You may have all heard of this, but today was the first time I had seen this. There was a huge controversy brewing on the Common Ground Common Sense Forum with accusations flying left and right that this man is a neocon whose mission in life is to disrupt the 9-11 truth seekers activities. Whatever the debate, he does a good job presenting an overview of the holes in the official 9-11 report. The video is worth watching even though it is long. Please temper your comments


Subject: Watch "9/11 The Myth and the Reality: Dr. David Ray Griffin" on Google Video
9/11 The Myth and the Reality: Dr. David Ray Griffin

1 hr 38 min 35 sec - Oct 18, 2006
Average rating: (437 ratings)
Description: Composed of two powerful speeches given the masterful Philosopher and Theologist Dr. David Ray Griffin at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (4/3/06) and at The Grand Lake Theater in Oakland (3/30/06), 9/11: The Myth and The Reality exposes the official story of 9/11 for what it truly is: a sacred myth. Throughout this incredible video, enhanced with forceful images and video segments, Griffin details nine of the most commonly held myths and misconceptions about the events surrounding 9/11 and with logical precision proves the fallacies of each one. Each speech is followed by an in-depth question & answer section featuring hard-hitting questions about 9/11 posed to one of the subject's foremost scholars.

Go to video.google.com/

If you're having trouble watching the video, try copying the following URL into your browser:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...&pr=goog-sl

Its interesting that this article also appeared this weekend:

Slip of the tongue? Rumsfeld admits that "Flight 93" was shot down
VIDEO Footage and transcripts

by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, May 12, 2007

Was it a slip of the tongue on the part of the former Secretary of Defense?

Rumsfeld stated in a speech to US troops in Iraq (24 December 2004) that United Airlines Flight 93 was "shot down" on 9/11:

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon

(Donald Rumsfeld, speech to US troops in Mosul, Iraq, December 24, 2004. The speech was broadcast by CNN. For complete transcript of Rumsfeld's speech see below)

Click to view/ listen to Rumsfeld

DONALD RUMSFELD SAYS FLIGHT 93 SHOT DOWN

There was virtually no commentary by the mainstream media at the time of Rumsfeld's Mosul 12/24/2004 Christmas speech to US troops. A National Public Radio broadcast on December 24, 2004 acknowledged Rumsfeld's words, while casually dismissing their significance:

SIEGEL: One other thing that Secretary Rumsfeld said in Baghdad today was in all likelihood a slip of the tongue, but one that may prove fodder for conspiracy theorists. The Defense secretary said this while speaking about a number of terrorist acts and the people who've committed them.

[excerpt of Rumsfeld's speech in Mosul, see above]

SIEGEL: `The people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania.' He was presumably speaking of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11. No US official has ever credited theories that the plane was shot down. We've been unable to get clarification from the Pentagon.

(National Public Radio (NPR), All Things Considered 8:00 PM EST NPR, Donald Rumsfeld's surprise visits to US troops in Iraq, December 24, 2004, Anchor: Robert Siegel)

Contradictory Statements

The official version of what happened to United Airlines "Flight 93" is contained in the 9/11 Commission Report.

"The airplace rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting, 'Allah is the Greatest'. With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour...."

(National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, July 2004, Chapter 1,
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf)

While the words of the former Secretary of Defense (12/24/2004) contradict the official story, they are consistent with statements by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice (who at the time was National Security adviser) to the effect that orders had indeed been given by the President and Commander in Chief to shoot down a civilian aircraft over Pennsylvania. Below are excerpts of the 9/11 statements of Bush, Cheney and Rice recorded by CBS News:

PELLEY: (Voiceover) Down in the bunker, Mr. Cheney was trying to figure out how many planes were hijacked. At the time they feared there could be as many as 11.

As the planes are tracking toward Washington, a discussion begins about whether we should shoot them down. How did that happen?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Well, I discussed it with the president. Are we prepared to order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked? He said yes.

(Photograph of Cheney)

PELLEY: That was your advice to the president?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: I--it was my advice. It was his decision.

Pres. BUSH: That's a sobering moment, to order your own combat aircraft to shoot down your own civilian aircraft. But it was an easy decision to make, given the--given the fact that we had learned that a commercial aircraft was being used as a weapon. I say easy decision. It was--I didn't hesitate; let me put it to you that way. I knew what had to be done.

(Footage of Pennsylvania crash site)

PELLEY: (Voiceover) And the passengers on United Flight 93 also knew what had to be done. They fought for control, and sacrificed themselves in a Pennsylvania meadow. The flight was 15 minutes from Washington.

Dr. RICE: There was that horrible time when we wondered if Flight 93 had, indeed, been shot down by an American pilot.

PELLEY: On the orders of the president.

Dr. RICE: Yes.

PELLEY: It is quite possible that those people gave their lives for you.

Dr. RICE: Its entirely possible. In fact, I think it's probable. Clearly, the terrorists were trying to take out as many symbols of government as they could. The Pentagon, perhaps the Capitol, perhaps the White House. These people saved us not only physically, but they saved us psychologically and symbolically in a very important way, too.

(CBS, 60 Minutes, 8:00 PM ET, The president's story; behind the scenes with President Bush and his staff on 9/11, Anchor: Scott Pelley, September 11, 2002. emphasis added)

These statements acknowledging that flight 93 had been shot down on the orders of the President on the advice of the Vice President were re-broadcast one year later on the first anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11.

While the official story had in the meantime been changed, the September 11, 2002 broadcast of CBS' 60 Minutes, reveals the truth: the President and Commander in Chief gave the orders to shoot down a civilian aircraft.

While Rumsfeld made no public statement regarding the shooting down of flight 93, he was fully informed regarding President Bush's decision.

VIDEO

Click to view/ listen to Rumsfeld on CNN.

Scroll down for complete transcript of his speech to US troops in Iraq on December 24, 2004 as well as the commentary on National Public Radio (NPR), which acknowledges Rumsfeld's "slip of the tongue."

DONALD RUMSFELD SAYS FLIGHT 93 SHOT DOWN

Rumsfeld statement was made on Christmas Eve in Mosul, Iraq, December 24, 2004

Below is the transcript of his speech as aired on CNN

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:

24 December 2004 (Source CNN)

And to change that way of living, would strike at the very essence of our country.

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.

And that is exactly what we cannot allow to happen.

The American people recognize the importance of your mission: that you're here for a purpose, and that purpose is not to run the country of Iraq. That's for the Iraqi people. It's not to find an American solution for Iraq.

Indeed, it is to be here, to try to help train and equip and organize and assist the Iraqi security forces so that they, over time, will be able to take on responsibility for their country. And this country will find a solution that will be uniquely Iraqi.

If you think about what's happened in Afghanistan, three years ago it was the training ground for terrorists. It was the place that the attacks against the United States were hatched and launched. And today they've elected their first popularly elected president in the history of the country. They are moving toward parliamentary elections in April. They have established a democratic system that's respectful of all of the various diverse elements in that country.

Women are voting for the first time. They're able to go outside by themselves without being accompanied. Young children can fly a kite, can sing and dance, which they were not allowed to do under the Taliban. The soccer stadium in Kabul is being used for soccer instead of beheading people.

So the accomplishment in Afghanistan was a truly breathtaking experience. I was there for the inauguration. And President Karzai, from the bottom of his heart, thanked the American people and said that without that help they would not be a free society, they would not have been able to what they are doing, that people would not be going to school.

Here's a country that doesn't have any of the capabilities that this country does. It doesn't have the water, it doesn't have the oil, it doesn't have the population that is as well-educated as Iraq. This country has every chance in the world to make it.

And it's in an important location. It will have a big affect on this region. They've made good progress. If you think about it, they've gone from an Iraqi Governing Council to an interim government, moving toward elections at the end of next month, moving toward then the development of a constitution.

I've lived a few years -- a lot of years. And I have seen fascism rise and fall. I've seen communism rise and fall. We've seen the Berlin Wall get built and get torn down. And if you think about the message in all of that, we've seen Afghanistan go from a terrorist training ground to a democracy.

Now, what does that say? It says that the great sweep of human history is for freedom. And that is the side we're on. And that's the side you're on.

Just a few weeks ago, Falluja was controlled by assassins and today it's a free city. Something like 140,000 refugees have come to this country from other countries, Iraqis. Why do they do that? Why do they get up one morning and say to themselves, "I'm going to leave where I am that's safer to be sure, and I'm going to go back to Iraq"?

They are voting with their feet. They are convinced that life is going to be good here, that there is a chance of making it, and that people do need to pitch in and see that it happens.

I must say, as a personal message, before I come out and shake hands and have a chance to tell you how much we appreciate your service, let me just say that we know that you sacrifice. We certainly know your families do. And they certainly serve, just as you do. And they are strong.

I get a chance to see them in Bethesda and Walter Reed and other hospitals. And I meet the families of people who have been wounded, your colleagues, people who have been here and gone back and are recuperating. And I must say, the families are the most amazing thing. They are truly extraordinary.

They are proud of what their sons and daughters do. They have strength and courage. And I don't think anyone can come away from being with them without gaining inspiration for the tough tasks ahead.

Now, it's Christmas Eve. And I don't want to, in any way, paint a picture that's pretty, because it isn't pretty. This is a tough part of the world. This is a tough country. Your friends and your associates are at risk, as you are. And I wish I could stand here and say that the incidents of violence were going to calm down between now and the elections.

I wish I could stand here and say that the incidents of violence will calm down after the elections. I can't say that.

The people that we're up against have a lot to lose, a lot to lose. They also have brains. And they watch what we do, and they adjust to what we do. And they're determined.

But so are we. We are in a test of wills. There isn't a battle anyone could bring against you that you couldn't win. You're not going to be faced with battles. You're going to be faced in the shadows, in the side streets and with people who are using every conceivable time, task and way of attacking you where you're most vulnerable.

And that's what we face.

So there isn't any way that foreign troops, our troops, coalition troops or any other troops from any country can provide security in this country.

What we can do is contribute to security. What we can do is help to train the Iraqis and mentor the Iraqis, and see that the Iraqis develop the capability, the equipment, the training, the organization, the chain of command, the experience, the rib cage, the officer leadership, the non-com leadership, the experience to take over responsibility for their own security.

And that's our task. That's what we have to do. That's what is being done. And we've got wonderful people working on it, and I'm here to simply to look you in the eye and say, "Thank you, every one of you. God bless you."

(APPLAUSE)

(emphasis added, CNN Load date 25 December 2004)


In reviewing news archives, the slip of the tongue was acknowledged by NPR. It was not mentioned in other news stories. The NPR transcript is provided below.

It is worth noting that it took more than 8 months for this NPR transcript to be made available in the news archives. (load date: 5 August 2005)

National Public Radio (NPR)

SHOW: All Things Considered 8:00 PM EST NPR

December 24, 2004 Friday

Donald Rumsfeld's surprise visits to US troops in Iraq

ANCHORS: ROBERT SIEGEL

This is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm Robert Siegel.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld paid a surprise visit to troops in Iraq today. His first stop was Mosul, where three days ago a suicide bomber killed 22 people in an American mess tent. Rumsfeld's message to the soldiers was upbeat. He praised the job they're doing in Iraq, and said that while he did not want to paint a pretty picture of the situation there, the insurgents cannot be allowed to win.

Secretary DONALD RUMSFELD (Defense Department): The thought of turning over this country to the people who behead people on television and videos, to the people who consciously, purposefully kill innocent men, women and children would turn this part of the world and this country back to darkness.

SIEGEL: Later, Secretary Rumsfeld told troops in Baghdad that their efforts are a crucial part of the global war against terrorism.

Sec. RUMSFELD: The American people recognize the importance of your mission, that you're here for a purpose and that that purpose is not to run the country of Iraq--that's for the Iraqi people--it's not to find an American solution for Iraq; indeed, it is to be here to try to help, train and equip and organize and assist the Iraqi security forces so that they, over time, will be able to take on responsibility for their country. And this country will find a solution that will be uniquely Iraqi.

SIEGEL: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld speaking in Iraq today.

Reporter Alistair Bull of the Reuters new agency traveled with the secretary. He says the visit began very early in the morning.

Mr. ALISTAIR BULL (Reuters News Agency): He has had a whistle-stop tour of Iraq. He started at the crack of dawn in Mosul. We landed at quarter past 5 in the morning with sharpshooters at the perimeter of the airport. We came in hard and fast in a C-7 cargo plane, and he raced and visited the hospital and then addressed the troops at Mosul and went and had breakfast with them.

From there, we whistled off to Tikrit and he met with Major General John Batiste of the Big Red One, the 1st Infantry, and then addressed the troops there. And the message at both Mosul, Tikrit and then later Fallujah and in Baghdad has been the same. He's here to thank the troops and to wish them a merry Christmas.

SIEGEL: Has he taken questions from the troops on this visit as he did the other day in Kuwait?

Mr. BULL: He has taken questions, but they've been slightly different in character. He hasn't had any kind of confrontational questions put to him. He was asked about equipment but in a very courteous and restrained fashion and not at all adversarial. And his answer was, `Yes, the equipment will be provided.'

He was also asked about bad media coverage, and that was music to his ears. He immediately pointed out that that probably wasn't a question placed there by the press.

SIEGEL: That was a reference to the story that the question about the armor for the Humvees had been placed by a reporter in Kuwait.

Mr. BULL: Exactly. There was--it appeared later that a reporter had helped the soldier frame the question. And, of course, this was an opportunity for the Defense secretary to turn the tables, which he did with delight.

SIEGEL: Reporter Alistair Bull of Reuters, thank you very much for talking with us.

Mr. BULL: A pleasure.

SIEGEL: One other thing that Secretary Rumsfeld said in Baghdad today was in all likelihood a slip of the tongue, but one that may prove fodder for conspiracy theorists. The Defense secretary said this while speaking about a number of terrorist acts and the people who've committed them.

Sec. RUMSFELD: The people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul are the people who did the bombing in Spain or the people who attacked the United States in New York and shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon.

SIEGEL: `The people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania.' He was presumably speaking of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11. No US official has ever credited theories that the plane was shot down. We've been unable to get clarification from the Pentagon.

emphasis added



Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America’s "War on Terrorism" Second Edition, Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.

I didn't know who Dr. Griffin was until I went to Google and found this and sat watching and listening to him for an hour and a half. It was riviting!

Thanks to you for posting this topic as I missed the first one.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413

My thoughts about 9-11, the Myth and Truth are deeply personal so I don't discuss my beliefs anymore.

KT

Question: “Why is a theologian one of the primary speakers for this cause? Do you see any spiritual or religious implications for 9/11, and what are they?”

Answer by Dr. Griffin: “Why is a theologian speaking about this? I didn’t have anything else to do. What we theologians are supposed to be doing is to try to imagine and speak about the world from the Divine point of view and if the religions of the world are basically correct, the Divine is the Creator and lover of all peoples and all creatures and cares about the long-term good of the world and wouldn’t want people producing nuclear wars that would decimate all life on the plant, wouldn’t want the global warming to to continue 35 years after we’ve known about the ecological crisis…. I am convinced that this Administration is the most dangerous administration we have ever had for the future of this country and the future of the world… and if trying to save God’s planet isn’t a religious issue, I wouldn’t know what one was.”

Would a NeoCon call the Bush administration a threat to the world? If that is the voice of a NeoCon, maybe he can provide some coaching to Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen and their associates.

---

One point frequently made by Dr. Griffin is that the defenders of “the official story” can’t refute the arguments for an independent, thorough, legal and forensic investigation by simply pointing to one of the claims made by one of the theorists and saying “it’s not true”. They have to refute all of them. Conversely, those who demand further investigation need not provide a detailed theory or explanation for how the events transpired; they need merely show, as they have in many ways, that “the official story” cannot be true, and that its official or semi-official proclamations about 9/11 cannot stand up to scrutiny.

One of the frequent points made by David Ray Griffin (and others) is that the foes of 9/11 truth, the defenders of the official story, are afraid of open political discourse.

As Dr. Griffin says: “To be a credible, responsible defender of either the official or alternative theory about the WTC collapses, one need not have a degree in physics, engineering or any other technical field. What one needs is the ability to read with comprehension, to evaluate evidence, and to draw logical conclusions from that evidence. Our entire judicial system depends on the ability of laypeople - judges and jury members - to evaluate the testimony of competing experts.”

Another point that must be made, whatever one thinks of Dr. Griffin or others who have spoken to these issues, is that they are not hiding behind the veil of anonymity. They are out in the open, writing articles and books, out in public at speaking engagements, doing open Q&A sessions on the Internet, communicating with others, willing to answer e-mails from strangers, and otherwise putting their personal reputation, integrity and honor on the line.

In Dr. Griffin’s own words:

“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.”

Whatever this guy's character may be, his arguments need to be taken seriously and examined closely. If they are compelling arguments and seem like the most plausible explanatory theories around, then people need to accept that, no matter what may be dubious about his background. If they are sloppily constructed and relatively implausible, that has to be accepted, no matter how pure his motives or how much time and effort he has made on this. Of course there will be a lot of legitimate debate as to whether it is one or the other, or somewhere in between. The case, and how good or bad it is, is more important than the man, or at least should be as far as the rest of us are concerned.

I think the last paragraph embraces the essence of the concept, "Free & Open Market of Ideas."
and the, "Scientific Method of Integrating Inductive and Deductive Reasoning" for the Empirical avtivity of Theory Formation and Testing, further transforms the concept to, "Free and Open Market of Research-based Ideas."

I see that you have started a new topic Snuffy and I am delighted that you cut-out my post here that I put on that other topic late last week surrounding the incident and apologies over something someone said or misunderstood about this man Dr. Griffin. Only because I had not followed the story and no one explained who this man even is, I did my own search on Google and came up with the above video. I enjoyed it so much.

How long ago was it that I started a post about flight 93? Maybe Pie or someone can recall it. It went on far too long and a few people criticized me about it and I learned my lesson then to keep my mouth shut over these kinds of gut feeling kinds of feelings that you can't prove.

The thing was, when that plane first crashed, I watched and read everything I could right away about it because that is the area of the United States that my family is from. The eyewitness accounts were shocking and after the first couple days they were discounted and you never heard from those people again.

I could never watch the movie about that crash because I have conflicts about truth vs myth when it occurs in my lifetime. It is too sad.

I can not explain my feelings about this but I am passionate about them.

KT

I forgot to mention something about this man Dr. Griffin that I found interesting and that is, that he retired from teaching at Claremont School of Theology.

Here is the link where I also found his name on the school website:

http://www.cst.edu/academic_resources/retired_faculty.php



(What I find interesting about this is that Claremont is a town where I have visited many times because many of the members of the Campanologists of Southern Calilfornia live down that way. A few of them were with the ministry and have recently passed away. Serious bell collectors tend to be connected with churches and schools.)

KT

Hi Snuff,

I had several email exchanges with the CGCS member who posted the so-called "accusations." I don't think he's online right now, so I'll risk sticking my nose where it may not belong.

As I have come to understand what happened, there were no "accusations'; the post was meant to be satire. Apparently, some CGCS members did not recognize it as such.

An apology has since been offered.

Thanks,
Sandra

Just how crazy are the Dems?
A new poll on 9/11 indicates that they definitely have a paranoia problem.
May 15, 2007

MOST FAIR-MINDED readers will no doubt take me at my word when I say that a majority of Democrats in this country are out of their gourds.

But, on the off chance that a few cynics won't take my word for it, I offer you data. Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here's how the research firm put it: "Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure."

So, 1 in 3 Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can't quite make up their minds.

There are only three ways to respond to this finding: It's absolutely true, in which case the paranoid style of American liberalism has reached a fevered crescendo. Or, option B, it's not true and we can stop paying attention to these kinds of polls. Or there's option C — it's a little of both.

My vote is for C. But before we get there, we should work through the ramifications of A and B.

We don't know what kind of motive respondents had in mind for Bush, but the most common version has Bush craftily enabling a terror attack as a way to whip up support for his foreign policy without too many questions.

The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it's so stupid. It's like trying to explain to a 4-year-old why Superman isn't real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn't work that way. Or you can just say, "It's make-believe."

Similarly, why try to explain that it's implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen — and clever enough to get away with it — yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he's such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.

And, if Bush — who Democrats insist is a moron — is clever enough to greenlight one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMD?

No, the right response to the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Democratic Party is "It's just make-believe." But if they really believe it, then liberals must stop calling themselves the "reality-based" party and stop objecting to the suggestion that they have a problem with being called anti-American. Because when 61% of Democrats polled consider it plausible or certain that the U.S. government would let this happen, well, "blame America first" doesn't really begin to cover it, does it?

So then there's option B — the poll is just wrong. This is quite plausible. Indeed, the poll is surely partly wrong. Many Democrats are probably merely saying that Bush is incompetent or that he failed to connect the dots or that they're just answering in a fit of pique. I'm game for option B. But if we're going to throw this poll away, I think liberals need to offer the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to data that are more convenient for them. For example, liberals have been dining out on polls showing that Fox News viewers, or Republicans generally, are more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Now, however flimsy, tendentious, equivocal or sparse you may think the evidence that Hussein had a hand in 9/11 may be, it's ironclad compared with the nugatory proof that Bush somehow permitted or condoned those attacks.

And then there's option C, which is most assuredly the reality. The poll is partly wrong or misleading, but it's also partly right and accurate. So maybe it's not 1 in 3 Democrats suffering from paranoid delusions. Maybe it's only 1 in 5 , or 1 in 10. In other words, the problem isn't as profound as the poll makes it sound. But that doesn't mean the Democratic Party doesn't have a serious problem.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

I posted the foregoing article to point out that just as the Democratic Party has a problem with its failure to conduct appropriate oversight of 9-11, this failing is mirrored in the discussions here at CGCS on the 9-11 controversies. But its
OK to have this debate without name calling, character assassination and distorted arguments. Its OK to have different points of view. The First Amendment is all about the "marketplace" of ideas. Last I recall, we live in a democracy that espouses freedom
of speech. The truth is out there somewhere. Hopefully, one day we will know.

I think that if there is any valid criticism to be made of Dr. Griffin, it is that he promotes poorly constructed, extremely implausible theories. Some will agree with that notion, others will oppose it very strongly. But I think that is where the legitimate debate should be.

BTW, I do think that on the matter of whether hypothetical event A (as developed in order to fit an overall theory) is possible or not, that sometimes expertise is called for. Event A may seem very unlikely to me, counterintuitive. An experienced engineer may say that while it may not seem likely, it is in fact quite likely. One may may not have to have a degree in engineering to discuss all of these issues, but I think that to some extent those of us who are laypeople are going to have to depend upon experts, and not simply just make our best guess about what may be possible or not. And if one expert says Event A is possible, and another expert says it is impossible, and saying that Event A is impossible better fits the theory we like, we don't get to cite the second expert and claim we have conclusive proof.

And if promoters of the alternative theories are worried about those who are afraid of the truth, they should certainly have no fear of contrary views themselves. If they are closer to the truth, then an open debate would likely show that such contrary views are unsupportable. No need to suggest that those promoting contrary views have dubious motives or are likely afraid of the truth and/or consciously promoting lies, or are dupes of such people. Not if those promoting the alternative theories have a solid case, on anything. Instead, people of such contrary views should be welcomed into the debate as fellow truth-seekers, despite often sharp disagreements and rough controversy. Perhaps such a debate could even produce a sythesis of a theory that people on neither "side" could come up with themselves.

Is being accused of "being out of your gourd" actually such a bad thing? I don't think so. Just another opinion.

KT

Appreciating social and cultural Diversity is a positive thing and if this expression works
well for everyone present, fine but it could be taken as attacking the messenger rather than
analysizing the message.

There are SO MANY problems with the "official" explanation of 9/11.

Where to begin?

1. We all saw the planes hit the towers. We connected the dots. But we never asked "how did two hijacker-pilots, who had perhaps 200 hours of experience training in a Cessna 172 (and doing a poor job BTW) manage to fly a 767 at 500 mph into the middle of a building that was only 210 feet wide? I have been a pilot for 45 years. A standard approach in a 767 is flown at about 160 mph to a runway that is 150 feet wide. And it takes a lot of practice to get good enough to hit the centerline. The average American is NOT a pilot and probably assumes it is like driving a CAR into a wall. Trust me, it is not.

2. We saw the awful fireball. We bought the concept that the steel softened and allowed a "progressive collapse" to occur. Maybe, maybe not. There has not been any analysis on the debris, because it was exported to China. Hey - - - I thought that was a crime scene. Oh, right, they wanted to clear the site for reconstruction... it is still an empty lot after 5+ years.

3. We have "seen" the hijackers on TV. We know their names. But do we? Really?

4. NORAD is the most competent, most alert, air defense unit on the planet. Why did no jets arrive to intercept the hijacked planes? Were they told (by Cheney?) to stand down?


We have had these comments before. The only hope (now that the Dems run the committees) is to get some INVESTIGATIONS going. The 9/11 report was a whitewash IMHO. Let's get to the truth. Yes, we CAN handle the truth.

CBC Investigates The Secret War That Led To 9/11 : Video:

The Secret History of 9/11 provides a look at the long, secret war waged against al-Qaeda from the White House, the CIA and the FBI, and examines the key intelligence failures that allowed the 9/11 plot to happen
http://snipurl.com/1kqj6

The Pentagon's "Second 911"
"Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets"

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, August 10, 2006


One essential feature of "defense" in the case of a second major attack on America, is "offense", according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "Homeland security is one piece of a broader strategy [which] brings the battle to the enemy."(DHS, Transcript of complete March 2005 speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff)

In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to extend the war beyond the borders of Lebanon, to launch a military operation directed against Syria and Iran?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" did not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that one does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

In a timely statement, barely a few days following the onslaught of the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).

"Justification and Opportunity to Retaliate against ...the State Sponsors [of Terrorism]"

In April 2006, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a far-reaching military plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America.

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.

The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.

Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. (Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

This plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the need to retaliate if and when the US is attacked:

"A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan.

This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. (italics added, WP 23 April 2006)

The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack "which is lacking today" would usefully create both a "justification and an opportunity" to wage war on "some known targets [Iran and Syria]".

The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled large scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes, conveys the impression that it is the Western World rather than the Middle East which is under attack.

Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911. The underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.

Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Giuliani Up, McCain Up, Romney Down, and Ron Paul Out — Way Out
A strange turn at the South Carolina GOP debate.

By Byron York

Columbia, South Carolina — For a man who had just grabbed the spotlight in a nationally televised presidential debate, Ron Paul seemed a little, well, defensive. A few minutes after the debate ended here at the University of South Carolina, Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, ventured into the Spin Room to talk to reporters, only to find that they wanted to know whether he really blamed the United States for the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“Who did that?” Paul snapped. “Who blamed America?”

“Well, your critics felt that you did.”

“No, I blamed bad policy over 50 years that leads to anti-Americanism,” Paul said. “That’s little bit different from saying ‘blame America.’ Don’t put those words in my mouth.”

“But the policies were bad American policies?”

“We’ve had an interventionist foreign policy for 50 years that has come back to haunt us,” Paul continued. “So that’s not ‘Blame America’ — that’s demagoguing, distorting issues…That’s deceitful to say those kinds of things.”

To many people, however, it did appear that Paul blamed the U.S. for the attacks. A few feet away from where Paul was meeting reporters, Washington lawyer Ted Olson, at the debate to support his friend Rudy Giuliani, was taken aback at what he heard from Paul. “I find it personally offensive and very disturbing,” said Olson, whose wife Barbara died on September 11, “that an American, especially an American member of Congress, can say those things about what happened to cause 9/11.”

It all started when Paul was asked how September 11 changed American foreign policy. “Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?” Paul answered. “They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years…”

Questioner Wendell Goler, of Fox News, asked, “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?”

“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” Paul said. “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there.”

Enter Giuliani. “May I comment on that?” the mayor said, interrupting the orderly flow of things for the first time in the debate. “That really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.”

The audience loved it. As the applause built, Giuliani added, “And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

Paul didn’t back down, but by cutting in, Giuliani had scored some of the best, and perhaps easiest, points of the night. So much so that advisers from rival campaigns couldn’t quite hide their frustration that Giuliani had moved so quickly. “I don’t think it takes a lot of courage to use Ron Paul as a prop,” said Charlie Black, the longtime GOP strategist who is backing Sen. John McCain. “But he [Giuliani] got his 9/11 credential in there, so congratulations.”

The Ron Paul moment was just one of Giuliani’s strong points in the debate. He was solid on terrorism, solid on the war in Iraq, solid on taxes, solid on lots of things. On abortion, he was not exactly solid, but his answers were more coherent than they had been in the first debate, held May 3 at the Reagan Library in California. Put it all together, and Giuliani’s aides seemed genuinely happy with his performance Tuesday night, in contrast to the way they seemed to be faking their happiness in California. “He was better,” said Jim Dyke, a top Giuliani adviser. “9/11 is very personal to the mayor. You can’t coach something like that.”






Giuliani Up, McCain Up, Romney Down, and Ron Paul Out -- Way Out 05/16

Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea -- and Global Warming 05/10

Overturning Roe, Remembering Reagan, and Cutting Taxes at the Gates of Hell 05/04

What Giuliani Has to Do 05/01

The Democratic Debate: What, Us Weak on Defense? 04/27

Alberto Gonzales’s Disastrous Day 04/20




Editors: Tribunals and Tribulations

Derbyshire: Governor Huckabee, You’re No Ann Coulter

Taylor: Energy Nonsense

Ibrahim: Seeking Sympathy from the Infidel

Payne: Chrysler vs. Big Labor

Nordlinger: Presidentially debating, &c.

Symposium: The Moral Majority of the Story

Robbins: When You Wish Upon a Czar

York: Giuliani Up, McCain Up, Romney Down, and Ron Paul Out -- Way Out

Symposium: The Second Date

Malkin: A Rare Rose

Goldberg: One Crazy Party

Sowell: Don't Be So Sure

Thompson: Hamas Does Disney


Over at the McCain camp, the post-debate mood was good, despite that touch of pique over Giuliani’s Ron Paul layup. Aides conceded that McCain seemed a little jazzed during the first part of the California debate, so they were delighted to see him be both strong and measured in his opening discussion about the war. “He’s been to war,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham. “He knows what war is about. He understands our enemy. He’s going to make sure that this nation is well defended, and he understands what an American is all about. We’re the good guys.”

Missing from McCain’s answers was any reference to pursuing Osama bin Laden “to the gates of hell.” When McCain said that in California, it struck some observers as over the top, and there was word that Graham was the one who suggested the phrase. “I’ve used that line several times,” Graham said Tuesday night. “It demonstrates a commitment that is graphic. I want the enemy to believe that. John wants the enemy to believe that.” So don’t be surprised if you hear it again sometime.

If the McCain and Giuliani teams had plenty of reason to be happy, the third candidate in the top tier, Mitt Romney, did not. The former Massachusetts governor simply couldn’t match McCain and Giuliani on issues of war and terrorism, which are, as it happens, the most important issues to the Republican primary electorate in South Carolina. And when Romney went on the offensive Tuesday night, linking McCain to the arch-liberal Ted Kennedy, he found himself on the receiving end of a McCain smackdown.

Talking about McCain’s immigration plan, Romney said, “My fear is that McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold has done to campaign finance and money in politics, and that’s bad.”

While some in the audience clearly agreed with Romney, McCain won applause of his own when he hit back. “Well, I take and kept a consistent position on campaign finance reform,” McCain said. “I have kept a consistent position on right to life. And I haven’t changed my position on even-numbered years or changed because of the different offices that I may be running for.”

Ouch. McCain did everything but put on a pair of those enormous foam flip-flops that anti-Romney demonstrators like to wear. Romney was rattled.

As for the rest of the field, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, again came out on top of the second-tier candidates. In fact, Huckabee did so well, both in California and South Carolina, that if the tiers were determined by debate performance alone, he’d be in the top group. Other second-tier candidates struggled. For example, Rep. Tom Tancredo, a single-issue candidate on immigration, astonished some observers by giving weak and disjointed answers on…immigration. (Rep. Duncan Hunter was much stronger on the subject of building a wall to cut the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico.) Former Wisconsin governor and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, an advocate of cutting wasteful federal spending, couldn’t name a wasteful federal program that he would cut. Sen. Sam Brownback and former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore didn’t score many points.

So in the end, the candidate who made a big move, who came out of nowhere to win new name recognition was…Ron Paul. But it’s probably not the sort of name recognition Republican presidential candidates want. “Wow,” said one adviser to a rival campaign after listening to Paul’s blame-America lecture. “I haven’t heard anything like that this side of Rosie O’Donnell.”

—

Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

That's a good distinction.

Could I claim to have never been "out of my gourd"? Could anyone be able to make such a claim? Honestly?

Powell to present Iraq Study Group Democratic co-chair with public service medal
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday May 16, 2007

Print This Email This

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell will present a public service medal named for former President Dwight Eisenhower to Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic member of Congress who co-chaired commissions investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq war.

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Medal for Leadership and Service, which is awarded annually, will be presented to Hamilton at a ceremony in Philadelphia Thursday. The medal honors "widely recognized advances toward President Eisenhower's vision of peace and productivity through person-to-person international dialogue," according to a press release from the Eisenhower Fellowships.

Hamilton last year worked alongside former Secretary of State James Baker as co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, which evaluated the US position in Iraq and recommended several policy changes to president Bush. The former 17-term Indiana Representative also served as vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, which examined the worst terrorist attack committed on US soil.

"Through his willingness to provide leadership and seek solutions through cooperation and dialogue, both as an elected official and as a private citizen, Lee Hamilton has demonstrated the qualities which Dwight Eisenhower sought to promote throughout his lifetime," said John S. Wolf, president of Eisenhower Fellowships.