David Ray Griffin Answers Your Questions
RINF members had the opportunity to put questions to one of the worlds most credible and respected 9/11 researchers, Dr. David Ray Griffin.
Thank you for all of your wonderful work to expose the truth about 9/11 and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
My question is how you see the “end game” playing out as far as obtaining justice against all of the perpetrators of 9/11. What is the best case scenario, in your mind, and what is the soonest that it could occur?
Thank you again!
David Ray Griffin:
Like Yogi Berra, I don’t make predictions, especially about the future. Seriously, I have no idea about what is likely. We can only do everything we can do to get the truth exposed, knowing full well that we will probably fail. But if that is indeed the outcome, this will not mean that our efforts were in vain. If life has any meaning at all (and I think it does), then there is nothing more important than doing our best.
Erin S. Myers Asks:
Very curious to hear your musings on the restoration of a constitutional republic… I doubt that I’ve ever enjoyed living in one in my short lifetime… but it sounds quite nice. Also, I’ve imbibed the concept that a document “of the people” can not very well be considered sovereign, if the people who created it (or inherit it) are not first sovereigns themselves. I do not see this as problematic (such as “unrestrained individuality”) if something like the concept of the Golden Rule is deeply ingrained from early years, and held up as a measure in all questions of criminal wrongdoing and torts. Your thoughts?
David Ray Griffin:
The answer to the question of whether the USA is a constitutional republic is that it is a matter of degree. It has never been perfect or even close to it. It has always been a plutocracy. But there have been periods in which the US Constitution has been ignored more fully than in other periods. In a recent essay, historian Howard Zinn, after pointing out some of the great evils of US history, wrote:
Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the President to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress. (Howard Zinn, “Impeachment by the People,” The Progressive, February 2007
9/11 has been the excuse for all this. Mark Danner, for example, has pointed to the way in which 9/11 has been used by the Bush-Cheney administration to justify a “state of exception,” in the sense discussed by Giorgio Agamben, under which the U.S. president increasingly operates without the constraint of law, whether international or constitutional. (Danner makes this point in “You Can Do Anything with a Bayonet Except Sit On It,” A TomDispatch.com
Interview with Mark Danner, Feb. 26, 2006 [http://markdanner.com/nyt/022606_tomdispatch.htm]. On Giorgio Gamben’s ideas, see his State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006].)
So there is nothing more important today than getting the people of America and the world in general to realize that 9/11 was a false-flag operation, orchestrated in order to have a pretext for this systematic assault on the US constitution and international law.
I wish to tell you that I appreciate your work in exposing the lies of 9/11, and wish you all of the best to you, your family, and to us as a nation. I remember your lecture at the University of Wisconsin which was sponsored by MUJCA.NET, and at the end of the lecture, during the question and answer period you briefly alluded to some revelations and/or news from some of the victims’ families. I understand that many of them have stood behind “9/11 Press for Truth” in calling for a new investigation. Do you know how many of these families believe that the events of 9/11 were carried out by members of this administration and, if so, will they also be speaking to this anytime in the future?
David Ray Griffin:
No, I do not how many family members believe this. Some of them clearly do. For example, Bob McIlvaine, who was featured on “9/11: Press for Truth,” has elsewhere said: “I believe 100% that the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 with the help of other agencies around the world” (“9/11: Truth, Lies, and Conspiracy: Interview: Bob McIlvaine,” August 30, 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911mcilvaine.html). But I have no idea how many others feel the same way. Kyle Hence, who produced that DVD, might have a better idea.
As a Christian, I believe that is God’s plan for there to be individual sovereign nation states and not a one world government. I understand that you, Dr. Griffin, desire some from of world government. I also understand the perpetration of 9-11 to be one in a long series of false flag operations for the ultimate goal of forming a one world government. Do you, Dr. Griffin, believe that having a truly independent investigation of 9-11 will and should augment and restore the sovereign Constitutional republic of the United States of America?
David Ray Griffin:
On the question of constitutional government, please see my answer to Erin Myers.
On the question of global government, it’s essential to distinguish between two completely different types. One type, which you evidently have in mind, would be what is sometimes called “globalization from above.”
This type of one-world government could be produced by one nation using its military and economic might to establish an all-inclusive empire. It would appear that those who orchestrated 9/11 thought that it would move the USA towards that goal (see the references to “Pax Americana” in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” put out by the Project for the New
American Century in September 2000). This kind of top-down globalization could also be produced by the elite class from many countries.
What I have talked about, by contrast, would be global democracy, in which the people of the planet would govern themselves through democratic processes. Legislation could be passed to reverse the growing gap between the rich and the poor, to enforce strict laws against pollution, and so on. Disputes between nations would be handled by going to court rather than going to war—think how barbaric it would be if, when a neighboring state had a dispute with California about water rights, California, being richer and more powerful, could simply send its army to settle the issue. There are, of course, lots of questions to be answered about the possibility and desirability of global government in this sense. I plan to do this in a forthcoming book on Global Democracy (which would have been out long ago if 9/11 had not occurred). In the meantime, you can look at my second chapter in Griffin et al., “The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God.” The main point to see is that global government in this sense would have nothing in common except the name with global government in the top-down sense, and it would be opposed in the strongest possible terms by the rich and powerful of the world—until, at least, they realize that if their own grandchildren are going to have a world, global democracy will need to be instituted.
My question concerns the apparent lack of potential energy needed to bring
down the twin towers. Do you know of any one who has studied all the
energy needed to produce the type of destruction that occurred on 9/11 to
the towers? Dr. Judy Wood contends that no available method or process
could produce the result that happened i.e. turning the concrete to dust
and “dissolve” the huge steel columns as we witnessed except a possible
use of “Star Wars” type technology. Do you have any hypothesis to explain
this “energy deficiency” that we all saw?
Thank you for your efforts to find the truth.
David Ray Griffin:
There are, of course, various theories, with some scientists proposing
thermite or thermate, others proposing mini-nukes, and still others, such
as Judy Wood, proposing another kind of technology. I do not have the
expertise to enter into these debates. I also suspect it’s a mistake for
proponents to become too wedded to any one theory of what really happened.
We, of course, want to know, and scientists should not be discouraged from
making the case for the theories that seems most probable to them. But we
will probably not know for sure until those who orchestrated the
destruction of the buildings are forced to reveal how they did it.
We should, therefore, put our emphasis, especially in our public
presentations, on the point on which we all agree: that the official
story, according to which the buildings were destroyed by the combination
of fire and externally caused damage, is false.
This is partly, as you say, because of the energy deficiency. But it is also because of all the features of the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that can be explained, and can only be explained, through the use of some sort of technology that could produce explosions sufficient to slice steel and pulverize virtually all of the concrete.
We can show, accordingly, know that official theory is false without
knowing what the true theory is. And that is all we need to show in order
to demonstrate that the destruction of the WTC was an inside job.
Andrew Lowe Watson Asks:
Dear Dr Griffin,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your work
in exposing the truth about the events of September 11th, 2001.
I am troubled by the theories recently propounded concerning the possible
use of Directed Energy Weapons in the demolitions of WTC 1 and 2. Can you
re-assure me that there is, to your knowledge, absolutely no validity in
David Ray Griffin:
There may be people who could assure you of this, but I cannot. Please see my answer to 2Bfree.
Why didn’t you go into detail in your books about Jamie S. Gorelick? Such
as her connections between United Technologies and the Carlyle Group?
I did mention that most of the Commissioners had at least potential
conflicts of interest. There is reason to be extra-suspicious of Jamie
Gorelick, moreover, because she was the only one, aside from Phillip
Zelikow, who was allowed to see certain White House documents. Also, as
Peter Lance points out in “Cover Up,” she was evidently involved in the
cover-up of the truth about TWA 800.
I do not know, however, whether she and other Commissioners all knew the
truth about 9/11 and consciously participated in covering up this crime.
She at times seemed genuinely interested in forcing witnesses to tell
truths they wanted to conceal, such as with her refusal to accept the
nonsense being uttered by General Richard Myers. Likewise Richard
Ben-Veniste, about whom there are good reasons to be suspicious, asked
some of the toughest questions. It could be, of course, that they were
simply establishing their credibility, especially with fellow Democrats.
That this was indeed the case is suggested by the fact that they never
forced the revelation of anything truly damning. But although I have my
suspicions about this, I cannot claim to have knowledge.
So, I do not say or even imply that these Commissioners were deliberately
concealing the truth, because I do not know this. (If you want to see my
reflections about epistemology—the study of what and how we know—you
could consult the final chapter of my “Reenchantment without
Supernaturalism.”) I focus instead on Philip Zelikow, whose conflicts of
interest were much more serious and whose power to shape the Commission,
and especially its Final Report, was much greater. I have virtually no
doubt about his conscious orchestration of the cover-up.
Dr. Griffin, what is your take on this?
Cheney’s “orders” which “still stand” in the PEOC seem to be:
1) In the context/authority of his command responsibility for military
2) Related to the live fly hijacking drills,
3) An order to not send up any MORE planes into an already crowded and
confusing airspace in the interest of SAFETY.
Cheney will have exercised his command authority to not intercept the
incoming pentagon jet because that plane COULD have been a live fly
exercise plane, and therefore he can claim he didn’t want any “accidents”
to happen as a result of the confusion of the moment.
Recall that on Meet the Press that Sunday, Cheney went into nonsense about
discussing whether to “intercept”, with the idiotic definition that we
would put a fighter jet in the “same airspace” with other jets. This
buffoon like explanation had method to the madness. It was Cheney’s cover
story to not scramble (non-exercise) jets against possible exercise
aircraft because of his concern for safety. That is the only way he could
have sold his “order” to the men under him.
This cover story reveals the premeditation in having all those exercises
scheduled exactly at that time on that morning.
Other signs of premeditation were the June 1st “Air Piracy” Joint Chiefs
of Staff memo that changed the scramble procedures so that the Secretary
of Defense would have to give “approval.” Rumsfeld gave no “approval”
during the attacks (more dereliction of duty/possible conspiracy).
Another sign is that pilots were banned from bringing firearms into the
cockpits during that same “hair on fire” period of intense warnings about
The biggest giveaway that I know of is Genoa, of course.
Hope you continue the good fight. On that note, I’ve been trying to get
people to protest on the opening day of the new Congress, January
3rd. But, I can’t seem to get large numbers of people to commit. Please
consider flying to Washington to literally BURN your copy of the 9-11
Commission Report in front of Congress on the 3rd.
The scenario you lay out may be true.
But I don’t think we could claim to know that it is true or even give it a
sufficiently high level of probability to proclaim it in public.
As I’ve indicated in my other answers, I think we are much better off
sticking with those things that we can declare with certainty or at least
a very high level of probability. There many things of this nature that
contradict the official story, moreover, so we need not make more dubious
With regard to the Mineta discussion, it shows clearly that the 9/11
Commission, in claiming that Cheney did not get down to the underground
bunker until almost 10 AM, was lying.
It also shows the falsity of the Commission’s claim that no one knew about
an unidentified aircraft approaching Washington until a minute or two
before the Pentagon was struck.
It also strongly suggests that Mineta witnessed Cheney’s standdown order.
Mineta, to be sure, said that he assumed that the “orders” were to shoot
the aircraft down. But that interpretation is ruled out by the fact that
that is NOT what happened and also by the fact that, if those had been the
orders, the young man would not have been asking if the orders still
stood. His question makes sense only if the orders were to do something
that seemed counterintuitive.
Your work is invaluable and you are indeed regarded as a beacon of truth
and hope. Let me first comment by saying that you, or rather anyone, is
not obligated nor should be expected to cover every last aspect of the
attack. Lord knows movements are made up of many for the purpose of
‘sharing the load’. So I feel that you don’t need to answer the questions
of those who are asking you unfair, or in the case of one thus far,
My question for you concerns the seeming brick wall of “leftist” or
alternative media gatekeeping. I speak of those such as Noam Chomsky, Amy
Goodman, The Nation, Infoshop.org, and all those who “redirect”, distract,
or “bait & switch” the conversation away from the most
lethal-to-the-establishment discussions. Although many are aware of this
conundrum…and it is indeed that, I feel as though we are not dealing
effectively with it, and have yet to hear you speak on the issue.
Thank you Dr. Griffin,
seeker of truth
Thanks for the opportunity you give me to plug my forthcoming book,
“Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other
Defenders of the Official Story.” The body of the book contains responses
to four substantial publications that came out in August 2006. But in the
Introduction and the Conclusion, I respond to critiques of the 9/11 truth
movement by several left-leaning journalists, including Alexander Cockburn
(Counterpunch and The Nation), Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive),
Christopher Hayes (The Nation) and Terry Allen (In These Times).
In your speeches and books, you do not address the many Military War Games
and Drills that occurred before and on 9/11. Other researchers have
pointed out that, both before and after 9/11, drills mimicking terrorist
attacks frequently “coincide” with the actual attacks themselves (the
implication being that the “drills” are taken “live” at some point and
then real terrorist attacks, albeit false-flag ones, take place). Why do
you not examine this seemingly important aspect of 9/11 and its bearing on
the lack of, and interference in, our Air Defense on that day?
Although I have read with interest what other researchers have written
about the war games, I have myself written very little about them. I do
point out that they show the falsity of the claim that the government and
the military had not imagined hijacked planes being used as weapons. I
also point out that the 9/11 Commission refused to talk about them at the
hearings, even when people in the audience demanded that they do so. And I
used Jamie Gorelick’s response—that the Commissioners were assured that
they were not important—to illustrate the point that the Commissioners
only dealt with things presented by Zelikow’s staff.
Of coruse, this very fact—that the Commissioners were evidently steered
away from the issue—is suspicious. I have little doubt that the war
games played an important role. But as to just what that role was, I
I do not believe, as some have seemed to suggest, that the war games, by
causing so much confusion, made a stand down unnecessary.
My own suspicion is that the war games were scheduled for the same day as
the attacks (or vice versa) as the ultimate excuse. That is, if all of the
other excuses as to why the military did not intercept the planes fall
apart, the military would be able to claim: “The war games confused us,
but we didn’t want to admit it, so we lied. We’re sorry. We see now we
should have told the truth from the beginning.”
I do not claim to know that this is true. It is, as I say, only my
So, I don’t talk about the role played by the war games because I don’t
have anything certain or even probable to say about this. Also, one need
not talk about the war games to provide a very strong case that the
military was involved in orchestrating the events of that day.
Mark Roberts Asks:
Has information that has been released to the public since the publication
of your book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions caused
you to alter your views about any of those 115 claims?
I would not today change that essay except for adding some clarifications
with regard to a few points:
Number 1. What I claim with most certainty about the hijackers is that (a)
there were credible reports that some of them were still alive after 9/11
and (b) that the 9/11 Commission failed to address this issue. One of the
alleged hijackers said in David Harrison’s article still to be alive
(Ahmed al-Nami) turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. It seems
less likely that this could be true of some of the others, such as Waleed
al-Shehri, who came forward after seeing his photograph in the paper. I
wish, however, that someone could do some investigative reporting that
could settle this issue.
Number 4: Flight manifests with names of the alleged hijackers have now
Whether they are authentic, I cannot say. The fact that they are so late
makes me suspicious.
Number 18. The question of whether the Pentagon’s “entrance hole” was too
small for a 757 turned out to be more complex than it seemed at the time.
But the point remains that the hole, as shown in most of the photographs,
“appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered,” so it is something
that the 9/11 Commission should have discussed.
Number 21. There have been some pictures released, but they certainly have
not changed the situation—except to provide more evidence that there are
no photos showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon. In any case, the point
remains that the Commission failed to discuss this issue.
Number 77. We have now learned—from Michael Bronner’s essay in “Vanity
Fair” and Kean and Hamilton’s book “Without Precedent”—that at least
some members of the 9/11 Commission accused the military officers of lying
(even though, as I point out in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking,” this would
have been a completely unmotivated, irrational lie).
Number 105. I have given more evidence about bases with fighters that
could have been used in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”
John Wright Asks:
Dr. Griffin -
I hope that you and yours are well and that you celebrated a joyous
Christmas with your family.
While I have much to say I will go directly to my question:
If, by July 4, 2007, 9/11 Truth has not broken into the mainstream
American media as a serious issue, then would you consider running for
President on a 9/11 Truth platform to finally push it into the MSM?
(I’d love to put a Griffin/Kwiatkowski 2008 bumper sticker on my car)
BTW – I work with the NorCal 9/11 Truth Alliance and live very close to KJ.
I look forward to meeting you sometime soon in 2007.
Love is the only way forward.
Warm regards, John Wright
Thank you for your confidence. But no.
I have 2 questions.
Is there ever going to be a moment of genuine mainstream revelation, a la
Watergate? Or will the 9/11 campaign just continue asymptotically like
many other theories?
I am in a minority amongst my friends in being a 9/11 sceptic- what is the
best simple fact or argument you have used to turn people around?
There is no simple answer to your question, because people differ greatly
in terms of what kind of evidence impresses them. As I mention in the
introduction to “Debunking 9/11 Debunking,” some people are empirically
minded. For them, you might start with the evidence that the official
account of the destruction of the WTC cannot be true.
Other people are strongly paradigmatic thinkers. Such people may not even
be willing to look at empirical evidence, because their “paradigm” of how
things happen convinces that governmental and military leaders would not
have done such a thing. With them, you might be most successful by showing
evidence to the contrary. In the introduction to “Debunking 9/11
Debunking,” for example, I point out that the Bush White House order the
EPA to assure the public that the air at ground zero was safe to breathe.
As a result, many people working on the clean up and rescue efforts did
not even wear masks, let along the more extensive protection that should
have been mandated. Consequently, more people will probably die from
cancer and other 9/11 diseases than died on 9/11 itself.
In any case, I gave my own statement of what I consider the strongest
evidence in my lecture/video “9/11: The Myth and the Reality”
David, I hope you are well. There is a respected blogger Joseph Cannon who
runs Cannonfire.blogspot.com He’s a nice guy and well up on all the stuff
about 9/11 but he has totally written the controlled demolition (CD)
theories as bunkum. He links to this site: http://www.debunking911.com
I’m just curious to know if you have any personal views on the building
collapses? Any particular pieces of evidence or arguments convince you one
way or the other? What about the ideas found at the web link given?
Thanks for your good work. Best wishes.
I have given my most complete argument about the WTC buildings in chapter
3 of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking,” entitled “The Disintegration of the World
Trade Center: Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?”
Do you think that any of the 19 hijackers are still alive, and if so, why
has no one from the Truth movement tried to contact them?
See my comment under “Number 1” in my response to Mark Roberts. Also,
several people in the movement have wanted to go see if they could
interview any of them, but members of the movement tend not to be wealthy
and so they have had to ask for funding. Thus far no one, to my knowledge,
has put up the needed funding. Even one well-known journalist, who has
written some well-received books, tried to get funding but, at least the
last I heard, had not succeeded.
L Evans Asks:
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions. I hope that
you and your family are well.
What would you consider is the most important thing that Christians could
do to wake other Christians up to the truth behind 9/11 (and to wake up
In my book on this subject, “Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A
Call to Reflection and Action,” I suggested that Christians should
especially be concerned to expose the truth behind 9/11. Why? Because
Christianity began with the message of Jesus, which was an “anti-imperial
gospel,” as Richard Horsley calls it in “Jesus and Empire.”
Beyond that, the most important thing for getting Christians to wake up
seems to be the same as it is for other people: simply getting them to
look at the evidence. The evidence is now so overwhelming that, once they
do so, most of them will be convinced. It is at this point that their
religious and moral concerns should motivate them to work very hard to get
the truth exposed and thereby stop the policies that are being justified
in the name of 9/11.
For people who are unlikely to read my book, at least at first, you might
suggest my lecture, “9/11, American Empire, and Christian Faith,”
911Truth.org, April 28, 2006
(http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060501003040487), the DVD of
which can be obtained from KenJenkins@aol.com.
Question for David Ray Griffin,
Wouldn’t it be good if the movement could self regulate by means of an
agreed code of conduct which itself displays what is disinformation and
what is honest?
The 9-11 events displayed masterful psi-ops skills. But subsequent
infiltration efforts which seem to be going on, of 9-11 Truth groups and
message boards and so on, are also impressive.
Can you provide advice for rising above the disinformation efforts and
confusion operations that proliferate, especially on the net but also at
live 9-11 gatherings?
My own crude beginnings would include advice to…
— raise questions in people’s minds, rather than giving specific theories
— provide clear evidence that official theories cannot explain the facts
— always use polite language
— avoid villainizing any group, including government
Dr. Griffin, can you add to this list, or improve upon it, from your
experience? It does seem to me that the disinformation efforts all fail
one or another of these tests, at least. I am hoping you can add to this
list or otherwise improve on it, and/or comment usefully on this topic.
And do please accept my warmest thanks and best wishes.
Dear BR Student,
You have provided a good set of ideas.
Probably even more destructive than actual disinformation agents has been
the tendency of some members of the movement to label those who disagree
with them as disinformation agents.
The logic behind these charges seems to run something like this:
My theory is the truth.
X rejects my theory.
Therefore X is a disinformation agent.
The best way to avoid this common tendency, I believe, is to focus, as you
suggest, on (1) showing why the official story must be false, rather than
(2) laying out an account of what really happened. Most people in the
movement agree on a large number of facts under the first task. Most of
the disagreements come with regard to the second effort. In our public
statements, it would be best to stick, as much as possible, to the former,
saving the latter for private discussions.
Hello Dr. Griffin….
What I would like to know if you can comment on.. is …
Has anyone tried to contact the hotel workers that supposedly saw the
video of whatever struck the Pentagon from the hotel security camera? I
thought I read somewhere that they had seen it a number of times before
the FBI took possession.
Why haven’t any of them come forward with what they saw either to prove or
disprove any particular scenario?
As to why they have not come forward, you would need to ask them.
My assumption, however, is that they have been told in no uncertain terms
not to do this. They probably believe, probably rightly, that they would
not only lose their jobs but would then have trouble getting another job.
We who have education and training that give us lots of options should not
underestimate the kind of intimidation that such threats can exert on
people with very few options for providing for their families. (I have
been told by people who have interviewed members of the Fire Department of
New York, for example, that they will not talk publicly about explosions
going off in the Twin Towers for fear of losing their jobs, pensions, and
benefits.) Also, they probably assume, again rightly, that the mainstream
media would ridicule or simply ignore their claims, so they would have
lost their job for nothing.
Dear Dr. Griffin:
You have mentioned that the current preoccupation with 9/11 and the
resulting actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking attention away from
the far more important issue of global warming and climate change. Would
you care to enlarge on this problem?
Just last night, by coincidence, I saw Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient
Truth,” at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, after which Gore, who was here
in person, was interviewed. It just happened that this was at the same
time the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was issuing its dire
report and Gore was being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. So I
suspect that by now many people know a lot more about climate change than
when you asked this question.
In any case, I would suggest that Gore’s movie would be a good place to
start. Then read Ross Gelbspan’s fairly recent book, “Boiling Point: How
Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and Activists Are Fueling the
Climate Crisis—And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster.” Then read the last
edition of “State of the World,” put out by the WorldWatch Institute.
I myself wrote an essay on this issue over a decade ago (“The ‘Vision
Thing,’ the Presidency, and the Ecological Crisis, or the Greenhouse
Effect and the ‘White House Effect,’” in POSTMODERN POLITICS FOR A PLANET
IN CRISIS, ed. David Ray Griffin and Richard A. Falk [Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1993], 67-101). Already then, I pointed out,
preventing the likelihood of runaway global warming within the 21st
century would require the industrialized world to reduce greenhouse
emissions by 90 percent (yes, ninety percent). But, rather than even
stabilizing our emissions at 1990 levels, as some were recommending, we
have all continued to increase them. Things by now are far worse than even
the most extreme projections at that time feared. The most crucial
indicator is the extreme rapidity of the melting of the world’s ice. Much
of this information, moreover, become verified only after the IPCC quit
accepting new data, so things, as Gore pointed out, are even worse than
its report suggests.
I conclude “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” by appealing to journalists finally
to reveal the truth behind 9/11, so that we can overcome our single-minded
preoccupation with “terrorism” in favor of focusing on the truly
overwhelming threat of our age, which is the end of civilization itself.
So do not let anyone tell you that the 9/11 truth movement is a
distraction from the real crimes of the Bush-Cheney administration. (See
my brief essay, “The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory:
A Reply to Alexander Cockburn,” 9/11 Truth Europe
Mr. Griffin, do you believe that there are paid disinformationalists on
internet forums working to thwart the “911 Truth Movement”?
I do not know. It’s not an issue I spend time on. Please see my answer to
Gersy gym Asks:
sir, why is it that you never address the obvious involvement of israeli
intelligence in 9/11 and the dual israeli-citizenship of most of the pnac
members? what about the aipac spying ring in the usa? the plame
affair? these are the issues that matter, not the collapse of wtc 1, 2,
and 7 or pentagon and shanksville anomolies. who gives israel‘s war
criminal defense department more aid than the usa’s gov’t? evangelical
churches in america that you evidently belong to. is there any reason
this hampers your ability to talk about these real and very important,
relevant issues? thanks for your time. i do admire all the work that you
have put into this movement, but feel that the focus is on the wrong
happy new year!
Dear Gersy Gym,
I do not know that the involvement of Israeli intelligence in 9/11 is
“obvious.” I would, to be sure, be quite surprised to learn that Israeli
intelligence was itself surprised by the attacks, but that is different
from having evidence that they were involved in orchestrating the events.
Perhaps they were and, if so, I would not be surprised. But I have not
seen strong evidence for this. And there is certainly no need to posit
Israeli involvement to explain the events of 9/11. Our military and
intelligence agencies were perfectly capable of carrying out this
operation on their own.
The fact that I don’t know of evidence of Israeli involvement could, of
course, be because I have not focused on this issue, since I do not try to
lay our a theory of what really happened, concentrating instead on
evidence that the official account is false.
I do not know, I must add, how you can say that the issues with which you
are most concerned are the only ones that matter. Surely if the attacks on
the WTC and the Pentagon were false-flag attacks, carried out to provide a
pretext for launching wars in Muslim countries, greatly restricting civil
rights in our country, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the
military-industrial complex, and so on, this matters.
America’s support of Israel’s unjust policies is, to be sure, one of the
most important issues of our time and one that I plan to write about.
Indeed, I would have already published about this if I had not been
working on 9/11 almost full time since early in 2003. In my own mind,
however, that issue and 9/11 are distinct. I may, of course, be wrong. But
until I am aware of strong evidence of Israeli involvement, I will, of
course, not write about it.
I am mystified by the view, which I read now and then, that I am a
conservative or, as you put it, Evangelical Christian. I can only assume
that this view is held only by people who have not read any of my books in
philosophy of religion and theology.
Dr. Griffin –
In your book “Omissions and Distortions,” which I purchased and read in
full, you begin by pointing out that many of the alleged hijackers were
later reported alive.
a. Why did you not mention many other facts that suggest there were no
hijacked planes, such as the lack of security videotapes of the hijackers,
the obviously planted evidence in rental cars, the lack of the alleged
9/11 flights in a government database, and so on?
b. Many of the topics you discuss later in your book assume that there
were in fact planes hijacked by Arabs on 9/11, and that they were funded
by Saudi royals whose exit from the country you emphasize in your book as
a serious omission. Does this not contradict the first omission you
discuss — the hijackers being reported alive? Your books seem to
catalogue various theories without any attempt to determine whether they
are internally consistent. Do you agree, and if so, do you think that
this is a problem?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, and for all the work
you have done to publicize questions about 9/11.
If you read “Debunking 9/11 Debunking,” you will find that I do address
most of the other issues about the alleged hijackers that you mention. As
you rightly imply, these additional facts strengthen the conclusion that
9/11 was a false-flag operation.
I have, incidentally, also addressed some of these issues in “9/11 and
Prior False-Flag Operations,” which is the first chapter of “Christian
Faith and the Truth behind 9/11,” and in “False-Flag Operations, 9/11, and
the New Rome: A Christian Perspective,” in Kevin Barrett, John B. Cobb
Jr., and Sandra Lubarsky, eds., 9/11 and American Empire: Christians,
Jews, and Muslims Speak Out (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2006). But I
address them more fully in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”
I assume that there were not any “hijackers” on the airliners. This
question is distinct from the question of whether there was Saudi funding
for the operation, and funding was needed whether the alleged hijackers
got on the airliners or not. If they were to be blamed, then they probably
needed to be paid to play their roles.
1. Do you still believe, as you wrote here
(http://www.dwfed.org/pp_objections_world%20govt_considered.htm), “only in
a federal system of global government can real political and economic
decentralization and autonomy be possible.”
2. Why do you say that the fires in the World Trade Center were
oxygen-starved? Isn’t it obvious that the holes in the towers could
provide plenty of oxygen?
3. Do you believe there were hijackers on the four planes that crashed on
First, I have not changed my views about the need for global democracy, as
I indicated in my answer to Dachsie.
Second, the reason to say that the fires were oxygen starved is that black
smoke was issuing forth, as even Thomas Eagar and NIST admit (see my
discussion of NIST’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” in “Debunking
Third, see my answer to Ningen.
A major issue for the 911 Truth movement has been the lack of any
substantial support from the academic and professional communities best
placed to consider the underlying causes of collapse; in particular
architects, fire engineers, and structural engineers.
Given the amount of qualified people in these fields, in particular
world-wide and hence outwith the US immediate sphere of influence, it
seems inconceivable that any serious errors in the NIST/FEMA analysis
would not have been highlighted.
In contrast, there are a number of papers by various groups such as Ove
Arup, Edinburgh University, and Sheffield University which have confirmed
(or largely confirmed) key parts of the “official” analysis.
Why do you consider this situation has arisen, and why has the Truth
movement been unable to respond with detailed engineering analyses?
Although it may at first glance seem “inconceivable” that errors the
analyses by FEMA and NIST would not have been highlighted in the press or
academic journals, this becomes less inconceivable after one becomes
familiar with various relevant factors.
One factor is that most architects and engineers in countries allied with
the USA evidently find it inconceivable that 9/11 could have been an
inside job that was then covered up by agencies of the US government.
Civilized countries, they believe, simply don’t do such things. And so,
since pre-set explosives are ruled out, the buildings “must” have come
down through some combination of fire and externally produced damage. So
like NIST itself, rather than asking, “Can pigs fly?”, they simply ask:
“Granted that these pigs flew, how did they do it?” And once that is the
question, then NIST’s answer is about as good as one can do.
A second factor is that architectural and engineering firms can thrive and
even survive on the basis of their reputations, and in elite circles—the
circles that can pay for their services—any firm that supported a
“conspiracy theory” about 9/11 would no longer be considered reliable. Or
at least the firms fear that this will be the case.
A third factor is that, even if some individual engineers and architects
produced contrary analyses, they would most likely not be published by any
scientific journals or mentioned in any mainstream press articles. For
example, two engineers at the ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
which is very prestigious, have declared that WTC 7 was with the highest
probability brought down by explosives. But you will not find reports of
these statements in the mainstream press or academic journals in Europe or
(especially) the United States. The moral of this discussion is that we
have no idea how many architects and engineers have disputed the
conclusions reached by NIST.
Let me also add that architects and engineers are not necessarily, as you
suggest, “best placed to consider the underlying causes of the collapse.”
They build things; they do not destroy things. Also, to disprove the
official theory, we not need a full-blown alternative theory. All we need
is sufficient evidence that the official story cannot be true, and if this
theory violates fundamental laws of physics, that is sufficient evidence.
Another way to evaluate the official theory is simply by studying the
collapses on videos, and among the best placed people to do this are
experts in controlled demolition. One expert who spoke out, then evidently
realized that this would be hazardous to the health of his lobbying
activities, was Van Romero of New Mexico Tech (see my discussion of “The
Van Romero Episode,” which is the epilogue to chapter 3 “Christian Faith
and the Truth behind 9/11”). Expert testimony has also been given by a
well-known controlled demolition expert in Holland, Danny Jowenko. After
seeing the collapse of WTC 7, without knowing what building it was (he had
not even known that a third building collapsed on 9/11), he said that it
could only have been brought down by explosives. Whether he would have
said this if he had known that it was WTC 7, we will never know. (I report
on Jowenko’s testimony, as well as that of the two Swiss engineering
professors, in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”)
Can you indicate to us whether your long career as a professor of the
philosophy of religion and theology influenced you to reject reason and
critical thinking in your very illogical writings about 9/11? In this age
where logic, reason, and critical thinking are sneered upon as bourgeois
and elitist, where Creationism and Intelligent Design are trotted out as a
religious crusade against science and reason, I could understand your
rejection of reason on those grounds. But I find your rejection of reason,
overwhelming evidence, and the scientific method, disturbing and
I also know that otherwise intelligent and non-religious people find it
fashionable to reject reason and adopt bizarre conspiracy theories as the
so-called 9/11 Truth Movement has; Holocaust Deniers have done so for 60
years and also for political reasons.
The revolt against reason is indeed strange; I just wonder why you chose
to reject reason, especially and critically as someone whose career as an
educator should have prevented you from ever considering doing so.
If you will read my books in philosophy of religion and theology (I would
especially suggest “Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process
Philosophy of Religion”), you will probably be able to discern that I have
been a defender of reason against those who make the moves of which you
You will probably be able to discern the same thing if you read some of my
writings in the philosophy of science, such as “Religion and Scientific
Naturalism” and my introductions to two edited volumes, “Physics and the
Ultimate Significance of Time” and “The Reenchantment of Science.” You
might in particular find interesting my critique of Intelligent Design,
“Evolution without Tears: A Third Way beyond Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent
Design” (Process and Faith, 1325 N. College, Claremont, CA 91711).
You are, to be sure, not the first person to assume that, since I reject
the official theory about 9/11, I must have rejected logic and reason.
Alexander Cockburn has made this charge. I have replied to it in the
introduction and conclusion of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”
Part of my answer is to point out that the truly “bizarre” conspiracy
theory, to use your term, is the official conspiracy theory about 9/11.
From learning that you accept this theory, however, I would not
immediately jump to the conclusion that you have rejected reason. My first
assumption would be that you are probably unfamiliar with a wide range or
relevant facts, including the fact that holding the official theory about
the collapses of the WTC buildings involves holding, implicitly, that
several basic laws of physics were violated.
The point of my response is that to hold a reasonable theory about
something, it is not enough simply to affirm logic and the other elements
of rationality. There is also an empirical element. One must look at the
relevant empirical facts. One does not have a reasonable theory unless it
can, in a self-consistent way, take account of all the relevant facts. And
the official theory, I argue, cannot even come close to doing that. You
might want to look more closely at some of the facts, therefore, to make
sure that you are not one of the people holding an unreasonable theory.
I think Christianity in general is bunk. I am suspicious of those who
would organize their lives around it. How do you respond to someone who
thinks your role as a Christian Theologian is discrediting?
If you will read some of my writings about Christian faith, you will learn
that I do not think there is anything such thing as “Christianity in
You will probably also find that most of the things you consider bunk, I
do too. That does not mean, however, that Christianity at its best is not
full of true and enormously important ideas.
I have not encountered many people who think my role as a Christian
theologian is discrediting. In any case, if there are such people, I would
simply say that my writings about 9/11 should be evaluated in terms of
whether they successfully raise objections to the official theory. It is
widely accepted that ad hominem arguments against authors are
illegitimate, except where the evidence in question depends on the
personal testimony of the author. When one is evaluating a theory argued
on the basis of reason and evidence, one cannot legitimately refute this
theory by making allegations about the author of that theory.
As the backlash against the Truth movement continues, I am really looking
forward to your Debunking the Debunkers project.
I was wondering if you are planning to reply to the hit pieces by critics
such a Alexander Cockburn and Alan Wisdom. Also, will you be responding to
“debunking” websites such as 9/11myths.com?
As I said in my response to SeekerOfTruth and Skyking, I respond to Cockburn. But until I read your question, I did not know of the piece by Alan Wisdom, so I have not responded to it in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”
Also, although 9/11myths.com deserves a thoughtful response, that will have to remain a task for another time.
Would you please comment on the PRESENTMENT REGARDING DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE CENTER EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Thank you for letting me know about this “presentment.” Although at the end it says that “research assistance for this presentment was provided by David Ray Griffin,” either I “provided” this assistant only indirectly, by way of my writings, or else I have forgotten about it (which is entirely possible).
In any case, this document presents an excellent case for the installation of a Grand Jury to investigate the evidence that officials of New York City, including then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, participated in a crime and then a cover-up with regard to the destruction of the World Trade Center.
To all my questioners: Thank you very much for your questions, which gave me a chance to clarify many things and also to mention places where other things have been discussed. I hope my answers have been helpful.
I am sorry for the delay in getting these answers written. I was rushing to meet the deadline for my forthcoming book. I thought that, rather than dashing off quick answers to your questions, it would be better to wait until I could devote a couple days to this task.