You may
recall that the publishing house of PC-USA, the folks responsible for a recent Israel divestment controversy, published a 9/11 conspiracy book. Here is someone from the Counterpunch crowd, Paul Craig Roberts, who approves of it. And, of course, the review gets picked up by Daily Muslims:
I would be more confident of the survival of democracy and civil liberty in the United States if, on this fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a majority of Americans were reading David Ray Griffin's challenging new book, "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11."
It is an inexpensive book and available quickly from online booksellers. A person only needs to read the first 56 pages to realize that the official account of the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings has many problems and that defenders of the official account have no hard evidence upon which to stand.
On pages 57-75, Griffin summarizes the inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission's incredible tale of flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. The official account is a story of improbable incompetence and failure.
On pages 76-82, Griffin concludes that the failure of the 9/11 Commission Report to produce a believable account or even to acknowledge the most important known facts is itself a conclusive case that the report is a cover-up.
Griffin believes that 9/11 was a false flag operation to provide the neoconservative Bush regime with a "new Pearl Harbor" excuse to launch its imperial ambitions for hegemony in the Middle East and beyond. On pages 85-106, Griffin provides an excellent summary of the neocon agenda and how it was enabled by 9/11.
Griffin expects no further investigation from Congress, official commissions, and government agencies, such as the National Institute for Standards and Technology. Although Griffin calls on the New York Times to take up the investigation, he does not expect any investigative interest on the part of the media, which has served as a propagandist for the government's story . . .
Few Americans understand that an enormous amount of energy was required to produce such a total collapse of the buildings and to pulverize so many tons of concrete, furniture, and office equipment into fine dust. What was the source of this energy, and how did it act so suddenly? The damage to the buildings from airliners was asymmetrical and the fires were scattered. WTC 7 was not hit by an airliner. Yet, all three buildings collapsed symmetrically as if there was no resistance and all structural support crumbled almost instantly . . .
All of this suggests to me that there is something to hide. If Professor Jones, for example, is wrong about there being insufficient energy in the official account to explain the destruction of the buildings, discussions and debates with his academic peers would bring this out. There is no justification for the university administration to intervene in a matter of scientific inquiry, or for people who know nothing about science to serve as gatekeepers for neoconservative ideologues by branding skeptics "conspiracy theorists." "Conspiracy theorist" is used to suppress debate about 9/11 just as "anti-semite" is used to suppress debate about Israel's policies . . .
Sort of like the way the word "nutcase" is used to supress discussion of whether the Danish cartoons and the Pope's recent comments were a Zionist plot.
My role in this is as a reporter. I do believe that 9/11 was used by the Bush administration to launch aggressive wars in the Middle East and that it is not the administration's intent to end the aggression in Iraq. Whether 9/11 was merely convenient for the administration or whether the administration had a hand in it, I do not know.
I am reconciled to the fact that our free democratic society is incapable of producing an inquiry that can arrive at the truth about 9/11.
No comments:
Post a Comment