See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Ex-CIA: 911 Almost Certainly A 'Monstrous Series Of Lies'
Source:
Rense
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 1, 2007
Author: Paul Chen
Post Date: 2007-04-05 11:26:02 by WTC7 911Smoking Cannon
Keywords: None
Views: 1122
Comments: 70
David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement. This is by virtue of his previous four books on the subject. Professor Griffin and a growing list of scholars, other researchers as well as diverse experts and activists, reject the official Islamist mastermind conspiracy theory about 9/11 advanced by Establishment interests. Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government and the Big Business controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In David Ray Griffin's new book entitled Debunking 9/11, shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. "Debunking 9/11 is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods," says Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA. Mr. Christison further indicates that, "This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen." Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Professor Griffin critically challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine. Professor Griffin also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications -- which one might have expected to be supportive. Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly levelled against critics of the official theory -- that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith -- actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory. "Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed," says Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States. "Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics," says Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan administration. "David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called 'the official story of 9/11/01,' which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans," further indicates Meria Heller, Producer Host of the Meria Heller Show (<http://www.meria.net).>http://www.meria.net>http://www.meria.net). This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim -- that 9/11 was an inside job -- remains the only explanation that fits the facts. David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), 9/11 and American Empire (2006, ed. with Peter Dale Scott), and Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 (2006)
Poster Comment: Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." Hey, BeAChooser, suck on that.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 37.
#2. To: WTC7 911Smoking Cannon (#0)
Beware of CIA agitprop and the pushing of Honey Pot Theories that ensnare and entrap and thus dissipate legitimate inquiry. "A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." (Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184)
Christison was on the analysis side of the CIA. The agency's sinister activities are pretty much limited to the Directorate of Operations.
Once CIA always CIA. Beware of CIA agitprop and the pushing of Honey Pot Theories that ensnare and entrap and thus dissipate legitimate inquiry. "A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." (Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184)
I've read Griffin's books and find them thoroughly persuasive. If Christison praises Griffin's work, that makes me trust Christison. It certainly doesn't diminish my regard for Griffin's work -- which I have read myself.
Christison had a 28-year CIA career when he retired in 1979. That's makes him about 73. Now let's see how good his reasoning still is ... From his article "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/140806_b_Belittling.htm): ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. The building was thus presumably hit by something smaller, possibly a missile, or a drone or, less possibly, a smaller manned aircraft. He is a LIAR. The images of the Pentagon (that he has to have seen) prove the hole in the Pentagon before the collapse was more than 90 feet across. And there was damage on the face of the structure where the rest of the plane would have hit. No missile, drone or smaller aircraft could have made that. Nor knocked down the light poles that were spaced more than 100 feet apart perpendicular to the trajectory. Nor damaged and moved the trailer in front of the Pentagon. The story put out by the Pentagon is that the plane and its passengers were incinerated; yet video footage of offices in the Pentagon situated at the edge of the hole clearly shows office furniture undamaged. This is FALSE. What was seen was office space exposed AFTER the structure collapsed along a construction joint. Exposing office space that was not subjected to the direct effects of the blast and fire. The size of the hole in the Pentagon wall still remains as valid evidence and so far seems irrefutable. LIAR. Folks, here is the hole this joker denies exists: This was to the left of where the fuselage hit: This was to the right of where the fuselage hit: Over 90 feet in width and the damage to the facade beyond that is consistent with where the wing tips would have struck. Those who don't think a plane hit the Pentagon should check this out: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. ROTFLOL! Based on his expertise in structural engineering, demolition, impact, fire and steel? ROTFLOL! A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. LIAR. The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive. Yeah ... research done by who? A physicist who spent the last 30 years working on sub-atomic particles and nothing else? And physicist who spent the last 30 years studying the micro structure of solar cells and nothing else? A mechnical engineer who specialized in dental materials (and who now says Professor Jones' research is wrong)? A structural engineer who worked in the oil industry for the last 30 years? An economist? A philosopher? A theologian? A janitor? A lawyer? What can one do but laugh? ROTFLOL! These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the “official story” of 9/11 is not true. Then showing that the first two points are based on lies, distortions and foolishness must be the strongest evidence available that the "official story" of 9/11 is valid. It works both ways.
#39. To: BeAChooser (#37)
Is that all you have? Links from an agenda driven propaganda site like Little Green Footballs? Why don't you just post links to your magazine subscription sites instead? Thtat would be just as convincing.
You're the LIAR - BAC! Damage is one thing; but there is no tangible evidence that anything of high speed did the damage to the 9-11 Pentagon. As you led me into, yourself, the collapsed vertical sections would have been compressed into each other - they would not have been roughly parallel. You're the LIAR, BAC.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Debunking 9/11 is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods," says Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA.
#7. To: aristeides, Burkeman1, bluedogtxn (#2)
(Edited)
.Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years.
#8. To: Destro (#7)
#9. To: aristeides (#8)
#23. To: Destro (#9)
#37. To: aristeides, Destro, ALL (#23)
If Christison praises Griffin's work, that makes me trust Christison.
Replies to Comment # 37.
#53. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#37)
He is a LIAR. The images of the Pentagon (that he has to have seen) prove the hole in the Pentagon before the collapse was more than 90 feet across. And there was damage on the face of the structure where the rest of the plane would have hit. No missile, drone or smaller aircraft could have made that. Nor knocked down the light poles that were spaced more than 100 feet apart perpendicular to the trajectory. Nor damaged and moved the trailer in front of the Pentagon.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 37.