David Ray Griffin \u00a0Answers Your Questions<\/p>\n
RINF members had the opportunity to put questions to one of the worlds most credible and respected 9\/11 researchers, Dr. David Ray Griffin.<\/p>\n
George Asks: 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?<\/p>\n Thank you again!<\/p>\n David Ray Griffin: Erin S. Myers Asks:<\/strong> David Ray Griffin: 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, \u201cImpeachment by the People,\u201d 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 \u201cstate of exception,\u201d 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 \u201cYou Can Do Anything with a Bayonet Except Sit On It,\u201d A TomDispatch.com 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.<\/p>\n STELLAPENA Asks:<\/strong> Thank you!<\/p>\n David Ray Griffin: Dachsie Asks:<\/strong> David Ray Griffin:<\/strong> On the question of global government, it\u2019s essential to distinguish between two completely different types. One type, which you evidently have in mind, would be what is sometimes called \u201cglobalization from above.\u201d<\/p>\n 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 \u201cPax Americana\u201d in \u201cRebuilding America\u2019s Defenses,\u201d put out by the Project for the New 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., \u201cThe American Empire and the Commonwealth of God.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 2BFree Asks: down the twin towers. Do you know of any one who has studied all the Thank you for your efforts to find the truth.<\/p>\n David Ray Griffin:<\/strong> This is partly, as you\u00a0say, because of the energy deficiency. But it is also because of all the\u00a0features of the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that can be explained, and\u00a0can only be explained, through the use of some sort of technology that\u00a0could produce explosions sufficient to slice steel and pulverize virtually\u00a0all of the concrete.<\/p>\n We can show, accordingly, know that official theory is false without Andrew Lowe Watson Asks:<\/strong> I would like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your work I am troubled by the theories recently propounded concerning the possible Thank you.<\/p>\n David Ray Griffin: Adam Asks: Dear Adam, Johndoraemi Asks: Cheney’s “orders” which “still stand” in the PEOC seem to be:<\/p>\n 1) In the context\/authority of his command responsibility for military 2) Related to the live fly hijacking drills,<\/p>\n 3) An order to not send up any MORE planes into an already crowded and Cheney will have exercised his command authority to not intercept the Recall that on Meet the Press that Sunday, Cheney went into nonsense about This cover story reveals the premeditation in having all those exercises Other signs of premeditation were the June 1st “Air Piracy” Joint Chiefs Another sign is that pilots were banned from bringing firearms into the The biggest giveaway that I know of is Genoa, of course.<\/p>\n Hope you continue the good fight. On that note, I’ve been trying to get Dear Johndoraemi,<\/p>\n The scenario you lay out may be true.<\/p>\n But I don\u2019t think we could claim to know that it is true or even give it a As I\u2019ve indicated in my other answers, I think we are much better off With regard to the Mineta discussion, it shows clearly that the 9\/11 It also shows the falsity of the Commission\u2019s claim that no one knew about It also strongly suggests that Mineta witnessed Cheney\u2019s standdown order. SeekerofTruth Asks: Your work is invaluable and you are indeed regarded as a beacon of truth My question for you concerns the seeming brick wall of “leftist” or Thank you Dr. Griffin, Dear SeekerOfTruth,<\/p>\n Thanks for the opportunity you give me to plug my forthcoming book, Altruist Asks: In your speeches and books, you do not address the many Military War Games Dear Altruist, Mark Roberts Asks: Has information that has been released to the public since the publication Thank you.<\/p>\n Dear Mark: John Wright Asks: I hope that you and yours are well and that you celebrated a joyous Thank you very much for all your fine work on behalf of 9\/11 Truth. I While I have much to say I will go directly to my question:<\/p>\n If, by July 4, 2007, 9\/11 Truth has not broken into the mainstream (I’d love to put a Griffin\/Kwiatkowski 2008 bumper sticker on my car)<\/p>\n BTW – I work with the NorCal 9\/11 Truth Alliance and live very close to KJ.<\/p>\n I look forward to meeting you sometime soon in 2007.<\/p>\n Love is the only way forward.<\/p>\n Warm regards, John Wright<\/p>\n Dear John,<\/p>\n Thank you for your confidence. But no.<\/p>\n Tuntang Asks: Is there ever going to be a moment of genuine mainstream revelation, a la I am in a minority amongst my friends in being a 9\/11 sceptic- what is the Dear Tuntang,<\/p>\n There is no simple answer to your question, because people differ greatly Other people are strongly paradigmatic thinkers. Such people may not even In any case, I gave my own statement of what I consider the strongest Kenj Asks: I’m just curious to know if you have any personal views on the building Thanks for your good work. Best wishes.<\/p>\n Dear Kenj,<\/p>\n I have given my most complete argument about the WTC buildings in chapter Firestone Asks: Do you think that any of the 19 hijackers are still alive, and if so, why Dear Firestone:<\/p>\n See my comment under \u201cNumber 1\u201d in my response to Mark Roberts. Also, L Evans Asks: Thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions. I hope that What would you consider is the most important thing that Christians could Thank you, Dear Evans, Student Asks: Wouldn’t it be good if the movement could self regulate by means of an The 9-11 events displayed masterful psi-ops skills. But subsequent Can you provide advice for rising above the disinformation efforts and My own crude beginnings would include advice to…<\/p>\n — raise questions in people’s minds, rather than giving specific theories Dr. Griffin, can you add to this list, or improve upon it, from your And do please accept my warmest thanks and best wishes.<\/p>\n BR Student<\/p>\n Dear BR Student, Ericman Asks: What I would like to know if you can comment on.. is … Why haven’t any of them come forward with what they saw either to prove or Dear Ericman, Oneworld Asks: You have mentioned that the current preoccupation with 9\/11 and the Sincerely, Oneworld<\/p>\n Dear Oneworld,<\/p>\n Just last night, by coincidence, I saw Al Gore\u2019s movie, \u201cAn Inconvenient In any case, I would suggest that Gore\u2019s movie would be a good place to I myself wrote an essay on this issue over a decade ago (\u201cThe ‘Vision I conclude \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking\u201d by appealing to journalists finally JDHess Asks: Dear JDHess,<\/p>\n I do not know. It\u2019s not an issue I spend time on. Please see my answer to Gersy gym Asks:<\/p>\n dr. griffin,<\/p>\n sir, why is it that you never address the obvious involvement of israeli Dear Gersy Gym,<\/p>\n I do not know that the involvement of Israeli intelligence in 9\/11 is The fact that I don\u2019t know of evidence of Israeli involvement could, of I do not know, I must add, how you can say that the issues with which you America\u2019s support of Israel\u2019s unjust policies is, to be sure, one of the I am mystified by the view, which I read now and then, that I am a Ningen Asks: In your book “Omissions and Distortions,” which I purchased and read in a. Why did you not mention many other facts that suggest there were no b. Many of the topics you discuss later in your book assume that there Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, and for all the work Dear Ningen,<\/p>\n If you read \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking,\u201d you will find that I do address I have, incidentally, also addressed some of these issues in \u201c9\/11 and I assume that there were not any \u201chijackers\u201d on the airliners. This Brainster Asks: 1. Do you still believe, as you wrote here 2. Why do you say that the fires in the World Trade Center were 3. Do you believe there were hijackers on the four planes that crashed on Dear Brainster,<\/p>\n First, I have not changed my views about the need for global democracy, as Second, the reason to say that the fires were oxygen starved is that black Third, see my answer to Ningen.<\/p>\n ———<\/p>\n Architect Says:<\/p>\n A major issue for the 911 Truth movement has been the lack of any Given the amount of qualified people in these fields, in particular In contrast, there are a number of papers by various groups such as Ove Why do you consider this situation has arisen, and why has the Truth Dear Architect,<\/p>\n Although it may at first glance seem \u201cinconceivable\u201d that errors the One factor is that most architects and engineers in countries allied with A second factor is that architectural and engineering firms can thrive and A third factor is that, even if some individual engineers and architects Let me also add that architects and engineers are not necessarily, as you Another way to evaluate the official theory is simply by studying the Skyking Asks: Can you indicate to us whether your long career as a professor of the I also know that otherwise intelligent and non-religious people find it The revolt against reason is indeed strange; I just wonder why you chose Dear Skyking,<\/p>\n If you will read my books in philosophy of religion and theology (I would You will probably be able to discern the same thing if you read some of my You are, to be sure, not the first person to assume that, since I reject Part of my answer is to point out that the truly \u201cbizarre\u201d conspiracy The point of my response is that to hold a reasonable theory about Bgiltner Asks:<\/p>\n I think Christianity in general is bunk. I am suspicious of those who Dear Bqiltner,<\/p>\n If you will read some of my writings about Christian faith, you will learn You will probably also find that most of the things you consider bunk, I I have not encountered many people who think my role as a Christian Irving Asks:<\/p>\n Dr. Griffin,<\/p>\n As the backlash against the Truth movement continues, I am really looking I was wondering if you are planning to reply to the hit pieces by critics Thank you.<\/p>\n Dear Irving,<\/p>\n 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 \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking.\u201d<\/p>\n Also, although 9\/11myths.com deserves a thoughtful response, that will have to remain a task for another time.<\/p>\n heiho1 Asks: Would you please comment on the PRESENTMENT REGARDING DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE CENTER EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Dear heihol,<\/p>\n Thank you for letting me know about this \u201cpresentment.\u201d Although at the end it says that \u201cresearch assistance for this presentment was provided by David Ray Griffin,\u201d either I \u201cprovided\u201d this assistant only indirectly, by way of my writings, or else I have forgotten about it (which is entirely possible).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Yours truly,<\/p>\n David Griffin<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" David Ray Griffin \u00a0Answers 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. George Asks: 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[429],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-15606","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-special-guest-interviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15606\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n<\/strong>Thank you for all of your wonderful work to expose the truth about 9\/11 and to bring the perpetrators to justice.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Like Yogi Berra, I don\u2019t 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\u00a0our 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.<\/p>\n
\nVery 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?<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>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:<\/p>\n
\n(http:\/\/www.progressive.org\/node\/4473.)<\/p>\n
\nInterview with Mark Danner, Feb. 26, 2006 [http:\/\/markdanner.com\/nyt\/022606_tomdispatch.htm]. On Giorgio Gamben\u2019s ideas, see his State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006].)<\/p>\n
\nI 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?<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>No, I do not how many family members believe this. Some of them clearly do. For example, Bob McIlvaine, who was featured on \u201c9\/11: Press for Truth,\u201d has elsewhere said: \u201cI believe 100% that the U.S. orchestrated 9\/11 with the help of other agencies around the world\u201d (\u201c9\/11: Truth, Lies, and Conspiracy: Interview: Bob McIlvaine,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
\nAs 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?<\/p>\n
\nOn the question of constitutional government, please see my answer to Erin Myers.<\/p>\n
\nAmerican Century in September 2000). This kind of top-down globalization could also be produced by the elite class from many countries.<\/p>\n
\nMy question concerns the apparent lack of potential energy needed to bring<\/p>\n
\nenergy needed to produce the type of destruction that occurred on 9\/11 to
\nthe towers? Dr. Judy Wood contends that no available method or process
\ncould produce the result that happened i.e. turning the concrete to dust
\nand “dissolve” the huge steel columns as we witnessed except a possible
\nuse of “Star Wars” type technology. Do you have any hypothesis to explain
\nthis “energy deficiency” that we all saw?<\/p>\n
\nThere are, of course, various theories, with some scientists proposing
\nthermite or thermate, others proposing mini-nukes, and still others, such
\nas Judy Wood, proposing another kind of technology. I do not have the
\nexpertise to enter into these debates. I also suspect it\u2019s a mistake for
\nproponents to become too wedded to any one theory of what really happened.
\nWe, of course, want to know, and scientists should not be discouraged from
\nmaking the case for the theories that seems most probable to them. But we
\nwill probably not know for sure until those who orchestrated the
\ndestruction of the buildings are forced to reveal how they did it.
\nWe should, therefore, put our emphasis, especially in our public
\npresentations, on the point on which we all agree: that the official
\nstory, according to which the buildings were destroyed by the combination
\nof fire and externally caused damage, is false.<\/p>\n
\nknowing what the true theory is. And that is all we need to show in order
\nto demonstrate that the destruction of the WTC was an inside job.<\/p>\n
\nDear Dr Griffin,<\/p>\n
\nin exposing the truth about the events of September 11th, 2001.<\/p>\n
\nuse of Directed Energy Weapons in the demolitions of WTC 1 and 2. Can you
\nre-assure me that there is, to your knowledge, absolutely no validity in
\nthese suggestions?<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>There may be people who could assure you of this, but I cannot. Please see\u00a0my answer to 2Bfree.<\/p>\n
\nWhy didn’t you go into detail in your books about Jamie S. Gorelick? Such
\nas her connections between United Technologies and the Carlyle Group?<\/p>\n
\nI did mention that most of the Commissioners had at least potential
\nconflicts of interest. There is reason to be extra-suspicious of Jamie
\nGorelick, moreover, because she was the only one, aside from Phillip
\nZelikow, who was allowed to see certain White House documents. Also, as
\nPeter Lance points out in \u201cCover Up,\u201d she was evidently involved in the
\ncover-up of the truth about TWA 800.
\nI do not know, however, whether she and other Commissioners all knew the
\ntruth about 9\/11 and consciously participated in covering up this crime.
\nShe at times seemed genuinely interested in forcing witnesses to tell
\ntruths they wanted to conceal, such as with her refusal to accept the
\nnonsense being uttered by General Richard Myers. Likewise Richard
\nBen-Veniste, about whom there are good reasons to be suspicious, asked
\nsome of the toughest questions. It could be, of course, that they were
\nsimply establishing their credibility, especially with fellow Democrats.
\nThat this was indeed the case is suggested by the fact that they never
\nforced the revelation of anything truly damning. But although I have my
\nsuspicions about this, I cannot claim to have knowledge.
\nSo, I do not say or even imply that these Commissioners were deliberately
\nconcealing the truth, because I do not know this. (If you want to see my
\nreflections about epistemology\u2013the study of what and how we know—you
\ncould consult the final chapter of my \u201cReenchantment without
\nSupernaturalism.\u201d) I focus instead on Philip Zelikow, whose conflicts of
\ninterest were much more serious and whose power to shape the Commission,
\nand especially its Final Report, was much greater. I have virtually no
\ndoubt about his conscious orchestration of the cover-up.<\/p>\n
\nDr. Griffin, what is your take on this?<\/p>\n
\nexercises,<\/p>\n
\nconfusing airspace in the interest of SAFETY.<\/p>\n
\nincoming pentagon jet because that plane COULD have been a live fly
\nexercise plane, and therefore he can claim he didn’t want any “accidents”
\nto happen as a result of the confusion of the moment.<\/p>\n
\ndiscussing whether to “intercept”, with the idiotic definition that we
\nwould put a fighter jet in the “same airspace” with other jets. This
\nbuffoon like explanation had method to the madness. It was Cheney’s cover
\nstory to not scramble (non-exercise) jets against possible exercise
\naircraft because of his concern for safety. That is the only way he could
\nhave sold his “order” to the men under him.<\/p>\n
\nscheduled exactly at that time on that morning.<\/p>\n
\nof Staff memo that changed the scramble procedures so that the Secretary
\nof Defense would have to give “approval.” Rumsfeld gave no “approval”
\nduring the attacks (more dereliction of duty\/possible conspiracy).<\/p>\n
\ncockpits during that same “hair on fire” period of intense warnings about
\nhijackings.<\/p>\n
\npeople to protest on the opening day of the new Congress, January
\n3rd. But, I can’t seem to get large numbers of people to commit. Please
\nconsider flying to Washington to literally BURN your copy of the 9-11
\nCommission Report in front of Congress on the 3rd.<\/p>\n
\nsufficiently high level of probability to proclaim it in public.<\/p>\n
\nsticking with those things that we can declare with certainty or at least
\na very high level of probability. There many things of this nature that
\ncontradict the official story, moreover, so we need not make more dubious
\nclaims.<\/p>\n
\nCommission, in claiming that Cheney did not get down to the underground
\nbunker until almost 10 AM, was lying.<\/p>\n
\nan unidentified aircraft approaching Washington until a minute or two
\nbefore the Pentagon was struck.<\/p>\n
\nMineta, to be sure, said that he assumed that the \u201corders\u201d were to shoot
\nthe aircraft down. But that interpretation is ruled out by the fact that
\nthat is NOT what happened and also by the fact that, if those had been the
\norders, the young man would not have been asking if the orders still
\nstood. His question makes sense only if the orders were to do something
\nthat seemed counterintuitive.<\/p>\n
\nDr. Griffin,<\/p>\n
\nand hope. Let me first comment by saying that you, or rather anyone, is
\nnot obligated nor should be expected to cover every last aspect of the
\nattack. Lord knows movements are made up of many for the purpose of
\n‘sharing the load’. So I feel that you don’t need to answer the questions
\nof those who are asking you unfair, or in the case of one thus far,
\ndisingenuous questions.<\/p>\n
\nalternative media gatekeeping. I speak of those such as Noam Chomsky, Amy
\nGoodman, The Nation, Infoshop.org, and all those who “redirect”, distract,
\nor “bait & switch” the conversation away from the most
\nlethal-to-the-establishment discussions. Although many are aware of this
\nconundrum…and it is indeed that, I feel as though we are not dealing
\neffectively with it, and have yet to hear you speak on the issue.<\/p>\n
\nseeker of truth<\/p>\n
\n\u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other
\nDefenders of the Official Story.\u201d The body of the book contains responses
\nto four substantial publications that came out in August 2006. But in the
\nIntroduction and the Conclusion, I respond to critiques of the 9\/11 truth
\nmovement by several left-leaning journalists, including Alexander Cockburn
\n(Counterpunch and The Nation), Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive),
\nChristopher Hayes (The Nation) and Terry Allen (In These Times).<\/p>\n
\nDr. Griffin:<\/p>\n
\nand Drills that occurred before and on 9\/11. Other researchers have
\npointed out that, both before and after 9\/11, drills mimicking terrorist
\nattacks frequently “coincide” with the actual attacks themselves (the
\nimplication being that the “drills” are taken “live” at some point and
\nthen real terrorist attacks, albeit false-flag ones, take place). Why do
\nyou not examine this seemingly important aspect of 9\/11 and its bearing on
\nthe lack of, and interference in, our Air Defense on that day?<\/p>\n
\nAlthough I have read with interest what other researchers have written
\nabout the war games, I have myself written very little about them. I do
\npoint out that they show the falsity of the claim that the government and
\nthe military had not imagined hijacked planes being used as weapons. I
\nalso point out that the 9\/11 Commission refused to talk about them at the
\nhearings, even when people in the audience demanded that they do so. And I
\nused Jamie Gorelick\u2019s response—that the Commissioners were assured that
\nthey were not important—to illustrate the point that the Commissioners
\nonly dealt with things presented by Zelikow\u2019s staff.
\nOf coruse, this very fact—that the Commissioners were evidently steered
\naway from the issue—is suspicious. I have little doubt that the war
\ngames played an important role. But as to just what that role was, I
\nremain agnostic.
\nI do not believe, as some have seemed to suggest, that the war games, by
\ncausing so much confusion, made a stand down unnecessary.
\nMy own suspicion is that the war games were scheduled for the same day as
\nthe attacks (or vice versa) as the ultimate excuse. That is, if all of the
\nother excuses as to why the military did not intercept the planes fall
\napart, the military would be able to claim: \u201cThe war games confused us,
\nbut we didn\u2019t want to admit it, so we lied. We\u2019re sorry. We see now we
\nshould have told the truth from the beginning.\u201d
\nI do not claim to know that this is true. It is, as I say, only my
\nsuspicion.
\nSo, I don\u2019t talk about the role played by the war games because I don\u2019t
\nhave anything certain or even probable to say about this. Also, one need
\nnot talk about the war games to provide a very strong case that the
\nmilitary was involved in orchestrating the events of that day.<\/p>\n
\nDr. Griffin,<\/p>\n
\nof your book The 9\/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions caused
\nyou to alter your views about any of those 115 claims?<\/p>\n
\nI would not today change that essay except for adding some clarifications
\nwith regard to a few points:
\nNumber 1. What I claim with most certainty about the hijackers is that (a)
\nthere were credible reports that some of them were still alive after 9\/11
\nand (b) that the 9\/11 Commission failed to address this issue. One of the
\nalleged hijackers said in David Harrison\u2019s article still to be alive
\n(Ahmed al-Nami) turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. It seems
\nless likely that this could be true of some of the others, such as Waleed
\nal-Shehri, who came forward after seeing his photograph in the paper. I
\nwish, however, that someone could do some investigative reporting that
\ncould settle this issue.
\nNumber 4: Flight manifests with names of the alleged hijackers have now
\nappeared
\n(http:\/\/s15.invisionfree.com\/Loose_Change_Forum\/index.php?showtopic=9362).
\nWhether they are authentic, I cannot say. The fact that they are so late
\nmakes me suspicious.
\nNumber 18. The question of whether the Pentagon\u2019s \u201centrance hole\u201d was too
\nsmall for a 757 turned out to be more complex than it seemed at the time.
\nBut the point remains that the hole, as shown in most of the photographs,
\n\u201cappears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered,\u201d so it is something
\nthat the 9\/11 Commission should have discussed.
\nNumber 21. There have been some pictures released, but they certainly have
\nnot changed the situation—except to provide more evidence that there are
\nno photos showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon. In any case, the point
\nremains that the Commission failed to discuss this issue.
\nNumber 77. We have now learned—from Michael Bronner\u2019s essay in \u201cVanity
\nFair\u201d and Kean and Hamilton\u2019s book \u201cWithout Precedent\u201d—that at least
\nsome members of the 9\/11 Commission accused the military officers of lying
\n(even though, as I point out in \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking,\u201d this would
\nhave been a completely unmotivated, irrational lie).
\nNumber 105. I have given more evidence about bases with fighters that
\ncould have been used in \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nDr. Griffin –<\/p>\n
\nChristmas with your family.<\/p>\n
\nhave given about 15 copies of your The New Pearl Harbor to people to help
\nthem find a way toward the truth of 9\/11.<\/p>\n
\nAmerican media as a serious issue, then would you consider running for
\nPresident on a 9\/11 Truth platform to finally push it into the MSM?<\/p>\n
\nI have 2 questions.<\/p>\n
\nWatergate? Or will the 9\/11 campaign just continue asymptotically like
\nmany other theories?<\/p>\n
\nbest simple fact or argument you have used to turn people around?<\/p>\n
\nin terms of what kind of evidence impresses them. As I mention in the
\nintroduction to \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking,\u201d some people are empirically
\nminded. For them, you might start with the evidence that the official
\naccount of the destruction of the WTC cannot be true.<\/p>\n
\nbe willing to look at empirical evidence, because their \u201cparadigm\u201d of how
\nthings happen convinces that governmental and military leaders would not
\nhave done such a thing. With them, you might be most successful by showing
\nevidence to the contrary. In the introduction to \u201cDebunking 9\/11
\nDebunking,\u201d for example, I point out that the Bush White House order the
\nEPA to assure the public that the air at ground zero was safe to breathe.
\nAs a result, many people working on the clean up and rescue efforts did
\nnot even wear masks, let along the more extensive protection that should
\nhave been mandated. Consequently, more people will probably die from
\ncancer and other 9\/11 diseases than died on 9\/11 itself.<\/p>\n
\nevidence in my lecture\/video \u201c9\/11: The Myth and the Reality\u201d
\n(http:\/\/video.google.com\/videosearch?q=david+ray+griffin).<\/p>\n
\nDavid, I hope you are well. There is a respected blogger Joseph Cannon who
\nruns Cannonfire.blogspot.com He’s a nice guy and well up on all the stuff
\nabout 9\/11 but he has totally written the controlled demolition (CD)
\ntheories as bunkum. He links to this site: http:\/\/www.debunking911.com<\/p>\n
\ncollapses? Any particular pieces of evidence or arguments convince you one
\nway or the other? What about the ideas found at the web link given?<\/p>\n
\n3 of \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking,\u201d entitled \u201cThe Disintegration of the World
\nTrade Center: Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?\u201d<\/p>\n
\nDr Griffin:<\/p>\n
\nhas no one from the Truth movement tried to contact them?<\/p>\n
\nseveral people in the movement have wanted to go see if they could
\ninterview any of them, but members of the movement tend not to be wealthy
\nand so they have had to ask for funding. Thus far no one, to my knowledge,
\nhas put up the needed funding. Even one well-known journalist, who has
\nwritten some well-received books, tried to get funding but, at least the
\nlast I heard, had not succeeded.<\/p>\n
\nMr Griffin,<\/p>\n
\nyou and your family are well.<\/p>\n
\ndo to wake other Christians up to the truth behind 9\/11 (and to wake up
\nnon-Christians too!)?<\/p>\n
\nL Evans.<\/p>\n
\nIn my book on this subject, \u201cChristian Faith and the Truth behind 9\/11: A
\nCall to Reflection and Action,\u201d I suggested that Christians should
\nespecially be concerned to expose the truth behind 9\/11. Why? Because
\nChristianity began with the message of Jesus, which was an \u201canti-imperial
\ngospel,\u201d as Richard Horsley calls it in \u201cJesus and Empire.\u201d
\nBeyond that, the most important thing for getting Christians to wake up
\nseems to be the same as it is for other people: simply getting them to
\nlook at the evidence. The evidence is now so overwhelming that, once they
\ndo so, most of them will be convinced. It is at this point that their
\nreligious and moral concerns should motivate them to work very hard to get
\nthe truth exposed and thereby stop the policies that are being justified
\nin the name of 9\/11.
\nFor people who are unlikely to read my book, at least at first, you might
\nsuggest my lecture, \u201c9\/11, American Empire, and Christian Faith,\u201d
\n911Truth.org, April 28, 2006
\n(http:\/\/www.911truth.org\/article.php?story=20060501003040487), the DVD of
\nwhich can be obtained from KenJenkins@aol.com.<\/p>\n
\nQuestion for David Ray Griffin,<\/p>\n
\nagreed code of conduct which itself displays what is disinformation and
\nwhat is honest?<\/p>\n
\ninfiltration efforts which seem to be going on, of 9-11 Truth groups and
\nmessage boards and so on, are also impressive.<\/p>\n
\nconfusion operations that proliferate, especially on the net but also at
\nlive 9-11 gatherings?<\/p>\n
\n— provide clear evidence that official theories cannot explain the facts
\n— always use polite language
\n— avoid villainizing any group, including government<\/p>\n
\nexperience? It does seem to me that the disinformation efforts all fail
\none or another of these tests, at least. I am hoping you can add to this
\nlist or otherwise improve on it, and\/or comment usefully on this topic.<\/p>\n
\nYou have provided a good set of ideas.
\nProbably even more destructive than actual disinformation agents has been
\nthe tendency of some members of the movement to label those who disagree
\nwith them as disinformation agents.
\nThe logic behind these charges seems to run something like this:
\nMy theory is the truth.
\nX rejects my theory.
\nTherefore X is a disinformation agent.
\nThe best way to avoid this common tendency, I believe, is to focus, as you
\nsuggest, on (1) showing why the official story must be false, rather than
\n(2) laying out an account of what really happened. Most people in the
\nmovement agree on a large number of facts under the first task. Most of
\nthe disagreements come with regard to the second effort. In our public
\nstatements, it would be best to stick, as much as possible, to the former,
\nsaving the latter for private discussions.<\/p>\n
\nHello Dr. Griffin….<\/p>\n
\nHas anyone tried to contact the hotel workers that supposedly saw the
\nvideo of whatever struck the Pentagon from the hotel security camera? I
\nthought I read somewhere that they had seen it a number of times before
\nthe FBI took possession.<\/p>\n
\ndisprove any particular scenario?<\/p>\n
\nAs to why they have not come forward, you would need to ask them.
\nMy assumption, however, is that they have been told in no uncertain terms
\nnot to do this. They probably believe, probably rightly, that they would
\nnot only lose their jobs but would then have trouble getting another job.
\nWe who have education and training that give us lots of options should not
\nunderestimate the kind of intimidation that such threats can exert on
\npeople with very few options for providing for their families. (I have
\nbeen told by people who have interviewed members of the Fire Department of
\nNew York, for example, that they will not talk publicly about explosions
\ngoing off in the Twin Towers for fear of losing their jobs, pensions, and
\nbenefits.) Also, they probably assume, again rightly, that the mainstream
\nmedia would ridicule or simply ignore their claims, so they would have
\nlost their job for nothing.<\/p>\n
\nDear Dr. Griffin:<\/p>\n
\nresulting actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking attention away from
\nthe far more important issue of global warming and climate change. Would
\nyou care to enlarge on this problem?<\/p>\n
\nTruth,\u201d at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, after which Gore, who was here
\nin person, was interviewed. It just happened that this was at the same
\ntime the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was issuing its dire
\nreport and Gore was being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. So I
\nsuspect that by now many people know a lot more about climate change than
\nwhen you asked this question.<\/p>\n
\nstart. Then read Ross Gelbspan\u2019s fairly recent book, \u201cBoiling Point: How
\nPoliticians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and Activists Are Fueling the
\nClimate Crisis—And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster.\u201d Then read the last
\nedition of \u201cState of the World,\u201d put out by the WorldWatch Institute.<\/p>\n
\nThing,’ the Presidency, and the Ecological Crisis, or the Greenhouse
\nEffect and the ‘White House Effect,\u2019\u201d in POSTMODERN POLITICS FOR A PLANET
\nIN CRISIS, ed. David Ray Griffin and Richard A. Falk [Albany: State
\nUniversity of New York Press, 1993], 67-101). Already then, I pointed out,
\npreventing the likelihood of runaway global warming within the 21st
\ncentury would require the industrialized world to reduce greenhouse
\nemissions by 90 percent (yes, ninety percent). But, rather than even
\nstabilizing our emissions at 1990 levels, as some were recommending, we
\nhave all continued to increase them. Things by now are far worse than even
\nthe most extreme projections at that time feared. The most crucial
\nindicator is the extreme rapidity of the melting of the world\u2019s ice. Much
\nof this information, moreover, become verified only after the IPCC quit
\naccepting new data, so things, as Gore pointed out, are even worse than
\nits report suggests.<\/p>\n
\nto reveal the truth behind 9\/11, so that we can overcome our single-minded
\npreoccupation with \u201cterrorism\u201d in favor of focusing on the truly
\noverwhelming threat of our age, which is the end of civilization itself.
\nSo do not let anyone tell you that the 9\/11 truth movement is a
\ndistraction from the real crimes of the Bush-Cheney administration. (See
\nmy brief essay, \u201cThe Truly Distracting 9\/11 Conspiracy Theory:
\nA Reply to Alexander Cockburn,\u201d 9\/11 Truth Europe
\n[http:\/\/www.911truth.eu\/index.php?id=0,8,0,0,1,0]).<\/p>\n
\nMr. Griffin, do you believe that there are paid disinformationalists on
\ninternet forums working to thwart the “911 Truth Movement”?<\/p>\n
\nBR Student.<\/p>\n
\nintelligence in 9\/11 and the dual israeli-citizenship of most of the pnac
\nmembers? what about the aipac spying ring in the usa? the plame
\naffair? these are the issues that matter, not the collapse of wtc 1, 2,
\nand 7 or pentagon and shanksville anomolies. who gives israel’s war
\ncriminal defense department more aid than the usa’s gov’t? evangelical
\nchurches in america that you evidently belong to. is there any reason
\nthis hampers your ability to talk about these real and very important,
\nrelevant issues? thanks for your time. i do admire all the work that you
\nhave put into this movement, but feel that the focus is on the wrong
\nsmoking guns.
\nhappy new year!<\/p>\n
\n\u201cobvious.\u201d I would, to be sure, be quite surprised to learn that Israeli
\nintelligence was itself surprised by the attacks, but that is different
\nfrom having evidence that they were involved in orchestrating the events.
\nPerhaps they were and, if so, I would not be surprised. But I have not
\nseen strong evidence for this. And there is certainly no need to posit
\nIsraeli involvement to explain the events of 9\/11. Our military and
\nintelligence agencies were perfectly capable of carrying out this
\noperation on their own.<\/p>\n
\ncourse, be because I have not focused on this issue, since I do not try to
\nlay our a theory of what really happened, concentrating instead on
\nevidence that the official account is false.<\/p>\n
\nare most concerned are the only ones that matter. Surely if the attacks on
\nthe WTC and the Pentagon were false-flag attacks, carried out to provide a
\npretext for launching wars in Muslim countries, greatly restricting civil
\nrights in our country, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the
\nmilitary-industrial complex, and so on, this matters.<\/p>\n
\nmost important issues of our time and one that I plan to write about.
\nIndeed, I would have already published about this if I had not been
\nworking on 9\/11 almost full time since early in 2003. In my own mind,
\nhowever, that issue and 9\/11 are distinct. I may, of course, be wrong. But
\nuntil I am aware of strong evidence of Israeli involvement, I will, of
\ncourse, not write about it.<\/p>\n
\nconservative or, as you put it, Evangelical Christian. I can only assume
\nthat this view is held only by people who have not read any of my books in
\nphilosophy of religion and theology.<\/p>\n
\nDr. Griffin \u2014<\/p>\n
\nfull, you begin by pointing out that many of the alleged hijackers were
\nlater reported alive.<\/p>\n
\nhijacked planes, such as the lack of security videotapes of the hijackers,
\nthe obviously planted evidence in rental cars, the lack of the alleged
\n9\/11 flights in a government database, and so on?<\/p>\n
\nwere in fact planes hijacked by Arabs on 9\/11, and that they were funded
\nby Saudi royals whose exit from the country you emphasize in your book as
\na serious omission. Does this not contradict the first omission you
\ndiscuss — the hijackers being reported alive? Your books seem to
\ncatalogue various theories without any attempt to determine whether they
\nare internally consistent. Do you agree, and if so, do you think that
\nthis is a problem?<\/p>\n
\nyou have done to publicize questions about 9\/11.<\/p>\n
\nmost of the other issues about the alleged hijackers that you mention. As
\nyou rightly imply, these additional facts strengthen the conclusion that
\n9\/11 was a false-flag operation.<\/p>\n
\nPrior False-Flag Operations,\u201d which is the first chapter of \u201cChristian
\nFaith and the Truth behind 9\/11,\u201d and in \u201cFalse-Flag Operations, 9\/11, and
\nthe New Rome: A Christian Perspective,\u201d in Kevin Barrett, John B. Cobb
\nJr., and Sandra Lubarsky, eds., 9\/11 and American Empire: Christians,
\nJews, and Muslims Speak Out (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2006). But I
\naddress them more fully in \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nquestion is distinct from the question of whether there was Saudi funding
\nfor the operation, and funding was needed whether the alleged hijackers
\ngot on the airliners or not. If they were to be blamed, then they probably
\nneeded to be paid to play their roles.<\/p>\n
\nDr Griffin:<\/p>\n
\n(http:\/\/www.dwfed.org\/pp_objections_world%20govt_considered.htm), \u201conly in
\na federal system of global government can real political and economic
\ndecentralization and autonomy be possible.\u201d<\/p>\n
\noxygen-starved? Isn’t it obvious that the holes in the towers could
\nprovide plenty of oxygen?<\/p>\n
\n9-11?<\/p>\n
\nI indicated in my answer to Dachsie.<\/p>\n
\nsmoke was issuing forth, as even Thomas Eagar and NIST admit (see my
\ndiscussion of NIST\u2019s \u201cAnswers to Frequently Asked Questions\u201d in \u201cDebunking
\n9\/11 Debunking\u201d).<\/p>\n
\nsubstantial support from the academic and professional communities best
\nplaced to consider the underlying causes of collapse; in particular
\narchitects, fire engineers, and structural engineers.<\/p>\n
\nworld-wide and hence outwith the US immediate sphere of influence, it
\nseems inconceivable that any serious errors in the NIST\/FEMA analysis
\nwould not have been highlighted.<\/p>\n
\nArup, Edinburgh University, and Sheffield University which have confirmed
\n(or largely confirmed) key parts of the “official” analysis.<\/p>\n
\nmovement been unable to respond with detailed engineering analyses?
\n——–<\/p>\n
\nanalyses by FEMA and NIST would not have been highlighted in the press or
\nacademic journals, this becomes less inconceivable after one becomes
\nfamiliar with various relevant factors.<\/p>\n
\nthe USA evidently find it inconceivable that 9\/11 could have been an
\ninside job that was then covered up by agencies of the US government.
\nCivilized countries, they believe, simply don\u2019t do such things. And so,
\nsince pre-set explosives are ruled out, the buildings \u201cmust\u201d have come
\ndown through some combination of fire and externally produced damage. So
\nlike NIST itself, rather than asking, \u201cCan pigs fly?\u201d, they simply ask:
\n\u201cGranted that these pigs flew, how did they do it?\u201d And once that is the
\nquestion, then NIST\u2019s answer is about as good as one can do.<\/p>\n
\neven survive on the basis of their reputations, and in elite circles—the
\ncircles that can pay for their services—any firm that supported a
\n\u201cconspiracy theory\u201d about 9\/11 would no longer be considered reliable. Or
\nat least the firms fear that this will be the case.<\/p>\n
\nproduced contrary analyses, they would most likely not be published by any
\nscientific journals or mentioned in any mainstream press articles. For
\nexample, two engineers at the ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
\nwhich is very prestigious, have declared that WTC 7 was with the highest
\nprobability brought down by explosives. But you will not find reports of
\nthese statements in the mainstream press or academic journals in Europe or
\n(especially) the United States. The moral of this discussion is that we
\nhave no idea how many architects and engineers have disputed the
\nconclusions reached by NIST.<\/p>\n
\nsuggest, \u201cbest placed to consider the underlying causes of the collapse.\u201d
\nThey build things; they do not destroy things. Also, to disprove the
\nofficial theory, we not need a full-blown alternative theory. All we need
\nis sufficient evidence that the official story cannot be true, and if this
\ntheory violates fundamental laws of physics, that is sufficient evidence.<\/p>\n
\ncollapses on videos, and among the best placed people to do this are
\nexperts in controlled demolition. One expert who spoke out, then evidently
\nrealized that this would be hazardous to the health of his lobbying
\nactivities, was Van Romero of New Mexico Tech (see my discussion of \u201cThe
\nVan Romero Episode,\u201d which is the epilogue to chapter 3 \u201cChristian Faith
\nand the Truth behind 9\/11\u201d). Expert testimony has also been given by a
\nwell-known controlled demolition expert in Holland, Danny Jowenko. After
\nseeing the collapse of WTC 7, without knowing what building it was (he had
\nnot even known that a third building collapsed on 9\/11), he said that it
\ncould only have been brought down by explosives. Whether he would have
\nsaid this if he had known that it was WTC 7, we will never know. (I report
\non Jowenko\u2019s testimony, as well as that of the two Swiss engineering
\nprofessors, in \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking.\u201d)<\/p>\n
\nDr. Griffin,<\/p>\n
\nphilosophy of religion and theology influenced you to reject reason and
\ncritical thinking in your very illogical writings about 9\/11? In this age
\nwhere logic, reason, and critical thinking are sneered upon as bourgeois
\nand elitist, where Creationism and Intelligent Design are trotted out as a
\nreligious crusade against science and reason, I could understand your
\nrejection of reason on those grounds. But I find your rejection of reason,
\noverwhelming evidence, and the scientific method, disturbing and
\nirrational.<\/p>\n
\nfashionable to reject reason and adopt bizarre conspiracy theories as the
\nso-called 9\/11 Truth Movement has; Holocaust Deniers have done so for 60
\nyears and also for political reasons.<\/p>\n
\nto reject reason, especially and critically as someone whose career as an
\neducator should have prevented you from ever considering doing so.<\/p>\n
\nespecially suggest \u201cReenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process
\nPhilosophy of Religion\u201d), you will probably be able to discern that I have
\nbeen a defender of reason against those who make the moves of which you
\nare critical.<\/p>\n
\nwritings in the philosophy of science, such as \u201cReligion and Scientific
\nNaturalism\u201d and my introductions to two edited volumes, \u201cPhysics and the
\nUltimate Significance of Time\u201d and \u201cThe Reenchantment of Science.\u201d You
\nmight in particular find interesting my critique of Intelligent Design,
\n\u201cEvolution without Tears: A Third Way beyond Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent
\nDesign\u201d (Process and Faith, 1325 N. College, Claremont, CA 91711).<\/p>\n
\nthe official theory about 9\/11, I must have rejected logic and reason.
\nAlexander Cockburn has made this charge. I have replied to it in the
\nintroduction and conclusion of \u201cDebunking 9\/11 Debunking.\u201d<\/p>\n
\ntheory, to use your term, is the official conspiracy theory about 9\/11.
\nFrom learning that you accept this theory, however, I would not
\nimmediately jump to the conclusion that you have rejected reason. My first
\nassumption would be that you are probably unfamiliar with a wide range or
\nrelevant facts, including the fact that holding the official theory about
\nthe collapses of the WTC buildings involves holding, implicitly, that
\nseveral basic laws of physics were violated.<\/p>\n
\nsomething, it is not enough simply to affirm logic and the other elements
\nof rationality. There is also an empirical element. One must look at the
\nrelevant empirical facts. One does not have a reasonable theory unless it
\ncan, in a self-consistent way, take account of all the relevant facts. And
\nthe official theory, I argue, cannot even come close to doing that. You
\nmight want to look more closely at some of the facts, therefore, to make
\nsure that you are not one of the people holding an unreasonable theory.<\/p>\n
\nwould organize their lives around it. How do you respond to someone who
\nthinks your role as a Christian Theologian is discrediting?<\/p>\n
\nthat I do not think there is anything such thing as \u201cChristianity in
\ngeneral.\u201d<\/p>\n
\ndo too. That does not mean, however, that Christianity at its best is not
\nfull of true and enormously important ideas.<\/p>\n
\ntheologian is discrediting. In any case, if there are such people, I would
\nsimply say that my writings about 9\/11 should be evaluated in terms of
\nwhether they successfully raise objections to the official theory. It is
\nwidely accepted that ad hominem arguments against authors are
\nillegitimate, except where the evidence in question depends on the
\npersonal testimony of the author. When one is evaluating a theory argued
\non the basis of reason and evidence, one cannot legitimately refute this
\ntheory by making allegations about the author of that theory.<\/p>\n
\nforward to your Debunking the Debunkers project.<\/p>\n
\nsuch a Alexander Cockburn and Alan Wisdom. Also, will you be responding to
\n“debunking” websites such as 9\/11myths.com?<\/p>\n
\nDr Griffin:<\/p>\n
\n(http:\/\/911affidavit.blogspot.com\/2007\/01\/presentment-regarding-destruction-of.html)?<\/p>\n