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

Getting Agnostic About 9/11

Expand Messages
  • World View
    A society of nonbelievers questions the official version. Getting Agnostic About 9/11 MARK EHRMAN Friday, August 26, 2005
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      A society of nonbelievers questions the official version.


      Getting Agnostic About 9/11
      MARK EHRMAN
      Friday, August 26, 2005
      http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-
      crgriffin35aug28,1,3835884.story?coll=la-headlines-
      magazine&ctrack=1&cset=true .


      Anyone who types the words "9/11" and "conspiracy" into an online
      search engine soon learns that not everybody buys the official
      narrative of what took place on Sept. 11, 2001. As a professor
      emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, 66-year-old David Ray
      Griffin would seem to have more affinity for leather elbow patches
      than tin hats, yet after friends and colleagues prodded him into
      sifting through the evidence, he experienced a conversion. Now he's
      spreading the bad news. Griffin compiled a summary of material
      arguing against the accepted story that 19 hijackers sent by Osama
      bin Laden took the aviation system and the U.S. military by surprise
      that awful day in his 2004 book "The New Pearl Harbor" (published by
      Interlink, a Massachusetts-based independent publisher covering areas
      including travel, cooking, world fiction, current events, politics,
      children's literature and other subjects). He recently followed up
      with the book "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"
      (Interlink), a critique of the Kean commission document in which he
      suggests that a chunk of the blame for the worst terrorist attack on
      U.S. soil lies closer to home than the caves of Afghanistan. We
      contacted him at his Santa Barbara-area home for a report on his
      journey from mild-mannered scholar to doubting Thomas.

      How did you join the ranks of those questioning the official account
      of the 9/11 events?

      I was rather slow getting on board. For the first year and a half I
      just accepted the conventional view, really the blowback thesis, that
      this was blowback for our foreign policy. When a colleague suggested
      to me about a year after 9/11 that he was convinced our own
      government or forces within our own government had arranged it, I
      didn't accept that. Then several months later another colleague sent
      me [a link to] a website that had a timeline. Once I started reading
      that and saw all those stories drawn from mainstream sources that
      contradicted the official account, I decided I needed to look into it
      more carefully, and the more I looked, the worse it got. I considered
      it an obligation to kind of organize, compile the evidence and put it
      out there for the public.

      The Internet is full of 9/11 conspiracy theories. What have you
      contributed to the discussion?

      My main contribution has been the second book, [showing] that the
      9/11 commission report is not worthy of belief, and the implication
      of that is that they were covering up the government's own guilt.

      What would constitute a "smoking gun" against the official 9/11
      account?

      There are many. By just ignoring them, the 9/11 commission implicitly
      admitted they couldn't answer them. The towers coming down into a
      pile only a few stories high is a smoking gun. Many laws of physics
      had to be violated if the official story about the collapses is true.
      [The collapses] had all the earmarks of a controlled demolition by
      explosives. One of those is total collapse into a small pile of
      rubble. The fact that Building 7 [a skyscraper near the towers]
      collapsed when it had not been hit by an airplane, and collapsed in
      seven or eight seconds, that's a smoking gun. The fact that standard
      operating procedures were not followed that morning, and we've gotten
      three different stories now by the U.S. military as to why they did
      not intercept the planes, that's a smoking gun. The Secret Service
      leaving the president and themselves wide open to being attacked by
      [not responding immediately], that's a smoking gun. I can't say one
      is bigger than the other. You've got six or seven that are equally
      big.

      Critics of the official 9/11 account seem to draw sinister inferences
      from instances where people, buildings or physical objects didn't
      react or behave as one might expect in theory. For example, if the
      hijackers were devout Muslims, why were some drinking, eating pork
      chops and cavorting with lap dancers? Doesn't real life unfold
      inconsistently, even bizarrely?

      That's true, but the 9/11 commission simply ignored those questions.
      They're creating this image of fanatics who were so devout and
      convinced of the truth of their religion that they were ready to meet
      their maker, yet here's all this evidence that suggests they were not
      devout at all. [The commission] simply ignored evidence.

      Dissenters also seem to find it suspect that in a dire emergency,
      individuals and agencies bumbled, fumbled, delayed, dropped the ball
      or choked. Won't that occur in any emergency?

      Well, of course, that is the official theory. It's a coincidence
      theory that just happened to be that on those days, everybody became
      terribly incompetent. Take the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration].
      They've got these standard procedures: If a plane goes off course, if
      you lose radio contact or lose the transponder, you call the
      military. On this day we're told these FAA officials hit the
      trifecta. They got all three of these things, and yet they would
      stand around debating, "Should we call the military? No, I don't
      think so." And when they finally call, the people at headquarters
      won't accept their calls because they were in conference or wouldn't
      pass the call on. They have roughly about 100 hijack warnings a year
      where planes have to be scrambled, but suddenly they become just all
      thumbs. The whole thing is just implausible. The other thing is, if
      you've got accidents, screw-ups, some ought to go one way and the
      others the other way. Here everything goes the same way. Everybody
      fails to do their jobs in relation to something to do with 9/11.

      With others, you have alleged that inconsistencies, omissions or lies
      in the 9/11 record point to a cover-up, or even collusion or
      orchestration, by the American government. What would motivate such a
      scenario?

      You've got liberal Democrats and Republicans and Independents who are
      appalled by what Andrew Bacevich [a professor of international
      relations at Boston University] called "the new American militarism"
      in the book "American Empire." New meaning, qualitatively different
      than before. This post-9/11 push to a new level has made the world an
      enormously more dangerous place. Many people apart from thinking
      about 9/11 as an inside job have decided that the United States is
      doing what [Princeton University emeritus international law
      professor] Richard Falk calls a "global domination project." Chalmers
      Johnson [Japan Policy Research Institute president], a previous
      conservative, now says that we have become a military juggernaut
      intent on world domination.

      Have you followed polls on what the public believes about 9/11?

      There was a Zogby poll in New York. The question asked was, do you
      believe the government had advance knowledge of the attacks and
      consciously let them happen? Forty-nine percent in New York City said
      yes. I believe it was 43% statewide. That is a pretty remarkable
      figure. In this country there has not been a poll that asked, do you
      believe the government actually planned and orchestrated the attacks?
      The question has been raised in Europe and Canada and has gotten to
      somewhere around 20%. It would be interesting to have such a poll in
      the United States.

      Conspiracy theorists are often dismissed as marginal types. Where do
      your views on 9/11 place you in the eyes of your peers in academia?

      One thing to point out is, the official account itself is a
      conspiracy theory. It says that 19 Arab Muslims under the influence
      of Osama bin Laden conspired to pull off this operation. The question
      is not whether one is a conspiracy theorist about 9/11. It's which
      conspiracy theory do you find most supported by the evidence?

      Does your role as a 9/11 dissenter depart from your life's work as a
      scholar and theologian?

      At first glance it may seem strange, but the task of a theologian is
      to look at the world from what we would imagine the divine
      perspective, [which] would care about the good of the whole and would
      love all the parts. [So] 9/11, if it was brought about by forces
      within our own government for imperial reasons, is antithetical to
      the general good.

      Evil has been a subject of your academic writing. It's also been a
      recurring theme in administration rhetoric. Is that strange?

      In these politicians' mouths, it's used to describe certain groups
      and organizations when it's politically convenient to do so, and then
      to overlook even greater evil when it's politically convenient to do
      so. If you understand the divine as an all-powerful and wrathful
      creator who seeks vengeance, and uses overwhelming power to destroy
      its enemies, why then, if you've got the political power, you're
      probably going to think you're acting like God if you do that. The
      [Christian] church during the early centuries was anti-empire. Rome
      was the enemy. With Constantine, the empire accepted Christianity,
      and Christianity started accepting empire and all that entailed.
      There has been a long history of support for militarism, so from that
      perspective, it's not so strange.

      Prior to your 9/11 work, did you have an anti-establishment streak?

      I never burned my bra. I was fairly critical like a lot of Americans
      are, but I don't think people would have looked at me and
      said, "There's an anti-establishment guy."

      Do you get hate mail?

      I've had a few people suggest I need to see a psychiatrist, and one
      psychiatrist in L.A. even kindly offered his services.

      © Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times ( latimes.com )

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.