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: 791
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 # 70.
#10. To: WTC7 911Smoking Cannon, ALL (#0)
As long as you
folks keep spamming the forum with the same Griffin nonsense I'll offer this in
response (which, of course, you'll simply ignore because I'm *evil*): The
following is a rebuttal of claims made by Griffin in his new book "9-11 and the
American Empire": **********
Tell it to the woman standing uncinged in the gash: Your problem, BAC, is that you think what your government's bought-and-paid-for experts say is reality when, in fact, the evidence (like the pic above) shows that it is the opposite. So, forget about your fellow shills repeating lies from other shills. Cut yourself out of the shill-to-shill circular shit- exchange and, instead, look at the evidence, man!
That's every structural engineer; demolition expert; structural materials expert, expert in buckling or fire, expert in seismology, and macro-world physicist IN THE WORLD. If the US government actually does have controll of those tens of thousands (or is it hundreds of thousands) of professionals ... even the ones in China and France and Russia ... then you folks really are up the creek. Your task is HOPELESS. ROTFLOL! And btw, Arator, you have no more of a clue what that photo says than the man in the moon. ROTFLOL!
And that is empty hyperbole. Every one in the world, eh BAC? Every single one without exception. That's false on its face. Does your boss know that you're this ineffective? Perhaps a demotion is in order...
Then name one.
Here's a Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko of Jowenko.nl, a major Dutch demolitions firm, who says WTC 7 could not have been brought down by fire. For more info, check out the story at 9-11 Blogger.
Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire. And if you listen closely to what he actually did say, he does not think WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition. His theory is that Silverstein decided AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers to demolish WTC 7 rather than try to repair it ... an insurance scam. And he came to that conclusion after seeing a video shown to him by a conspiracist (obviously not all the data available). Before reaching his conclusion, he wasn't told the building was involved in 9/11, wasn't told the building had been on fire for hours and hours, and wasn't told that firemen had said the structure was leaning and going to collapse well before it actually did. And by the way, he also said that the WTC towers were NOT controlled demolitions.
That is a f*cking lie. No demolitions expert would say that they decided and wired WTC 7 to implode in the chaotic hours after the destruction of Towers 1 and 2. They wouldn't say it because even non-demolition experts know that such a feat is impossible. WTC 7, if it were brought down with explosives (and it was), had to have been pre-wired to blow before 9-11, which means it was PRE- PLANNED. Jowenko did not say otherwise. Because of the shamelessness of your transparent lie about Jowenko, I now wash my hands of you, BAC. If chrissy wants to ban your sorry ass, I won't stand in her way. You have ZERO integrity, ZERO respect for truth and, therefore, ZERO value to this forum (or to this life in general, for that matter). Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. You are a lost soul, BAC. Adrift on an ocean of lies and black propaganda. And I don't think there's any hope of saving you. You may become the last Bushbot standing, the last one to fully buy into and peddle their shit. But no one here is buying it. And soon, only a marginalized leperous handful will, but they will be social outcasts and pariahs just like the last believers in and followers of the Hitler cult are today. Just as a monster like Hitler has his totally deluded accolytes who not only still believe but live out his lies even today, so Bush will always have you. And you deserve each other. Truly.
You didn't listen to Jowenko's video did you, Arator. To prove you are wrong, here's the video of Jowenko talking. Listen carefully. http://911blogger.com/node/3231 Let me quote him from Part 1 of the video: ********* Jowenko - Are you sure it was the 11th? That can't be. Interviewer (conspiracy type) - Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down. Jowenko - Then they worked hard. I don't know the construction of the building but then they very rigorously, very quickly placed charges. ********** At the end of part 1, he talks about how fast the charges could be laid and the building taken down. He never once talks about the charges being place BEFORE the event. Sorry Arator but he's clearly saying he thinks they placed the charges AFTER the WTC Towers collapsed (and mind you, this is consistent with the fact that he does NOT think the WTC towers were controlled demolitions). As further proof, in part 2 of the video, while talking about the damage to WTC 7 from falling debris, Jowenko says the following: ********** Jowenko - It strikes me that, that could be a reason for Silverstone or stein ... The owner. The owner of the building that he says: look, this will cost me a lot of pennies and what do I get back, still the same old building. And on such a moment I think that Giuliani easily would give a license to demolish, here you are if you want to get rid of it, asap. *********** Do you have problems understanding what he just said, Arator. Or did you not view the video? He clearly said the reason they decided to demolish WTC7 was it was damaged and would cost a lot to repair. That's an AFTER THE FACT decision. Not PRE-PLANNED. And in part 3 of the video there is this exchange, again after a discussion of the damage done to WTC 7 by falling debris and fire: ************ Jowenko - Yes, then Silverstein must say bring it down because once there is fire, if it became hot you have to replace your steel. Do you know what it cost if you have to replace the bottom columns and jack up the rest? That will not be cheap for a building with 47 floors. Then you say: away with it. And if there is a company, you so much million, we do it for 1 million. That's how it goes. Business goes very fast in such a situation. And they do it. ************ Again, what he says is very clear and exactly what I said he said. I'm surprised you missed it, Arator, if you actually did listen to what Jowenko said. To bad the facts don't back you up, Arator. You should be embarrassed. I think I've proven here who is the one adrift in a sea of lies and propaganda.
Quit parsing. He said, emphatically and without equivocation or qualification, in the February 2007 phone converasation that I linked you to (click on his name in my post above), that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. If X is true, then Y cannot also be true. If he says that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, he is also saying that WTC7 was NOT brought down by fire (as YOU claim). So, I'll concede that my rather heated reply to you was based on my hearing of his recent phone conversation (not the video when he was first presented with WTC7 and was rather unprepared to address all the issues of that day in full) if you will concede that you were in error when you posted that no demolitions expert in the world believes that controlled demolitions were used on 9-11. Listen to his phone conversation again, BAC. He notes that the reason North American demolitions experts aren't telling the truth about 9-11 (like he has) is that they fear losing government contracts. Does that sound plausible to you? If so, wouldn't that explain why so few have come forward?
But he did NOT say it was PRE-PLANNED. And therefore, you have a problem with your government conspiracy theory. He also does not think WTC 1 and WTC 2 are controlled demolitions. He said it would have taken trained professionals approximately a year to place all the explosives and wiring necessary. Again, you have a problem with your conspiracy theory. I did not say that. I said there were none that claim a PRE-PLANNED demolition. Not really, when folks come out as whistleblowers at the risk of there jobs on much less important matters all the time. You have to have a pretty low opinion of structural engineers, demolition experts, structural material experts, fire experts, seismologists and macro-world physicists to believe controlled demolition of the WTC structures is as obvious as you and Jowenko claim yet NONE of them have come forward in a case where 3000 Americans were murdered. Your theory also doesn't explain why except for Jowenko and 2 related structural engineers in Switzerland no one in the above disciplines has come forward from ANY country outside the US to agree with you and Jowenko. Surely you don't think they are also dependent on the US government for their livelihood?
There are no replies to Comment # 70. End Trace Mode for Comment # 70.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading
spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement.
#11. To: BeAChooser (#10)
(Edited)
False. That's NOT what experts in fire actually say. The WTC fires were very big and very hot. And they lasted as long as they needed to last in order to significantly weaken the fireproofing damaged steel.
#13. To: Arator, ALL (#11)
your government's bought-and-paid-for experts
#17. To: BeAChooser (#13)
(Edited)
That's every structural engineer; demolition expert; structural materials expert, expert in buckling or fire, expert in seismology, and macro- world physicist IN THE WORLD.
#21. To: Arator, ALL (#17)
And that is empty hyperbole. Every one in the world, eh BAC? Every single one without exception. That's false on its face.
#26. To: BeAChooser (#21)
Then name one.
#41. To: Arator, ALL (#26)
Here's a Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko of Jowenko.nl, a major Dutch demolitions firm, who says WTC 7 could not have been brought down by fire.
#56. To: BeAChooser, christine (#41)
(Edited)
Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire. And if you listen closely to what he actually did say, he does not think WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition. His theory is that Silverstein decided AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers to demolish WTC 7 rather than try to repair it
#63. To: Arator, christine, ALL (#56)
"Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire. And if you listen closely to what he actually did say, he does not think WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition. His theory is that Silverstein decided AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers to demolish WTC 7 rather than try to repair it"
That is a f*cking lie. No demolitions expert would say that they decided and wired WTC 7 to implode in the chaotic hours after the destruction of Towers 1 and 2. They wouldn't say it because even non-demolition experts know that such a feat is impossible.
Because of the shamelessness of your transparent lie about Jowenko, I now wash my hands of you, BAC. If chrissy wants to ban your sorry ass, I won't stand in her way. You have ZERO integrity, ZERO respect for truth and, therefore, ZERO value to this forum (or to this life in general, for that matter). Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
You are a lost soul, BAC. Adrift on an ocean of lies and black propaganda.
#69. To: BeAChooser (#63)
(Edited)
Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire.
#70. To: Arator, ALL (#69)
He said, emphatically and without equivocation or qualification, in the February 2007 phone converasation that I linked you to (click on his name in my post above), that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
if you will concede that you were in error when you posted that no demolitions expert in the world believes that controlled demolitions were used on 9-11.
He notes that the reason North American demolitions experts aren't telling the truth about 9-11 (like he has) is that they fear losing government contracts. Does that sound plausible to you? If so, wouldn't that explain why so few have come forward?
Replies to Comment # 70.