Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10437Nagging Thoughts

Expand Messages
  • holderlin66
    Apr 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts
      Theologian Charges White House
      Complicity in 9/11 Attack
      by Nick Welsh


      A respected philosopher of religion at the Claremont School of
      Theology since the 1970s and longtime Santa Barbara resident,
      Griffin is now raising questions that even President Bush's harshest
      critics are afraid to think, let alone ask aloud.

      In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor — released just two weeks
      ago — Griffin all but accuses the Bush administration of taking a
      dive on September 11 and giving Al Qaeda terrorists an unobstructed
      shot at the World Trade Center. According to Griffin, a case can be
      made that the Bush administration arranged the attack, or allowed it
      to happen. He is aware that he may be dismissed as a conspiracy nut,
      but given the "transcendent importance" of the issue, Griffin is
      willing to assume that risk and has taken to repeating Michael
      Moore's line on the subject: "Personally, I'm not into conspiracy
      theories except those that are true." I met with Griffin over coffee
      to discuss his book and the September 11 investigation. The
      following is an edited account of their conversation.

      Is there a smoking gun that shows the Bush administration knew 9/11
      was likely to happen and did nothing about it?

      DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I think there are four. One is the fact that
      standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked
      airplanes were not followed on 9/11. Those procedures call for
      fighter jets to be sent out immediately upon any sign that a plane
      may have been hijacked. These jets typically get to the plane within
      no later than 15 minutes anywhere in the United States. And on that
      day, there were four airplanes that went for a half-hour or more
      after they were hijacked without jets intercepting them.

      What's the official explanation of that?

      I'm afraid the press has not done its job. They have not forced
      government officials to explain why standard operating procedures
      were not followed that day, nor have they pressed the FAA (Federal
      Aviation Administration) to explain why they didn't report these
      hijackings as they were supposed to. The official story is that [the
      fighter jets] were very late.

      And the other smoking guns?

      The second strongest piece of evidence I would say is the crash at
      the Pentagon. The physical evidence contradicts so violently the
      official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight
      77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness
      testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a
      hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put
      out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in
      the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at
      the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that's
      just not the size of the hole.

      But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created
      by something other than a Boeing. Whatever went into the Pentagon
      pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of
      the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were
      extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls
      creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall. This
      had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing
      757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all
      those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And
      given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the
      aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard. And yet the
      photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly
      after the crash — show no plane whatsoever.

      What do they show?

      They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this. The
      official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon.
      The problem with that — the firefighters in there would have seen
      the airplane. They would have seen the engines, they would have seen
      the aluminum fuselage, but they reported nothing. Ed Plower, the
      fire chief, when asked what he saw, said, "I didn't see any big
      pieces, no fuselage, no engines, no nothing." But about a month
      later, when asked he said, "Oh yes, I saw all that." His memory had
      had time to be refreshed.

      If what you're saying is accurate — that it was a missile — then
      what happened to the plane and all the people on it?
      That's why I stress I'm not trying to give an account of what really
      happened. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77.

      President Bush has also been criticized for behaving somewhat
      bizarrely that day.

      As he and the Secret Service got word that a second plane had
      crashed into the World Trade Center and that three planes had been
      hijacked, there could have been no possible doubt in their mind that
      the United States was under terrorist attack . . . The most
      horrendous attack the United States had ever suffered. And they
      would have had to assume that one or more of them were heading
      toward President Bush himself. And so upon learning about this, the
      Secret Service surely would have whisked him away immediately. In
      fact, one Secret Service agent on the scene said, "We're out of
      here." But obviously he got overruled because President Bush stayed
      there. After Andrew Card reported the second crash on the World
      Trade Center, the president just nodded as if he understood and
      said, "We're going to go ahead with the reading lesson." And he sat
      there another 15 minutes listening to the children read a story
      about a pet goat. This was a photo op and when it was over he
      lingered around talking to the children and talking to the teacher.
      Bill Sammon, of the Washington Times, wrote a very pro-Bush book,
      yet he comments how casual and relaxed the president was given the
      fact he'd just learned the country was under attack. He said Bush
      took his own sweet time and in fact called him "Our Dawdler in
      Chief." And then the president went on national TV, going forward
      with an interview that had been planned and announced in
      advance . . . then they took their regularly scheduled motorcade
      back to the airport. In other words, [Bush and the Secret Service]
      showed no fear whatsoever that they would be targeted for attack,
      which strongly suggests they knew how many aircraft were being
      hijacked and what their targets were.

      Couldn't it have been that he was trying to project calm in the eye
      of the storm, that this was Bush projecting Churchillian resolve in
      the face of calamity?

      People who want to believe such things can, of course, imagine such
      scenarios. But the president in a situation like that does not make
      the decisions; the Secret Service team makes the decisions. And the
      guys in the Secret Service are trained to be ready for a catastrophe
      like this where they make snap decisions and whisk the president to
      safety immediately. They would have had an escape route planned;
      they would have had contingencies planned — they always do. It is at
      least not very plausible to think they would have remained there and
      endangered the lives of all the children and teachers at that school
      in order to exude that Churchillian confidence.

      What about the plane thatcrashed down?

      We know that on Flight 93, which crashed over Pennsylvania, the
      passengers were trying to get control of the aircraft. They had
      decided the hijackers did not have bombs and probably didn't even
      have guns. And because their plane didn't take off until a half-hour
      after the others, they knew that the others had crashed into the
      World Trade Center — so they knew they were going to die anyway,
      even if they didn't do anything. So as one of the passengers is
      saying, "They're doing it, they're forcing their way into the cabin,
      they're going to make it." As soon as that happened, with the FBI
      listening in, the plane went down. There was a whoosh, then the
      sound of wind. And people on the ground reported hearing what
      Vietnam veterans said sounded like a missile. Furthermore, there was
      debris from the plan eight miles from the crash site, suggesting the
      plane had been hit and stuff started falling out. And one of the
      engines was found over a mile from the crash site. Of course, if it
      had been a missile that downed the plane, it most likely would have
      been a heat-seeking missile that would have found the engine and
      knocked it off.

      Why would the government have an interest in doing this?
      So the hijackers couldn't speak to anyone?

      That would be a very good reason. If it were a conspiracy and the
      hijackers knew about it, it would have been very threatening to
      those who made the plan to have anybody left alive. Again, I don't
      pretend to know, but that's at least a plausible scenario. There
      were many rumors that day that the plane was shot down, but the
      government denied it.

      You suggest that the World Trade Center buildings must have been
      detonated with explosives to account for the heat generated and the
      speed the structures collapsed on themselves. That sounds extreme.
      What's the evidence?

      The evidence is cumulative — several things that point to controlled
      demolition. First, a steel-framed building, according to all the
      reading I've done, has never collapsed solely because of fire. They
      will bend and buckle in a very large all-consuming fire that lasts
      for a very long time. But they have never collapsed.

      But it was not just fire — it was fire and impact at the same time.
      The twin towers were very large buildings and extremely well built
      with a lot of redundancy. Even people who believe the official
      theory say that the crash of the plane into the towers should have
      been insignificant, that the shock would have been immediate, but it
      was over very soon and that the buildings were extremely solid and
      stable and not moving. In the south tower, much of the fuel from it
      spilled outside as it collided into the corner. So there was a giant
      firebomb which looked very impressive, but what that means is that
      most of the fuel was burned up within a minute, so there was not
      much fuel inside. Therefore, the fire in the south tower had almost
      gone out in less than an hour. And that brings us to another strange
      fact about the towers. If the official story were correct, that the
      combination of the crash and the fire brought the buildings down, we
      would expect the north tower to have come down first, because it was
      hit first. And yet the south tower collapsed first. It collapsed in
      less than an hour. That makes perfect sense if you're willing to
      accept that it was caused by controlled demolition, meaning the
      building was wired with explosives. And if the official story has it
      that the buildings were brought down by fire, you'd want the
      buildings to go down before the fire had completely gone out.

      What you're suggesting sounds like something from. X-Files. But on X-
      Files, you always had agents Scully and Mulder trying to get the
      truth out. Here we don't have any Scullys and Mulders. You'd think
      this whole new unilateral expression of military supremacy might
      have opponents within the administration coming unglued and that
      they'd be leaking info damaging to Bush, but we don't hear those
      voices. Why not?

      Members of the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies have
      taken oaths to not reveal things they've been told not to
      reveal . . . and if they violate this oath, repercussions may occur.
      You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, "If you go
      public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family."
      Would you go public with that? You have to choose between your
      family's welfare and the welfare of the nation, and your story might
      not do that much good. You might just be denounced as a conspiracy
      kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look
      into your past and find that you had done some things you're not so
      proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut.

      Let's say there has been this complicity. To what end?
      There were several benefits that could have been anticipated from
      9/11. One was the so-called Patriot Act. It did appear that the
      Patriot Act, given how fast it was rushed into Congress, voting had
      already been prepared. The Patriot Act is so large that it's
      inconceivable it could have been written after 9/11. Rushing it
      through Congress when most members had not even read a small portion
      of it was clearly one benefit, giving the government increased

      Also, there was the desire to wage war in Afghanistan to force out
      the Taliban and put an American-friendly government in place because
      of the desire of Unical and other gas companies to build an oil
      pipeline, which they felt was too dangerous with the Taliban in
      power. There was a meeting in Berlin in July 2001, a final effort to
      get an agreement between the Taliban and the United States that
      would allow a sort of joint government, where the Taliban would
      share power with more American-friendly leaders. The Taliban
      refused, at which point they were told, "If you don't take our
      carpet of gold, we'll bury you under a carpet of bombs." The
      Pakistani representative at this meeting said the Americans told him
      that the war would start before the snows came that October. And
      after 9/11 happened, there was exactly the right amount of time for
      the U.S. forces to get organized to begin the war, and the war began
      on October 7.

      Another benefit is that many senior members of the Bush
      administration had for a long time wanted to attack Iraq. Getting
      control of the oil there was one motive; the more general motive was
      to secure a military presence in that part of the world.

      Don't you think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein was taken out,
      and don't you think Bush had a moral obligation to do so because it
      was his father who was responsible for building up Hussein in the
      first place?

      Certainly you can say there were some benefits to the people of
      Iraq. But if we had an obligation to take out Saddam Hussein then we
      have obligations to take out many other nefarious leaders around the
      world, many of whom are far worse, believe it or not, than Saddam
      Hussein. And the sorry history is that we have in fact supported
      such leaders and that Saddam Hussein was in power only because of
      American support. He remained in power after gassing the Kurds
      became common knowledge. Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Saddam at
      that period. Actually our aid to Saddam went up after we knew that
      he had done this.

      So you think this is mostly about oil.
      It is to a significant extent about oil, given the projections that
      the world is beginning to run out of oil. The United States wants to
      get control of it because our way of life, which is so dependent
      upon oil, is nonnegotiable. And also because military dominance
      itself runs to great extent on oil. But it's not just about oil.
      It's about geopolitical dominance. And this brings up the U.S. Space
      command. In the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published
      in 2000 by the Project for the New American Century — an
      organization founded by people such as [Richard] Perle and [Paul]
      Wolfowitz and [Dick] Cheney and Rumsfeld — there is a statement in
      there that says we need to move forward with this revolution in
      military affairs.

      The central feature of this is the augmentation of the U.S. Space
      Command through which the United States would have what's called now
      Full Spectrum Dominance. In addition to having dominance over land,
      air, and sea, we would have dominance in space. But building the
      space stations and the satellites for the weaponization of space
      will be an extremely expensive undertaking. One projection has the
      first stage of it being about a trillion dollars. So an enormous
      amount of money has to be shifted from the American taxpayers and
      other parts of the economy to the military and the space command.
      The document states that such a revolution in military affairs will
      probably proceed very slowly absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
      event such as a new Pearl Harbor.

      Hence the title of your book . . . You've complained the American
      media has been asleep at the switch on this. How do you account for

      It is very difficult for Americans to face the possibility that
      their own government may have caused or deliberately allowed such a
      heinous event. Secondly, one can understand that insofar as the
      media is owned by companies like General Electric, which is one of
      the largest makers of weapons, stations like NBC that are owned by
      GE would not wish to publicize these connections. And finally, 9/11
      was immediately treated not only as a matter of patriotism but
      almost as a religious event. Bush declared his war on terrorism from
      the national cathedral. And so from then on, any questioning of the
      official account could be and was criticized as being undemocratic
      and almost sacrilegious.

      I at least hope that if we can begin to get a public discussion of
      9/11 and of the many, many discrepancies between the official story
      and what at least appear to be the facts, that some of those people
      might be emboldened to step forward.

      How has researching and writing this book affected you personally?I
      fear that our democracy is in much worse shape than I had imagined,
      and that even the appearance of democracy we now have might be
      quickly swept aside.
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic