Posted on 09/08/2006 8:02:07 AM PDT by aculeus
He watched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and assumed al-Qaeda had wreaked terrible vengeance. He listened to anchors and military experts and assumed the facts of Sept. 11, 2001, were as stated on the screen.
It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child's story while the nation was attacked and how Osama bin Laden, America's Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora.
He wondered why 110-story towers crashed and military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded, much less cashiered.
"To me, the report read as a cartoon." White-haired and courtly, Griffin sits on a couch in a hotel lobby in Manhattan, unspooling words in that reasonable Presbyterian minister's voice. "It's a much greater stretch to accept the official conspiracy story than to consider the alternatives."
Such as?
"There was massive complicity in this attack by U.S. government operatives."
If that feels like a skip off the cliff of established reality, more Americans are in free fall than you might guess. There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the widespread belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 in order to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The commie Washington Post presents its crap.
He may be ignorant. You're just dumb.
The myth of the controlled demolition was created by a misquote from the president of CDI.
He claimed it did indeed look like a controlled demolition.
But he also explained why it was not in fact a controlled demolition.
I will get a link.
Look at it this way: Not all kooks avoid posting on Free Republic.
And do you think a leading member of the MSM would be pushing it if there weren't some political hay to be harvested?
The Washington Post is not enhancing its own credibility and integrity by reporting this story with a straight face.
Damn, I'm good!
Which makes you wonder why the Washington Post sees fit to give them credibility, doesn't it?
"I am not saying that one exists..."
Why not, Norm? Don't you have the guts to admit your conviction, based on all that "compelling evidence" out there?
Come on. Just say it. President Bush (and Cheney, Rove, Rummy et al) masterminded 9-11.
You've earned a Reynolds Wrap Legion of Honor.
2. If a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, what happened to the people on the missing plane?
You tell me.
Sorry it is not that easy.
When you claim something, the burden of proof is on the
person making the claim. Except if you are Dan Rather, who when using fake documents, thought that the burden was to proove the documents were false.
Liberals change the rules again.
Nice try though
I stopped at "liberal theologian"
I'm always willing to consider the engineering and ordnance theories of theologians.
What's wrong with that? Don't they deserve a voice?
You tell me.
They died, in the plane crash.
Dumbass.
Here is the link. Enjoy
Here is name and a quote as opposed to evidence exists.
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Funny, The Compost comes out with a story like this at the same time Dems are lambasting ABC for a documentary outlining Clinton's failure to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance(s).
Has someone done a poll asking Americans how many of them believe Clinton had opportunities to take down Bin Laden that he and his administration squandered?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.