David Griffin: ALMOST Perfect About 9/11! tvnl

[veracity]

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: ALMOST PERFECT ABOUT 9/11!
AN ANALYSIS BY TvNewsLIES.org

We firmly believe that those people who fully believe the conclusions of the Kean Commission have never seen or heard any of the compelling evidence to the contrary. - These people never permit the complete picture to be painted for them. - They never allow themselves a chance to look at any of the information about 9/11 that has been revealed. They simply do not want to know that it exists.

David Ray Griffin, theologian, author and outspoken 9/11 researcher, recently did what nobody else has been able to do: gain television coverage to expose the very likely complicity by the Bush administration in the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

In his two latest books and during a powerful television presentation, David Griffin put together the most thorough analysis to date of the official Kean commission report on 9/11. It is not with this analysis that we find any fault whatsoever. On the contrary, Griffin’s examination provides a series of powerful and irrefutable arguments for probable and likely government complicity in the attacks.

Neither do we quarrel with the way in which Griffin’s classifies the American public’s view of the disaster. His description is quite accurate and undoubtedly reflects the cross section of public opinion. But we feel that Griffin’s categorization stops short of an even more important division within the country, one that might explain why tens of millions of Americans refuse to even consider the complicity of the Bush Administration in the most horrendous attack on this nation in its history.

In his analysis, Griffin brilliantly classifies public sentiment of the events of September 11th by breaking it down into 4 classifications. In summary, they are as follows:

1. Those who believe that Al Qaeda outsmarted the global intelligence community and surprised the US with the attacks and the Bush administration is responding accordingly.
2. Those who believe that Al Qaeda outsmarted the global intelligence community and surprised the US with the attacks and the Bush administration is taking political advantage of the situation.
3. Those who believe that the Bush administration permitted the attacks to occur in order to take political advantage of the situation
4. Those who believe that the Bush administration is complicit in the orchestration of the attacks in order to take political advantage of the situation. (Griffin accurately points out that the EVIDENCE tends to support this position.

While there is no disputing that these distinctions in public opinion exist, we feel there is an even more revealing classification. This belief is based solely on the personal experiences and observations of the editor of TvNewsLIES.org, but remains clearly discernible and consistent. It places the American public in only TWO major groups:

1. Those who feel that the Bush administration, at the very least, had the opportunity to stop the attacks, and at the very most, orchestrated them.
2. Those who abjectly refuse to objectively examine or listen to evidence that indicates complicity by the Bush administration.

We firmly believe that those people who fully believe the conclusions of the Kean Commission have never seen or heard any of the compelling evidence to the contrary.

The people in Group Two include those people who have “listened” to isolated bits of evidence, only to argue some obscure or irrelevant point without taking into account the complete context in which the evidence exists. These people never permit the complete picture to be painted for them. They refuse to sit quietly long enough to hear an explanation or an answer to a question that they asked. They dominate any dialogue about 9/11 with argumentative, irrelevant comments. Their reason for engaging in any discussion is simply to negate any significant information that might unravel their own weakly formulated beliefs.

They never allow themselves a chance to look at any of the information about 9/11 that has been revealed. They simply do not want to know that it exists.

Full article:
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/david_ray_griffin__almost_perf.html

[whistle]

1. David Ray Griffin, theologian...how much integrity and credibility

...does Griffin have?

[getmeouttahere]

3. at least enough credibility....

to appear on CSPAN

[IrateCitizen]

5. In all fairness, not to discount Griffin...

... I have also seen John O'Neill of Swift Boat Liars on CSPAN.

Simply appearing on CSPAN is not an affirmation of credibility.

[Orrex]

6. Not to mention Crichton

And Coulter, and Rove, and Cal Thomas, and...

[meppie-meppie not]

12. I think Griffin has credibility unlike the members of the Kean Commission

who each had such glaring conflicts of interest that they should have been disqualified from the committee.

[getmeouttahere]

2. We've got to get this front & center...

in this country's political discourse...I know it seems overwhelming, with all the garbage that the right throws at us everyday, to distract us from the bigger issues, but I think this is too huge to simply brush away

[Stanchetalarooni]

4. Too much Cognitive Dissonance can shut down the brain.

What Mr. Griffin offers is rational premise to what appears to be an irrational situation.
Most peoples brains can not handle the magnitude of plausible outcomes that are postulated by Griffin. Their brains deem these horrors as way too improbable.
The type of conclusions that can be drawn from Griffin's questions leaves the worst nightmare as a distinct possibility.
The brain shuts down.
It can not cope.
As bad as rape or incest.
RAPE. INCEST.
Incomprehensible.

[orwell]

7. Conspiracy

It is no accident that the word conspiracy is used as a catch-all dismissive by the rank and file, of all political stripes. The mere mention of the word is a form of ridicule.

Was Iran Contra a conspiracy?

The level of propaganda deliberately poured into the receptive mass consumer mind by the corporate fascists is overwhelming. The sacredness of icons such as religion, patriarchy, the "classless" society, the presidency, the flag, the US military, capitalism, freedom, democracy is built into our psyche from the moment we are born. Any who question these holy symbols are traitors, miscreants, loony, dangerous, sociopathic, anything to brand them as "other".

The mind can only accept that which fits into its preconditioning. The US mass mind can not break free of these chains of propaganda to face the absurdity of the official 9/11 story. To do so would be to challenge the very underpinnings of our cognitive framework. And that takes real courage - something quite lacking in both the corridors of power and the main streets of our cities and towns.

The truth may set you free, but the chains of self delusion are oft times far more comforting.

[Orrex]

8. Good observations

It is no accident that the word conspiracy is used as a catch-all dismissive by the rank and file, of all political stripes. The mere mention of the word is a form of ridicule.

I'm also frustrated when people try to recuperate the term "conspiracy" by pointing out that any plot involving more than one person is a conspiracy, be it two guys robbing a candy store or a nationwide orchestration of far-Right extremists with aspirations to world rule. I mean, no shit, but where does that leave us?

It plays right into the notion that any mention of a conspiracy is proof of lunacy. It the sames as how any comment about the offensively super-wealthy is invariably met with derisive cries of class warfare, as if class warfre hasn't been going on for centuries (in this country alone) and as if the subject itself is somehow inherently ridiculous.

[orwell]

11. Right On

You can be assured that if something is patently true, but it speaks against the collective propaganda regime, it will never be attacked on it's arguments, but rather summarily dismissed through ridicule.

This is beyond the notion of faith, but rather collective certainty.

And this is true of all political "wings." Some of the most dismissive 9/11 conspiracy "lectures" came from the likes of "leftists" such as David Corn and Norman Solomon. In some respects, they attempt to establish the "boundaries" of political dissent. This is more damaging than the same dismissive commentaries from the RW.

If we should aspire to anything, it should be to an open mind, however personally difficult that is to achieve. To do any less is to be hypnotized by the shadows on the cave wall, rather than light of reality itself.

[stickdog]

14. Exactly.

This is why Howard Dean's campaign was crushed by mass media like a bug on a windshield. Any attempt, how ever docile and half-hearted, to expand the argumentative parameters of "legitimate" political debate is quickly disabled with super-Orwellian efficiency.

[Moderator]

9. Per DU article posting rules--

Include *no more* than four paragraphs of the original article, plus a link back to the original.

Thank you,
DU Moderator

[spooked911]

10. The major problem is that most people simply cannot accept that their

government could do something so evil-- despite all evidence to the contrary AND the precedent for US government-sponsored mass killings.

[teryang]

13. In the development of a fascist totalitarian regime

A distinction must be made between the apparatus of state and the actions of party. The state is a relatively rigid organization of institutions which must be permeated, weakened and ultimately changed in character. To this end the "party" acts until the state and the people are fully subordinated to the party.

[Dancing_Dave]

15. And that is exactly what the neo-con party has done!

Nice point.

:yourock: