by David Patnode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
April 18, 2005
Forward Courtesy of John Kaminski
I attended a lecture tonight at the UW-Madison campus by Christian
theologian David Ray Griffin. This is the author of "The New Pearl
Harbor - Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11".
His most recent book is "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions". The title speaks for itself.
The lecture this evening was reported to be the first of its
kind - the first time a formal lecture has challenged the official 9/11
story. In addition, it was being recorded for broadcast on C-SPAN! The lecture
was entitled "9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People
Respond?" He started off with some definitions of "religious people"
(apparently Christianity isn't the only religion), and "American Empire"
- the conservatives would have you believe America is the world's first
"benign" empire, but I think the point is pretty debatable. Then
he gets into the heart of the lecture with a discussion of 9/11. He categorizes
people into 4 groups:
1. People who believe the official story that the 9/11 attacks
were a surprise attack orchestrated by 19 Islamic Al-Qaeda terrorists.
2. People who believe 9/11 was used opportunistically by the
Bush administration to advance an agenda
3. People who believe that the Bush administration had foreknowledge
of the attacks but did not stop nor prevent them. No national polls have
been taken, but one Zogby poll in New York City showed 50% of the people
thought Bush knew.
4. People who believe the Bush administration orchestrated
the 9/11 attacks.
Griffin goes on to describe how religious people in each of
these groups would justify the "war on terror":
1. If you believe these were surprise attacks by terrorists,
the war is justified then as "punishing evil", and you'd have
no suspicion of American imperialsm.
2. Those who consider Bush to be opportunistic with respect
to 9/11 would probably categorize America's response as worse than the attacks
themselves; they would tend to recognize that these attacks were most likely
a "blowback" or response for decades of poor US-Mideast foreign
3. People who belive the Bush administration knew about the
attack, and letit happen anyway, would be angry. Very angry. For an administration
that emphasizes the importance of "sanctity of life" to let thousands
ofinnocent Americans die, to justify starting a war where hundreds ofthousands
of more people will die, that's worse than just hypocrisy.
That smacks of treason.
4. If the third group is angry, the ideas of the 4th group
are too horribletoo think about - to consider that an American president
and hisadministration would develop, orchestrate, and execute an attack
againstthe American people - that's unthinkable! Or is it?
And there's where the lecture jumps into the serious questions
andcontradictions that anyone who's read any of the 9/11 Truth sites or
"The NewPearl Harbor" is well aware. I'll reiterate what David
Griffin spoke about thisevening, but these questions are but a drop in the
He first brought up evidence to support the third group -
that the Bushadministration must have known about the 9/11 attacks. He spoke
for a bit about the FBI and the testimony to the 9/11 Commission that the
FBI had no knowledgeof these attacks. Which, incidentally, is contradicted
by a number of FBI agents & personnel. Attorney David Schippers (the
lead prosecutor in the caseagainst former President Clinton), announced
within days after the attacks that he had been allegedly approached by several
FBI agents weeks before warning of an impending attack - including details
of where & when. The agents allegedly told him to stop their investigation
by superiors, and when Schippers tried to get some answers Attorney General
Ashcroft wouldn't return his calls.
Another little piece of damning evidence comes from the financial
markets.Griffin reported that days before the attacks there were extraordinarly
high "put options" placed on United Airlines, American Airlines,
and one of the firms that occupied several floors of the World Trade Center.
Put options are essentially bets that the stock price is going to fall.
So obviously somebody knew about the attacks and planned to profit off of
them, and Griffin argues that the intelligence community keeps tabs on the
financial markets to watch for things like this (at least, I believe that's
what he said, my notes are vague).
Then we get into the really good stuff - 4 examples that Griffin
presents to support the argument that not only did the Bush administration
know about the attacks, it was actively involved in planning them:
1. The US military failed to stop the attacks and gave 3 different
storiesfor why it failed. To start, the standard operating procedure for
theFAA is to alert the military at the earliest sign that a plane mighthave
been hijacked, and the military standard operating procedure is tohave the
nearest base scramble fighters to intercept the flight inquestion. This
process takes 10-20 minutes, and Griffin says it happensabout 100 times
a year, so there's no excuse for these procedures not tohave been followed
No fighters were in the air until after the Pentagonwas allegedly hit, some
90+ minutes after the FAA reported thefirst hijacking.
They did send up fighters, but the FAA responded tooslowly and the fighters
didn't get there in time. If this storyis accurate, then someone at FAA
broke standard operatingprocedure - why has no one been held accountable
for this? Andeven then, Griffin argues, the fighters still should have gotten
there in time.
This was the story "made up" by the 9/11 Commission -that the
FAA gave insufficient warning about the first plane andNO warnings about
the other planes. This directly contradicts the military's (second) story,
which it had been using for the previous 3 years, as well as the many credible
& mutually supporting stories of people involved (no details were given).
Obviously, not all 3 of these stories can be true. Either
the military, the 9/11 Commission, or both, are lying. And why would they
lie, but asa cover up?
2. The attacks on the Pentagon
- the official story is that Flight 77 wascrashed into the Pentagon. Assuming
this is the case - how?- The Pentagon is the world's best defended site,
within a couple milesof Andrews Air Force Base. The military claims there
were nofighter squadrons on alert, which Griffin says is ridiculous.
- The United States military boasts of the best radar system
anywhere -they claim they don't miss anything in North American airspace,
andthe system is designed to track multiple targets simultaneously (asit
would need to if America were under attack from a foreign airforce or ICBM
missle attack). So how'd they miss a commercialairliner headed right for
- The Pentagon is equipped with anti-aircraft missle batteries
that attacks anything within range that's not equipped with a US militarytransponder.
Which means either the missle batteries weredeactivated on 9/11, or flight
77 had a US military transponder.Neither of which is a promising explanation.
But there's also evidence indicating it couldn't have been
a commercialairliner that hit the Pentagon:
- The alleged pilot of flight 77 was, according to reports,
a terriblepilot and would not have been capable of executing the complexmaneuvers
required to hit the west side of the Pentagon, whichbrings us to...- Why
would any terrorist, capable of plotting a massive attack againstthe United
States, "the enemy", hit the west side of the Pentagon,which not
only required complex maneuvers to get to, but was alsounder renovation!
If you were going to attack the heart of yourenemy's military power, wouldn't
you want to wipe out as many oftheir military personnel and leaders as you
could? Since all of thetop brass were on the east side, why would you target
the west side?
- There was far too little damage to the Pentagon facade for
a Boeing757 to have crashed into it.
- There are no un-ambigous photos of the crash site that showed
theaftermath - no clear evidence of what was really there. Furthermore,the
FBI confiscated all videos taken of the area after the crash andhas refused
to release them. Why would they do that, if not to hidethe truth?
3. The WTC attacks - the evidence strongly suggests the towers
(and WTC 7)were brought down by controlled demolition using thousands ofexplosives.
The clearest supporter of this is the fact that no high-rise steel framed
building has EVER, before or after 9/11, collapsedbecause of fire. And there
have been other, larger fires (both in realbuildings and experiments), than
the fires produced by the 9/11 attacks.
The buildings also collapsed at nearly free-fall speed, which
is anotherindication of a controlled demolition; people also reported hearing
explosives, and the concrete was pulverized into a very fine dust.Griffin
suggested that you try this experiment - take a block ofconcrete and drop
it from a 1000 feet. Is that block going to turncompletely into dust when
it impacts? And if the towers were reallycollapsing downward, why was so
much dust & debris blown out horizontally several hundred feet? And
how do explain the pools ofmolten steel?
Another couple of unanswered questions - despite the fact
that it's afederal offence to remove evidence from the scene of a crime,
why wasall of the steel from the towers loaded onto trucks and shipped to
Asiaas quickly as possible? Also, if the 9/11 Commission's "pancake"
theoryof collapsing is true, why were the 47 steel columns (that made up
theprimary weight-bearing structure of the towers) not still sticking upseveral
hundred feet through the rubble? The 9/11 Commissionconveniently denies
the existence of these, instead saying the center ofthe towers were hollow-metal
service shafts. Never mind the fact thesesteel beams were a specific, unique
characteristic of the WTC!
Oh yeah - and the 9/11 Commission Report simply ignores the
fact thatWTC 7 (a 47-story building) collapses, allegedly because of fires
on 2different floors.
4. Finally, Griffin questions our Secret Service Agency -
dedicated men &women whose job it is to protect our nation's leader.
If these werereal attacks, then why was Bush allowed to sit, for 10 minutes
after thesecond plane crashed, in a public location that was well-publicized?
Ifthe Secret Service didn't know what the terrorists were planning,wouldn't
the most immediate, safest thing to do would be to get thePresident whisked
away to a secure location? Instead, Griffin points ut, they allowed him
to sit where he was, for about 10 minutes afterthe second hijacked plane
crashed. The only reason not to rush him awaywould be if they already knew
he wasn't in danger - and the only way toknow that is if they were somehow
in on it.
Griffin continues on to discuss America's "Global Domination
Project", and howintelligence and military policy-focus is on protecting
and extending America'sinterests and investments - not on spreading democracy
and peace. The missile-defense system, while touted as a defensive measure
against missle attacks, isreally the first step in weaponizing space - ensuring
that the US has spacesuperiority by denying others access. A missle defensive
system would be simpleto turn around and use offensively. Griffin talks
a little about the paper"Rebuilding America's Defenses", published
by the Project for a New AmericanCentury just before Bush took office. It
argues for more tax dollars to bespent for military technology and weaponizing
space, and suggests that implementing these ideas would be slow unless the
American people had acatastrophic catalyst, a new "Pearl Harbor".
Interesting, then, how Bush describes these attacks exactly that way in
his diary on the night of 9/11. Alsoquite amazing was how Rumsfield, that
very night, was right on-message (despitejust having had the largest attack
on US soil since Pearl Harbor happen underhis nose), berating Democrats
for previously denying the Pentagon additionalmoney to greatly increase
military & weapons technologies. Needless to say,$40 billion was granted
Griffin also describes the establishment of new permament
US military bases incentral Asia as a result of the war, and talks at length
about America's "GlobalDomination Project". It was an interesting
section of the talk, but I didn'ttake many notes during it. I picked up
again when he got back to the topic ofsuggestions for what religious people
should do - he started by saying the "GDP"has a perverted value
system that should be at odds with the value system ofjust about every world
religion. He had 4 suggestions for relgious people:
1. Discover & speak the truth - investigate Griffin's
claims, and if youbelieve them, spread the truth. Get people talking about
2. Create new mediums and communications to spread the truth.
The massmedia and Congress don't show any interest in pursuing the truth,
andmany left-wing groups and online mediums are hostile to religiouspeople,
so religious people need to develop their own new, religiouscommunications
channels to spread the word.
3. Formulate proposals to subvert the American "Global
Domination Project" -need to get get proposals for subversion from
religious thinkers, basedon their value systems. Emphasize the morality
and values of religionand the perverted value system of GDP - this needs
to come from thereligious groups to really get a strong base and momentum.
4. Form alliances with other moral, non-govermental organizations
(NGOs)that support peace, human rights, etc. Forge those relationships and
emphasize the common moral principles of religion & these NGOs.There
was a Q&A session that followed, where audience questions that had been
written on cards during the lecture were read. Just a couple of notes from
thispart of the lecture:
- Michael Rupert is a great hero of 9/11 truth - one of the
first people involved
- One question was: If this was such a huge conspiracy with
the US behindit, why has no on come forward? Griffin responded that many
hugeconspiracies were kept secret for a long time, such as the ManhattenProject.
And the people who might know (such as FBI agents), might notbe able to
risk coming forward to tell a story that people don't want tohear; at best
they'd be breaking their oath of obediance they took whenjoining the FBI,
and go to prison for the rest of their lives, not tomention direct or indirect
threats against their family or friends ifthey speak out. But some people
are trying to!
- According to a credible Swiss journalist, Osama bin Laden
was in anAmerican hospital for surgery by American doctors in (missed thelocation
- someplace in Europe, I believe) in July 2001, and in factwas visited by
the local CIA agents and head of the Saudi intelligenceagency. OBL was a
most-wanted terrorist at this time. If this story istrue (several European
papers ran it, though curiously no Americanpapers did), then it suggests
there were still strong ties from CiA tobin Laden before the attacks.
- Proper wording: "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power
All in all, a very interesting lecture - most of the material
was not new to me,but I was excited to see the diversity of people present
- old, you, well-dressed, "dirty hippies", etc. I hope this lecture
was the start of a grandunraveling of the lies, deceits and secrecy that
enshrouds the truth about 9/11.Returning to my apartment, I considered where
to go from here. To me it seemslike we need to force the issue out into
the open. The host at the talk indicated he had given a copy of "The
New Pearl Harbor" to Senator RussFeingold a few weeks ago - I thought
that was a great idea. In fact, I brainstormed that should be a national
campaign. It could be called somethinglike "Send the Truth" or
"We can handle the Truth!" and the goal would be to swamp the
halls of Congress with copies of "9/11 Commission Report: Omissionsand
Distortions" and other such material. If there's 535 Congressional
offices, and we can get 4 copies of that book sent to each office, that's
over2000 copies landing in Congress's lap. That would generate some publicity,
I think! Of course, I decided I need to actually read the book for myself
beforeengaging in such a campaign, so I stopped off at Borders on the way
home topick up both of Griffin's books and "The 9/11 Report" (with
reporting & analysis by the New York Times; the regular version of the
report that was sitting on the shelf looked pretty grungy).
My first goal will be to uncover the truth - what really happened
on 9/11? If it turns out that the Bush Administration did have foreknowledge,
or worse, orchestrated the attack, then my secondary goal would be to see
all of those involved brought to justice on charges of treason. And I would
like to see that happen (if that turns out to be the case), before the official
end of Bush's second term. If we have a traitor in the White House, he should
not be allowed to continue to destroy this country and the principles and
values that have built it.
On an eerie note, the lecture + Q&A tonight ended at exactly
Notice: This document is based upon my individual perceptions,
notes, and memoryof David Griffin's speech at UW-Madison on 18-Apr-2005.
Although I have triedto faithfully recall the significant content of his
speech, it is not completeand some details may be missing, wrong, or misconstrued.
All of the points ofargument regarding the 9/11 events are described in
much greater detail in thebooks mentioned and on various websites - you
can start with http://mujca.com/or http://911truth.org/
and go from there. I have no direct or indirect affiliation with MUJCA-NET,
any 9/11 Truth sites, Mr. Griffin or any of thebooks. I'm simply a concerned
citizen of the United States of America who wantsto know what really happened
and to see that justice is rightfully served.
Also note: This document has been digitally signed using PGP
encryption. You canverify the digital signature using my public key at available
at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net - search
for "email@example.com". I proudly use GnuPG andthe Windows Privacy
Tray. See http://www.gnupg.org/ and http://www.winpt.org for more details.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.