"Professor's 9/11 theories outrage NH leaders"

[Dave Ridley]

I think if there's anything to these theories and this guy really believes them, then he should hold up fine.   If  he's just peddling snake oil, different story. 

[mvpel]

The main problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they require a level of competence and coordination among government bureaucrats that is unheard of in the history of the world.

I guess that may be why it's often left-wingers putting forth these theories - in order to believe that the goverment can successfully run something like nationalized health-care, it's not much of a stretch to believe that it was "orchestration," rather than abject bureaucratic stupidity, that led to 9/11.

[JonM]

They're totally screwing up in Iraq to throw us off the scent!

[Caleb]

That's a non-sequitur. Questioning ST911 (and others) is not the same as defending Bush.

Not a non-sequiter at all, Kevin.  Things are done for a reason, and if someone so OBVIOUS as Ahmad has not been brought to justice ... I am entitled to know WHY?  He's walking around free in Pakistan ... and its not suspicious to you that the US has made NO effort to charge him or extradite him?

But I sort of expected this, Kevin.  No offense, but in order to believe the government's 9/11 propaganda one has to be prepared to ignore lots of really weird things.  "Oh well, there must be a reason somewhere." So it doesn't suprise me to see you just ignore the question.

Caleb

[KBCraig]

That's a non-sequitur. Questioning ST911 (and others) is not the same as defending Bush.

Not a non-sequiter at all, Kevin.

Yes, it was. You made the leap that Ahmad not being arrested means the U.S. government was complicit in the WTC attack. There is no logical progression: it does not follow. Hence, non sequitur.

Things are done for a reason, and if someone so OBVIOUS as Ahmad has not been brought to justice ... I am entitled to know WHY?  He's walking around free in Pakistan ... and its not suspicious to you that the US has made NO effort to charge him or extradite him?

That's a different question entirely. Yes, I do find it curious. And so I look at the most likely explanation: that either Ahmad or his protectors in Pakistan are providing support or information.

That happens very frequently in criminal cases: a known criminal is left free in order to get something of value to the police or prosecutors.

But I sort of expected this, Kevin.  No offense, but in order to believe the government's 9/11 propaganda one has to be prepared to ignore lots of really weird things.

Again, non-sequitur: "You must either believe the government perpetrated 9/11, or you believe the government's progaganda."

I don't care about either side's propaganda, but if you're going to talk about "weird things", then you must not only believe lots of really weird things to believe the 9/11 alternative theories, you have to ignore lots of really obvious facts while unquestioningly accepting obvious B.S.

Kevin

[maineiac]

I don't care about either side's propaganda, but if you're going to talk about "weird things", then you must not only believe lots of really weird things to believe the 9/11 alternative theories, you have to ignore lots of really obvious facts while unquestioningly accepting obvious B.S.

Kevin

Funny, I was just thinking the same statement applies equally well for subscribers of the official government version!

[John]

"That happens very frequently in criminal cases: a known criminal is left free in order to get something of value to the police or prosecutors.


Ya like getting the issue further away from the government who is controlling things.  The corruption runs very, very deep.

Look at what the feds did in Boston while the BULGER gang ran wild...
At cocaine (the "drug of choice") comming from Central America at the same time the CIA was (at the same time) delivering guns into a covert war - how were these guns paid for?????

They (our secret government) would never bring drugs into our country - would they?

Look at heroin's rise as the "drug of choice" while there are covert wars in areas where poppy just happens to be the cash crop.

Gee, How the hell does that happen????  They didn't do that during past wars, did they?  HMMMM!

They wouldn't do that during the "war on terrorisim" in Afganastan would they?

No "my" government would never do anything to harm "its" people.

[John]

Maybe it's off point a bit, but why the F do you think we even have a "drug" war?  Drive up the price?  But Why?  Maybe to put the biggest profits into the "covert" economy.  Protect those who work whithin the covert system, and bust those who are independant?

[John]

Maybe now - more than ever - there is a reason to grab people and SECRETLY hold them?

No one supports these claims - right?

[Caleb]

a known criminal is left free in order to get something of value to the police or prosecutors.

Do you really believe this?  Kevin, Ahmad IS the criminal we're trying to get.  Remember.  "I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Ahmad IS THE TERRORIST WHO COMMITTED THESE ACTS.  The US government knows this fact ... and yet does nothing. 

Kevin, how many people have been prosecuted and brought to justice over 9/11?  I'll save you some research, and I'll just tell you:  A GRAND TOTAL OF ONE WHOLE PERSON.  Moussaoui.

Ahmad would be the biggest fish yet caught.  If he's being so "helpful" as you suggest, where are the bigger fish that he is leading us to?  They just aren't there, so that blows that theory out of the water.

I don't care about either side's propaganda, but if you're going to talk about "weird things", then you must not only believe lots of really weird things to believe the 9/11 alternative theories, you have to ignore lots of really obvious facts while unquestioningly accepting obvious B.S.

So here's what people do: they attack the weakest, most obviously silly theories, and then lump everyone together.  I don't think one has to overlook anything or believe anything too farfetched to suspect US complicity. 

On the other hand, Professor Griffin has listed a whole series of really weird things that you must believe if believe the government version of events.  Maybe I'll post it sometime soon.

Caleb

[Caleb]

9/11 Theologian Says Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Is Now a Fact, Not a Theory October 21, 2005
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051021&articleId=1129

In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a presentation entitled ?The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A Christian Theologian Speaks Out.? Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse of the towers and WTC 7.

Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen?s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim?s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.

Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire. There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward. These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It?s important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.

How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:

"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush?s advice not to tolerate ?outrageous conspiracy theories.? We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration?s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics. 

"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

?'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ?X-Files? proportions and insidiousness.'

"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration?s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion."

[John]

"If he's being so "helpful" as you suggest, where are the bigger fish that he is leading us to?"


Just like the "war on drugs," the point may not be to get "bigger fish."  The point might very-well-be to point the finger down the chain . . . We just need people to put in (secret) PRISONS!  We can all feel good about having more people in PRISON; right?
That way we can all suppose that it was "them" - even if we never-ever actualy charge them.  Who cares anyway?  Who cares about "them?"

If we hold people with no charges, then "they" must be the ones we need.
Maybe all we realy need is SILENCE.
We don't need no stinking questions in this Free country.  RIGHT?

[John]

# 7 is what caused me to start listening to things I previously thought unthinkable.

[tracysaboe]

I'm more of a John Birtcher Conspiracy theorist. (Right wign conspiracy theorist.)

Government new about it. Did nothing to stop it, because it came in handy as a way to increase it's power.

The end. It doesn't need to be complicated.

Tracy

[Caleb]

Well, actually, Tracy, it does get more complicated.  Because a "let it happen" scenario pretty much has to become a "make it happen" scenario.  That's because it isn't plausible to expect that the government would call off the defenses and allow a bunch of terrorists free reign to do whatever they wanted.  When you look at what happened, you're struck by how little damage was actually done, like someone wanted to make sure it was a very controlled attack:  very high profile, very visual, but as little loss of life as possible. 

But the terrorists flew right by a nuclear power station ... there's NO WAY the government would take that risk.