Theologian Charges White House Complicity in 911 Attack

[Magical]

NICK WELSH:
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 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.

more...

http://independent.com/news/news906.htm

[SeveneightyWhoa]

1. I got an advanced reading copy of his book..

.."The New Pearl Harbor".

Its basically a run-down of information thats already widely available on the net, and most of us know.

Sadly, he takes Thierry Meissan seriously. Thats the guy who wrote a book claiming that missiles hit the Pentagon rather than a plane, an idea that has been disproved. The fact that he trudges this out in a NEW book makes me apprehensive about Griffin's veracity. Plus, he studies religion, so he's not an expert in this field.

[Archae]

4. Review of one of Griffin's books.

Seems not everyone is enamored of Griffin.

"A philosophically serious but scientifically silly book. Griffin paints an attractive picture of a top-down, mind-first world where the natural smoothly connects to the supernatural. When it comes to constructing a postmodern viewpoint which would lead us to accept the evidence from parapsychology, however, he becomes amazingly muddleheaded, even irresponsible. He trots out the argument that "persons of integrity" like Crookes have endorsed spiritualist phenomena, or that William James has vouched for Mrs. Piper, and that we should trust these anecdotes. D.D. Home, Nina Kulagina, Ted Serios, Ian Stevenson's reincarnations, poltergeists, Rhine's work, mediums, apparitions, possessions, shoe's perceived during OBE's -- to Griffin, no psychical research is flawed beyond redemption, and skeptics are all dogmatic materialists who refuse to consider the evidence. The book is, in the end, interesting as an example of radically pro-commonsense and anti-science philosophizing, but thoroughly unconvincing in its substantial claims."

http://www.csicop.org/bibliography/display.cgi

[el_gato]

7. what does that have to do with anything?

you seem awfully concerned with discrediting this person

hmmm.....

[Archae]

10. Everything.

If this idiot is willing to believe in fakes like the people in the review listed, he has the credibility of Bush.

[el_gato]

12. still nothing but name calling etc.

gimme something substantail about his research or something

if you expect me to take you seriously

[OneBlueSky]

15. the idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon has NOT been disproved . . .

at all . . . quite the contrary . . . there's tons of evidence, photographic and otherwise, to indicate that it was NOT a jetliner that hit the Pentagon, e.g. . . .



for additional evidence, read some of the articles listed on this page, several of which deal with the Pentagon crash . . .

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_articles.htm

the bottom line are the photos of the wall BEFORE it collapsed (some of which are DOD photos) . . . there is simply no way that a 757 could fit into that hole . . .

the more we learn, the more it seems impossible that the BushCo version of events is what actually happened . . . I won't venture a guess as to what actually DID happen . . . I only know that, like most of what we get from this administration, the "official" story is full of contradictions, physical impossibilities, and outright lies . . .

with BushCo's record for veracity pretty well demolished on issue after issue, it amazes me that people still think that they are incapable of lying when it comes to what happened on 9/11 . . .

[Archae]

2. This guy is a whack job.

It was ONLY a plane that damaged the Pentagon, and it was the fire from the jet fuel that weakened the supports in the WTC.
(There was MORE than enough jet fuel to cause the intial fireball and keep burning.)

REAL science, not this nutsoid crap has shown this.

Cripes almighty, I hope nobody is dumb enough to believe this nitwit here at DU.

[Caution]

3. prepare to be disappointed

both the pentagon and the supports have been questioned extensively in the past on DU. (I'm with you on this one btw)

[Archae]

5. Kee-ripes.

Sounds like the liberal version of the "Clinton killed lots of people in Arkansas" Freepers. :shrug:

[el_gato]

6. hmm....seems like you hate this guy an awful lot Archae

but the pentagon thing seems kinda fishy to me as well

[Archae]

8. No, I don't "hate" ths guy.

I'm simply stating a fact, that he is totally full of it.

There's MORE than enough we can nail Bush on, we don't have to believe tinfoil-hat crapola made up about him.

[el_gato]

11. but you haven't done anything other than call him names

maybe you outta try to debunk his statements instead of name calling etc.

[el_gato]

9. Archae your attacking the messenger instead of the message

why don't you try to attack his message if you disagree with it
instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks?

I mean I could drag out a negative review of anybody's book
but what the hell does that have to do with anything other
than an effort to try to discredit somebody.

Kinda like what the bush gang was doing to Clarke eh?

[Archae]

13. Ok, I'll attack his message.

This Griffin claims the jetliners couldn't have done the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon.

What evidence does he have to support his claims?
ANYTHING credible?

Is Griffin an engineer?
Crash investigator?

No.
He's a THEOLOGIAN, who's specialty is religious beliefs.

'Nuff said.

[el_gato]

14. um okay....you've lost me

I gave you a chance.

[OneBlueSky]

16. no, not "nuff said" . . . not by a long shot . . .

take a look at some of the articles indexed on this page, many of which deal with the Pentagon crash . . . the more you learn, the more evident it becomes that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757 . . .

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_articles.htm

the most damning evidence is photos (some from the DOD) of the Pentagon wall BEFORE it collapsed . . . there's about an 18-foot hole . . . and there's no way a 757 was swallowed up in an 18-foot hole . . . and then there's this . . .



common sense, my friend, common sense . . .

[OneBlueSky]

17. I recently read this book, and recommend it highly . . .

not a lot of new information, but an excellent bringing together of the most damning evidence that contradicts the "official" story of what happened on 9/11 . . . the author doesn't propose to tell us what DID happen, only that the evidence against BushCo's version is so compelling that a real, thorough investigation is warranted . . .

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566565529/qid=1080710672/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4515073-0090306?v=glance&s=books

[WyLoochka]

18. So if Flight 77 didn't dive bomb

the Pentagon - what happened to it? Where are the people who were on board?

[donhakman]

19. fact or fiction?

Probably a little bit of both and basted with the bizarre.

[BlueStateGirl]

20. I don't buy into this...

for the simple reason " Why wouldn't they just use a plane?" Why would the shoot a missile into the pentagon and then have to come up with some elaborate plan to cover it up?

Why not just use flight 77???

Seriously.

If it was MIHOP why not just use the high jacked plane??

Where is the flight, where are the people?

It seems monumentally stupid to fire a missile into the Pentagon, and claim IT was a plane. Esp. when there is an actual aircraft and passengers to account for, Air Traffic Control, witnesses on the ground, it seems like an awfully big secret to keep, involving way too many people.

http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentagon_plane/

Check out this link. This guy attempts to debunk some of the missile stuff. Remember the plane that crashed into the Everglades, the Value Jet plane? There was very little left of that plane and it hit soft marshy swamp land. This plane would have hit steel re enforced concrete and limestone walls at a speed up-wards of 250 MPH. Is anyone really surprised there isn't much debris? Or that the wings sheared?

[evworldeditor]

21. Too Many Unexplained Anomolies?

For the skeptical.. from both points of view... here's an interesting web site that claims to look at the anomolies of 9/11 from a scientific perspective.

Take it for what it's worth....

http://physics911.org/