The New Pearl Harbor (a good read) - Theologian supports LIHOP/MIHOP

[seventhson]

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


There's nothing the least bit wild-eyed or hysterical about David Ray
Griffin. In person, he's disarmingly calm, and speaks in the unflappably precise and deliberate style of a lifelong academic. Which is exactly what Griffin is. 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.

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.



More...

[TahitiNut]

1. Interesting. Claremont is very conservative.

Needless to sya, I think the thesis is obvious. I'm beyond a reasonable doubt it was LIHOP.

[moof]

2. anyone else get an error on that link ?

how about cut & pasting the 4 main points at least please.

well the remaining 3.

[seventhson]

3. it worked for me

His gist is the same as most Lihoppers.

But he has a book and he is a "man of God" - which makes his perspective a little more ....something different.

Here's another excerpt:


You’ve complained the American media has been asleep at the switch on this. How do you account for this?


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.

[milkyway]

4. Thanks for the great link. I'm going to try to find the book today.

[harrison]

5. I think this is a very important book which I intend to buy. This

man is a respected academic who usually doesn't get into things like this. It is hard to brand him as a conspiracy kook. He feels so strongly about this that he is putting his reputation on the line.

Furthermore, theologians and their stripe have their own fraternity and no doubt that book will be read by many within the fraternity and the information passed around.

I like what he said about the Pentagon building. He isn't trying to explain what happend to Flight 77; he is just looking at the evidence at hand.

[OneBlueSky]

6. excellent book . . .

not a lot of new information, but the first book I've found to bring together all of the existing questions and contradictions about the "official" story of 9/11 . . . when you see them all in one place, it seems that the offical story is the LEAST likely explanation of what happened . . . a good read, and a good book to recommend to those who think BushCo's version makes sense . . .

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