened. I think, at best, they had information that Osama bin Laden had every intention of engineering an attack (which has been common knowledge since long before the turn of the century) without any solid details concerning the where, when or how. To suggest they had found the cigar case with his hand-written battle plans and even then done nothing seems dubious even to me.

Hear! Hear! This mirrors our smaller experience of radicals bombing us in London last year. We had warnings that an attack was "inevitable" (I think that is the actual word used) from the head of the London police, and others stated similar opinions. Even if the security services really are doing their best, there's always a chance an attack'll succeed.

 

From the presidential briefing linked to a few post back, it seems to me that you can happily argue that the US government and intelligence services were trying bloody hard to investigate terrorist schemes. They weren't "able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting" - but were trying: scores of FBI/CIA investigations were attached to this and similar issues. At the outset, I couldn't care less whether a government did or did not do everything it could to stop an event like 9/11, the nature of reality is entirely independent of how I wish it to be. If it does turn out that the government really fucked up or worse then of course I am then going to be upset.

 

So I think to just accuse someone of facilitating mass murder on 11th September 2001, perhaps on the basis that it fits your preconceived ideas about what happened that day, is pretty unfair. I think it also does a disservice to the section of the security agencies who aren't arrogant, sadistic fuckers and who are doing their best to protect us. Of course, where there is simply overwhelming evidence - even in the public domain, e.g. Iraq - then one can perhaps come to a very different conclusion about our dear leaders and intelligence services.

 

If we want to radically reduce the risk of terrorists killing us and our families, a large part of the answer is to stop waging utterly immoral wars, stop installing and supporting truly brutal regimes and stop overthrowing democratically elceted governments becuase they stop handing over resources to our multinationals and demonsrate that US-dominated capitalism isn't the only way, or even the best way.

[Asimov]

I think it's part of the public who wants the head of someone, anyone for this heinous crime.

 

Osama, not found due to a bigger agenda or the inability to find him. So then naturally people who have been greatly affected by the disaster and who want Justice will look for a scapegoat to quell their unhappiness at the situation and point to someone who can easily be targeted, their leader.

 

It's just like parents who blame video games on their childrens behaviour.

[Dave]

Dave... Flight 77 went into the Pentagon, not the towers...

oops....

That aside, the problem with the claims that it needed extraordinary skill to pull off the maneuvers is that it's based on eyewitness testimony of people who will have seen it from a distance, caught just a glance of it, and who lack any experience with how planes fly, (making then very unreliable, at best...) or were based on the motions of the blip on the radar which tells you just about NOTHING about what the plane is doing.

 

That casts grave doubt on the claim that it was "flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm."

 

Add to it that it didn't hit it's target... since it hit the ground and slid into the Pentagon... there's even more doubt that it was a trained pilot flying with extraordinary skill.

 

Isn't it funny how a quick check of what the claims are based on shows that the claims are refuted by what they're based on...?

That's why I focused on the "aviation authorities" bit. That could mean anything and in this case those "authorities" were people that didn't know what they were seeing. The EXACT flight path to the billionth of a degree is useless information and it does nothing to discredit a report with thousands of other uncontested facts in it.

[integral]

With the 3 points I listed I was trying to prove was that the 9/11 Commission was a farce.

Three, mostly irrelevant, "errors" don't support your argument.

Wow, just wow...6 of the hijackers were reported alive by major news sources the BBC, the Associated Press, and the Telegraph. Yet you say "mostly irrelevant"?

 

That is monstrous negligence on the part of The 9/11 Commission--not even a mention of these news reports it its Report.

This alone should immediately get any critically thinking individual to question The 9/11 Commission Report.

 

 

 

 

For those who still believe that The 9/11 Commission did a credible job, check out this site:

Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government Officials Question 9/11 Commission Report

 

What some of these high ranking government officials had to say is just damning.

 

 

Here's just one example, from Senator Max Cleland:

If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."

Cleland ended up resigning from The 9/11 Commission because of this.

[Dave]

Wow, just wow...6 of the hijackers were reported alive by major news sources the BBC, the Associated Press, and the Telegraph. Yet you say "mostly irrelevant"?

No, your argument about them is mostly irrelevant. It proves nothing. So the 9/11 Commission report wasn't perfect in every minute detail? There's no way it could be.

 

What is relevant is that bush used those attacks as an excuse to invade a soverign country that was no threat to anyone outside it's own citizens. He is responsible for thousands of times more deaths than those of 9/11. I don't give a crap about any report. I do care about people being senselessly slaughtered in the name of my country.

[crazy-tiger]

Wow, just wow...6 of the hijackers were reported alive by major news sources the BBC, the Associated Press, and the Telegraph. Yet you say "mostly irrelevant"?

Funny... the Telegraph, the BBC and AP have NO MENTION OF THAT REPORT in their archives.

 

 

I don't like having to trawl through archives on a wild goose chase...

That is monstrous negligence on the part of The 9/11 Commission--not even a mention of these news reports it its Report.

Wow, just wow... No mention of something that doesn't exist.

 

Yeah... I can see how that's negligent.

This alone should immediately get any critically thinking individual to question The 9/11 Commission Report.

This alone shows that Dr David Ray Griffin is, at best, badly mistaken or, at worst, an outright liar...

 

Certainly, it damages his credibility and the credibility of his claims.

[integral]

No, your argument about them is mostly irrelevant. It proves nothing. So the 9/11 Commission report wasn't perfect in every minute detail? There's no way it could be.

In a crime, is it not important to identify and apprehend the correct criminals?

 

Is not that just a little more than a mostly irrelevant or minute detail as you say?

 

What is relevant is that bush used those attacks as an excuse to invade a soverign country that was no threat to anyone outside it's own citizens. He is responsible for thousands of times more deaths than those of 9/11. I don't give a crap about any report. I do care about people being senselessly slaughtered in the name of my country.

Hmmm.

Should not one care about the Report and its findings if they were used in part to justify that war, and its senseless slaughterings?

 

Funny... the Telegraph, the BBC and AP have NO MENTION OF THAT REPORT in their archives.

BBC report

Telegraph report

 

Well I did a bit of searching and I'm unable to find the AP report. However, the source is footnoted in Griffin's book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

I would look up the title of this AP news report, but I returned the book to the library last month.

[Dave]

Wow, just wow...6 of the hijackers were reported alive by major news sources the BBC, the Associated Press, and the Telegraph. Yet you say "mostly irrelevant"?

Funny... the Telegraph, the BBC and AP have NO MENTION OF THAT REPORT in their archives......

That's part of the conspiracy. It was there but they took it out. That missing report is PROOF of the conspiracy.

 

 

/sarcasm

 

No matter what, you cannot win an argument with a conspiracist. That you couldn't find that article, that never existed, just supports my point.

[crazy-tiger]

Funny... the Telegraph, the BBC and AP have NO MENTION OF THAT REPORT in their archives.

BBC report

Telegraph report

 

Well I did a bit of searching and I'm unable to find the AP report. However, the source is footnoted in Griffin's book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

I would look up the title of this AP news report, but I returned the book to the library last month.

Serves me right for only going back 5 years... (or that the archives defaulted to that and I didn't think of adding more... )

 

Meanwhile, how about you check up on my identity... it appears I'm a racist, bigotted columnist for a Sydney newspaper.

 

 

Why do I mention that? Simple... Because the reports you link to have this nice part about how MULTIPLE people with the same names have come forward about how they are alive and weren't hijackers...

 

Or are we to assume that the ones that came forward 5 years ago, (and which seems to be all that was said about that... nothing since then? No reports in the Media about how they got it wrong when the report came out?) are the only people IN THE WORLD with those names?

 

Or maybe they got the pictures wrong... which can happen without it being a conspiracy. (I know... unlikely isn't it? )

 

 

In the end, that very small error (and it is small, before you try to make a mountain out of it) makes no difference. If they went on the evidence they had, even if it was an alias instead of a real name, it changes nothing.

In concentrating on that, by making that a primary part of the argument, you make the mistake of shooting at the sidelines.

Should not one care about the Report and its findings if they were used in part to justify that war, and its senseless slaughterings?

Yes, they should... it not for the fact that the war in Iraq had started and, supposedly, finished BEFORE the Report came out.

 

Oh yes... the Report came out in 2004... The war in Iraq was "won" in May 2003.

 

 

And, no... it isn't used to justify it... it doesn't make claims that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

[Dave]

No, your argument about them is mostly irrelevant. It proves nothing. So the 9/11 Commission report wasn't perfect in every minute detail? There's no way it could be.

In a crime, is it not important to identify and apprehend the correct criminals?

That's not what you're trying to do. What you feel you must do is excoriate the 9/11 Comm report at any cost.

Hmmm.

Should not one care about the Report and its findings if they were used in part to justify that war, and its senseless slaughterings?

When did the invasion start and when was the report published?

[crazy-tiger]

Note that 13 passports were either known or suspected of containing Fraudulent Features, indicating that they could well be faked. (including all 6... well, 5, since one of them was only a "suggested suspicion that he was alive"... including all 5 that were reported as being alive. Or at least reported to have the same name as other people...)

 

 

And that's in the report itself, so you can take your claims that the Report didn't mention they might not be the names and stick it.

 

 

 

 

Either you didn't check the details and made a mistake, or you just quoted Griffin, who made the mistake...

 

One of you made a damned mistake... now which one?

[crazy-tiger]

No, your argument about them is mostly irrelevant. It proves nothing. So the 9/11 Commission report wasn't perfect in every minute detail? There's no way it could be.

In a crime, is it not important to identify and apprehend the correct criminals?

 

Is not that just a little more than a mostly irrelevant or minute detail as you say?

Are the Criminals alive? Can they be apprehended? No?

 

Then 100% accurate identification is not needed. It'd be nice to have it, but the report admits that it can't do that. (you'd know that if you read the bloody thing)

 

 

 

Fact: The Report states it doesn't know for sure who they were... the only evidence is suspect, but they had to call them something, so used the possibly faked names.

Fact: Claiming that the Report states that it knows exactly who they were is false.

Fact: Attacking the report, claiming that it states something it doesn't state, is a strawman.

 

Fact: That's 2 strawmen that Griffin has used now... should we look closer at his other claims?

[Dave]

....Fact: That's 2 strawmen that Griffin has used now... should we look closer at his other claims?

I rarely spend any effort to look at the claims of conspiracy theorists. It has been proven to me that it's not worth the bother. 99 and 44/100ths of their claims come out of thin air and the rest are based on mythinformation. They ALWAYS neglect to recognize certain facts that would absolutely disprove their pet theories.

[SpaceMonk]

For anyone actually interested, here is my original quote, with the point of my argument reinstated to its proper context.

 

As you can see, the question I asked was in fact rhetorical.

My apologies Mr Neil.

I wasn't trying to spin your words, your original post being a part of this same thread which others would have already read. I just cut it down a bit too much from the original post, but it was that part which inspired me to post my own 2 cents.

I know I ranted a bit, but this is the 'Rants and Replies' forum...

[The Paineful Truth]

Woodsmokie wrote:

To suggest they had found the cigar case with his hand-written battle plans and even then done nothing seems dubious even to me.

 

Cigar case no. Mussoui's (sp?) laptop, yes. But we didn't do nothing about it because we never opened it until after 9/11. I'm not sure which is more neglegent.