Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Review of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about Bush & 9/11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 11:23 PM
Original message
Review of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about Bush & 9/11
Richard Morrock’s review of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, by David Ray Griffin (Olive Branch Press, 2004, ISBN 1566565529)
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-1566565529-0

Richard Morrock is a writer based in New York. He has been active with the skeptics movement and has lectured on a variety of subjects to skeptical groups in New York and Philadelphia. He is also involved with the International Psychohistorical Association, of which he has served as vice president and newsletter editor. He is currently working on a book on psychohistory, along with a musical comedy based on the first term of the Bush administration.

9/11:
A Date That Will Live in Infamy

Review by Richard Morrock

David Ray Griffin’s fanciful tale of Bush administration complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attack is a perfect example of the kind of conspiratorial thinking discussed by George Case in Skeptic Vol. 11 No. 4. There isn’t much to be learned about the fateful events from Griffin’s silly book, but he gives us some useful insight into the origins of paranoia.
http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=magv11n4&Category_Code=BIF


Most writers on a subject do what is called research on the material, which means reading books, conducting interviews, and tracking down documents. This consumes far too much time and effort for conspiracy buffs like Griffin. His approach consists of asking disturbing questions, ignoring the actual evidence, speculating about the possible answers, assuming the worst-case scenario, and then drawing up his indictment of the administration based on his assumptions, even where they are in flagrant contradiction to widely-known facts.

Starting with the dubious “who benefits argument?”, Griffin concludes that since President George W. Bush profited in terms of political capital from the 9/11 attacks, he had to be behind them. Given that premise, he argues that the U.S. government masterminded the whole catastrophe from beginning to end, with the al-Qaeda hijackers being either innocent bystanders or U.S. secret agents. The planes that hit the World Trade Center — Flights 11 and 175 — were actually piloted by remote control, with their command center at No. 7 WTC, the 45-story office building across a narrow side street from the North Tower. In addition, the impact of the planes did not cause the buildings to collapse; that was the work of controlled explosions set off inside the Towers. As for the Pentagon, it was a guided missile or, no, maybe a military plane that hit the building, with Flight 77 disappearing inside the smoke and flames. And Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, PA, was actually shot down by the U.S. military because the passengers were on the brink of taking it over. The Bush administration didn’t want the hijackers taken alive, Griffin insists, because they presumably could have proven their innocence. How strange that 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui should have been kept alive after the 9/11 events, not to mention the mastermind of the affair, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, captured in Pakistan and now in U.S. custody.

One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings. He never considers the other explanation: the South Tower collapsed faster because the plane impacted on a lower floor, and more floors were therefore set on fire. Any glance at the photograph of the second impact will show this.

He fails to explain why the government would have waited nearly an hour to explode its bombs in the South Tower, which would have allowed many people to escape; the North Tower didn’t collapse for one and 3/4 hours, and nearly all of the WTC workers who died were in the impacted floors or above. Did Bush’s remote control have a low battery?

Griffin actually does claim that No. 7 WTC, which collapsed at 5:20 pm, was blown up by explosives, and this is taken as proof that Washington was behind it. But what would the motive be? Blowing up an already-evacuated office building after thousands had died in the Twin Towers would seem like a waste of dynamite, not to mention office space. Did Bush think that public opinion had not been sufficiently inflamed by the 3,000 deaths? Do most Americans even know that a third office building, far smaller than the Towers, was also lost on that day? Griffin never explores that possibility that No. 7 was demolished because it had been contaminated by the white dust from the nearby North Tower. Explosives were used because, at 45 stories, No. 7 was too tall for a wrecking crane.

Jet fuel is kerosene, argues Griffin. Kerosene could not have caused a fire hot enough to melt steel, which happened at the Twin Towers. Perhaps Griffin has never attended a barbecue, where kerosene is used to ignite charcoal briquettes, and the charcoal fire then cooks the food. Something similar happened at the Twin Towers, where the jet fuel ignited carpets, furniture, books and papers, which then produced enough heat to bring down the burning floors; their impact on the floors below produced the force that led to the Towers’ collapse.

There is the question of what Bush knew on the morning of 9/11 and when he knew it. Some have claimed that Bush was lying when he said he saw the first impact on the Twin Towers, since there had been no live coverage of that attack; the second impact, about 15 minutes later, was covered by cameramen photographing the fire from the first. It would seem likely that when Bush watched the second crash on TV, as he waited to enter the 2nd-grade classroom in Florida where he was planning to read My Pet Goat, he mistakenly thought he was watching the first. Not until about 20 minutes later was he informed that there were two crashes, indicating a terrorist attack rather than an accident, and at that point he started to look worried. About six or seven minutes later, he left the school.

Well, why wasn’t he, or his staff, concerned about his being targeted by the terrorists? Doesn’t that prove, as Griffin indicates, that Bush was aware he was in no danger, and therefore involved in the attack? Not necessarily, given that both attacks were in New York, a thousand miles from Florida, and the attack on the Pentagon hadn’t happened yet. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the hijackers could have singled out the Sarasota elementary school; all of their targets were highly visible landmarks which could be identified from many miles away, whereas urban areas have numerous indistinguishable schools.

Why wasn’t the Air Force ordered to shoot down Flight 77 as it streaked through the sky on its way to hit the Pentagon? The official 9/11 Commission story is that planes were sent north to intercept Flight 11, with the White House and Pentagon unaware that it had already crashed in New York, and that the threat was coming from another plane, heading in from the west. Griffin believes that Vice President Dick Cheney, in charge of the situation in Washington while Bush was flying to Nebraska in Air Force One, deliberately avoided intercepting Flight 77 so that the Pentagon would be struck. One wonders what Donald Rumsfeld, still in his office at the Pentagon, might have had to say about that! Griffin asks why the Pentagon wasn’t evacuated, but never considers the fact that the government had no idea which target in the Washington area had been selected by the terrorists. Nor does he concern himself with the political fallout if an enemy attack on United States soil had been followed by our military leadership fleeing in panic from their still-intact offices.

Then there is the matter of the disappearing wreckage at the Pentagon, of which conspiracy buffs have made much. Photographs taken in the immediate aftermath of the impact show no sign of airplane debris. That must mean that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, implicating our diabolical government once again. Official accounts indicate that Flight 77 smashed through several of the concentric rings that make up the Pentagon, so that the wreckage all came to rest well inside the building.

Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania as the passengers attempted to wrest it back from the hijackers, may actually represent the one instance where Griffin does cast some light on the matter. The original official story had it that the passengers made their way into the cockpit, but that the plane crashed during the brief struggle. Later, it was announced that the passengers never made it through the door, and the government speculated that the pilot, Ziad Jarrah, downed the plane as the desperate fight broke out in the passenger compartment. Of course, given the fact that Jarrah planned to sacrifice his life for this mission, it doesn’t seem likely that he would have aborted it while there was still some chance of success. Griffin indicates that open cell phone lines recorded two explosions during the fight, followed by the sound of rushing wind; he reports an eyewitness saying that the plane disintegrated in the air, and mentions that one engine was found a mile and a half from the rest of the debris.

This is proof to Griffin that the Air Force downed Flight 93 with a missile, making the government responsible for the deaths of the heroic passengers who nearly foiled the fourth hijacking. He backs up this improbable claim by mentioning that someone saw a white military plane in the sky near the hijacked flight, overlooking the detail that military planes on such a mission would travel in formations of two or more, and that they are rarely white.

Griffin also mentions that the Flight 93 hijackers declared that they had a bomb when they took over the plane, but that the passengers regarded this as a bluff. He never considers the possibility that the hijackers were not bluffing, and that they set off the bomb (more likely two) when they were rushed by the passengers. This would account for the explosions, the sound of the wind on the cell phones, the crash of the plane, the engine landing more than a mile from the fuselage, and the peculiar path of the flight in the last few minutes before it crashed. In the map in the 9/11 report, Flight 93 makes a U-turn in northern Ohio after being hijacked, and then heads southeast, in a straight line, aiming directly for Washington. While over western Pennsylvania, it veers to the left and then makes a clockwise semi-circle, as if Jarrah has suddenly found it impossible to steer. Was this the result of a missile, a fight in the passenger compartment, or the desperate hijackers setting off their bombs?

The 9/11 attacks made Americans feel helpless, even more so than our defeat in Vietnam. Theories of administration complicity in 9/11, based on total denial of even the most self-evident facts, serve as a defense against these admittedly uncomfortable feelings, and allow us to feel omnipotent once again. Our government is all-powerful and all-knowing; a bunch of Middle Eastern fanatics couldn’t possibly take us by surprise, could they? Better a government that’s totally evil than one which leaves us helpless in the face of foreign terrorists.


eSkeptic is a free, public newsletter published (almost) weekly by the Skeptics Society. Contents are Copyright © 2006 Michael Shermer, the Skeptics Society, and the authors and artists. Permission is granted to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. Contact us at skepticssociety@skeptic.com. | This webpage is coded by Rocketday Arts to W3C compliant XHTML 1.1, adhering to accessibility guidelines set forth by the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative and US Section 508, using Dublin Core RDF metadata. | Subscribe to eSkeptic by sending an email to join-skeptics@lyris.net. Unsubscribe by sending an email to leave-skeptics@lyris.net. | Browse, search, and read the eSkeptic archives online. Read other articles, order books, cds and dvds, browse announcements of events, and subscribe to Skeptic magazine at www.skeptic.com.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
carlvs Donating Member (165 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. Nice...
Even though you might get nailed by the mods for going over the 4 paragraph limit, and are DEFINITELY going to be trashed by the CTers who hang out here, I have to salute your almost futile effort to shine the light of reason into this dark corner of DU... :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. The copyright terms of the article says I can go over 4 paragraphs
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 07:16 AM by IanDB1
And yes, I know that there are some people who desperately cling to every conspiracy theory you put in front of them.

I've given-up arguing with them and have decided to simply "go on the record" for the sake of making sure that outsiders visiting DU don't think we all believe dumb things.

eSkeptic is a free, public newsletter published (almost) weekly by the Skeptics Society. Contents are Copyright © 2006 Michael Shermer, the Skeptics Society, and the authors and artists. Permission is granted to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim Howells Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 03:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. Not much to respond to here.
I always welcome a good intellectual challenge to my beliefs, but there
is really nothing much even to discuss in this review. I have not read
"A New Pearl Harbor", but I have read Griffin's "Omissions and Distortions",
and I have spoken with him. I don't agree with him on every point, but
I respect the man, and he is clearly trying to get at the truth. Morrock's
review is just a rant. He is clearly trying to pick out what he views
as the weakest points of the book and he is just being argumentative. Not
even a pretense of trying to look at the balance of the evidence.

I would point out to Morrock and his fans that the "Skeptic" movement
started out very similarly with regard to the Kennedy assassination.
They barged in waving Occam's Razor around and claiming in blissful
ignorance of the evidence that we were all mad conspiracy theorists.
Well they got their ass kicked real good on that one, and to their
credit they have belatedly admitted as much. We will probably see
a similar evolution in regards to the September 11 issue.

I agree with a few of his points. I think Griffin sometimes gets
off the tracks by focussing on Bush. If Bush had really been in the
know on this, the coverup would have been a lot tidier - this is true.
Now Dick Cheney is another matter.

Tim Howells
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Personally, I subscribe to the LIHOP rather than MIHOP theory
Bush knew it was going to happen and let it Let It Happen On Purpose.

And then he conspired after the fact to get terrorist suspects safely out of the country.

My completely unsubstantiated "gut feeling" is that Bush knew there would be an attack on The World Trade Center, but not that there would also be attacks on Washington, DC.

If there was a MIHOP aspect to it, it didn't involve things like robot-guided jet planes or explosives in the towers or other such nonsense. That's just stupid. If there was a MIHOP aspect, it would have been strictly the sort of "boring" stuff that would take place in bank wire transfers and by telephone. In other words, "Falcon and the Snowman" stuff and not "Mission: Impossible" stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. "That's just stupid."

Why do you say, "that's just stupid"? I posted the following in another thread in reply to longship:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=203192&mesg_id=223033

To me, the arguments being presented are not "stupid." They may no be accurate but they have weight and, for me at least, some of them are compelling. What is "stupid" about the idea of demolition explosives having been placed in the three WTC buildings prior to the attack by persons unknown? How do we know the buildings weren't wired as a 'fail safe' mechanism in them so that, in the event of catastrophe, they could be scuttled? --I'm not saying this WAS the case, only presenting the argument that it is conceivable and not impossible. Some things are impossible. But not everything unlikely is impossible. So why "stupid"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Smart people can believe dumb things
I'm smart, and I used to believe Iraq had WMDs.

Well, at first I didn't believe it.

But then Collin Powell told me they did.

Then I found out that Powell, lied too.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

That's why so many otherwise smart people here on DU believe some pretty dumb conspiracy theories.

We're all desperate not to be fooled twice.

It's part of our human nature.

Anyway, I'll concede that explosives in the tower is not, by itself, a "stupid" idea in as much as it doesn't evoke magic powers or incredible leaps in technology that don't exist.

If I dismissed it by saying, "that's just stupid," it's because I was frustrated and/or lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
5. one correction
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 07:40 AM by WoodrowFan
One correction to the article you quote (I like the article BTW). There clearly WAS airplane debris at the Pentagon. You can see photos in several threads in this forum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Think I remember seeing security camera footage of plane hitting Pentagon
Sort of sliding along the top of the parking lot and everything.

It could just be a case of "implanted memory," but I think I vaguely remember seeing that on TV somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. What you saw was a fabrication
No 757 was captured on that video and the object flying parallel from the grass and the fireball were photoshopped on there. The Pentagon security video was clearly fabricated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Do you have a credible source for that? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. It was faked
The images were clearly photoshopped. Some of the ways you can tell they were photoshopped are given here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Do you have a credible source? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. All you have to do is look at the pictures
Here is impact 1:

Notice that the explosion has already begun and that the Pentagon's facade has lit up (as has the rest of the photo).

Here is impact 2:

Notice that the Pentagon's facade has gone dark again (darker than in the initial plane photo). Why would the explosion getting bigger make the facade go darker?

Here is impact 4:

You can see the explosion (which is travelling in the wrong direction by the way) is coming out of the roof. However, the roof wasn't breached by the initial impact on the ground and first floors, which you can see from this photo:

The roof collapsed about half an hour after the impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Also remember the fireball is seen contacting the lawn
in the video, but the lawn is clearly unaffected by a fireball blast:





And the trajectory of the "plane" in the video is parallel and inches from the ground which means the 757, traveling at 530 mph, would have had to dip down in a fraction of a second to fly parallel to the ground after clipping the light poles on the upper embankment of the highway a few feet prior:



http://www.geocities.com/killtown/flight77/video.html


Good analysis though! :headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. Morrock: "Explosives demolished WTC 7"
Griffin never explores that possibility that No. 7 was demolished because it had been contaminated by the white dust from the nearby North Tower. Explosives were used because, at 45 stories, No. 7 was too tall for a wrecking crane.


Well at least I'm glad Richard Morrock agrees that bombs brought down the 7! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Talk about "Silly"!!!
Did you guys even READ this crap???

There is the question of what Bush knew on the morning of 9/11 and when he knew it. Some have claimed that Bush was lying when he said he saw the first impact on the Twin Towers, since there had been no live coverage of that attack; the second impact, about 15 minutes later, was covered by cameramen photographing the fire from the first. It would seem likely that when Bush watched the second crash on TV, as he waited to enter the 2nd-grade classroom in Florida where he was planning to read My Pet Goat, he mistakenly thought he was watching the first. Not until about 20 minutes later was he informed that there were two crashes, indicating a terrorist attack rather than an accident, and at that point he started to look worried. About six or seven minutes later, he left the school.


Ok, it's obvious from this laughable statement and made up timeline that Morrock doesn't know what the fawk he's talking about! :rofl:


Well, why wasn’t he, or his staff, concerned about his being targeted by the terrorists? Doesn’t that prove, as Griffin indicates, that Bush was aware he was in no danger, and therefore involved in the attack? Not necessarily, given that both attacks were in New York, a thousand miles from Florida, and the attack on the Pentagon hadn’t happened yet. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the hijackers could have singled out the Sarasota elementary school; all of their targets were highly visible landmarks which could be identified from many miles away, whereas urban areas have numerous indistinguishable schools.


How did they all know there wouldn't be a ground attack on the school?

I agree, this article is silly! :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
23. I agree, it's outrageous! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-27-06 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
24. It would seem likely that this "skeptic" has his head up his ass.
Completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. Of course he has no proof of Flight 77 wreckage inside!
Official accounts indicate that Flight 77 smashed through several of the concentric rings that make up the Pentagon, so that the wreckage all came to rest well inside the building.


Just like Snopes.com and the other appalling debunk attempts, just assumes wreckage was inside the building. Too bad photographic evidence taken 9/13 proves this untrue:



Arlington, VA, September 13, 2001-- Urban Search and Rescue crews from Montgomery County work to clear debris and strengthen support at the crash site following Tuesday's attack. Photo by Jocelyn Augustino/ FEMA News Photo

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4436

I can't believe all you guys fell for Morrock's silly trash debunk attempt hook, line, and sinker! :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
12. Factual errors / weird reasoning
There are numerous errors in the review, for example:
(1) "The South Tower collapsed faster because the plane impacted on a lower floor, and more floors were therefore set on fire."
The columns were tapered, being thicker the lower they went, so the height of the impact was irrelevant.
(2) "and more floors were therefore set on fire."
They weren't. There were more floors on fire in the North Tower.
(3) Griffin "fails to explain why the government would have waited nearly an hour to explode its bombs in the South Tower,"
On page 18 of my copy I find the following sentence, "If the twin towers were deliberatiely demolished, and the intention was to blame the collapse on the fires... then the latest time at which the towers could be colapsed would be just as the fires were dying down."
I don't agree with Griffin's explanation, but what's the point of saying he doesn't offer an explanation when he does.
(4) "About six or seven minutes" after being told of the attack Bush "left the school." He was told of the attack at 9:06 and left at 9:34. That's 28 minutes, not six or seven.
(5) "Official accounts indicate that Flight 77 smashed through several of the concentric rings that make up the Pentagon, so that the wreckage all came to rest well inside the building."
The ASCE study says that the hole in the Pentagon was 90 feet wide, substantially smaller than the plane's wingspan. Therefore, all the plane could not have gone inside the Pentagon.

There are lots of other mistakes he makes, but five will do.

Also, he uses some weird reasoning at times:
(1) "Griffin never explores that possibility that No. 7 was demolished because it had been contaminated by the white dust from the nearby North Tower. Explosives were used because, at 45 stories, No. 7 was too tall for a wrecking crane."
Actually, I think this is fairly near the mark, but I was amazed to read it there.
(2) "Griffin also mentions that the Flight 93 hijackers declared that they had a bomb..., but that the passengers regarded this as a bluff. He never considers the possibility that the hijackers were not bluffing, and that they set off the bomb (more likely two) when they were rushed by the passengers."
How likely is it that the hijackers would endanger the mission by bringing a bomb on board?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
17. Morrok: "Bombs onboard Flight 93"
I forgot about this one:

He never considers the possibility that the hijackers were not bluffing, and that they set off the bomb (more likely two) when they were rushed by the passengers. This would account for the explosions, the sound of the wind on the cell phones, the crash of the plane, the engine landing more than a mile from the fuselage, and the peculiar path of the flight in the last few minutes before it crashed...
Was this the result of a missile, a fight in the passenger compartment, or the desperate hijackers setting off their bombs?



Moron's, I mean Morrock's review puts it at great odds with the 9/11 Commissions findings. Is he saying the Commission was wrong too like Dr. Griffin is saying??? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. And another...
How strange that 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui should have been kept alive after the 9/11 events, not to mention the mastermind of the affair, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, captured in Pakistan and now in U.S. custody.


1) Moussaoui was set up:

http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/2001.html#August15,2001-Moussaoui_student">August 15, 2001 - A flight instructor warns the FBI about a student (who claims to be Zacarias Moussaoui) when the student becomes belligerent and evasive about his background when the instructor starts speaking to him in French after the student said he was from France, but doesn't seem to understand French even though the real Moussaoui speaks fluent French and the student also causes suspicion with the instructor when he told him he wasn't fluent in French, didn't live in France long, and that he was from "the Middle East" instead of identifying a specific country.

Sources: Star Tribune, CNN, NY Times


2) KSM, well, here:

"The suspected Sept. 11 mastermind received a U.S. visa a few weeks before the attacks despite a 1996 indictment linking him with earlier terrorist plots...
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected coordinator of the Sept. 11 attacks, managed to exploit the visa system due to the absence of biometric data, such as electronic fingerprint scans, which would have connected him to the indictment despite his use of a false name and nationality, the commission said." - ABC

Report: Al-Qaida suspects `missing' in U.S. custody
"At least 11 Al-Qaida suspects have ``disappeared'' in U.S. custody, and some may have been tortured, Human Rights Watch said in a report issued Monday.
The prisoners are probably being held outside the United States without access to the Red Cross or any oversight of their treatment, the human rights group said. In some cases, the United States will not even acknowledge the prisoners are in custody.
The report said the prisoners include the alleged architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, as well as Abu Zubaydah, who is believed to be a close aide to Osama bin Laden." - SJ Mercury
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:35 AM
Response to Original message
22. I don't think he read the book very carefully
This is outrageous. Griffin's point for the south tower coming down first was that the larger fireball was outside the south tower at impact and therefore had less burning inside. The fires were dwindling inside the south tower and if it were to be convincing as a collapse from fire, they would have had to collapse it before the fires were out. So they took it down first first. The author of this B.S. makes it sound like Griffin concludes that there was a controlled demolition because of this one fact. I think that is a perfectly good point that griffin makes about the south tower having less of a fire AND his reasoning for the controlled demolition is much more complex. He oversimplifies to the point of ridiculousness. He has an agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC