San Francisco Chronicle Covers Dr. David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin: Theologian scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories, then looked closer - San Francisco Chronicle

When David Ray Griffin, noted theologian and professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, first heard someone say that Sept. 11 was an inside job, he scoffed.
When asked what the most compelling facts are to make the case that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, Griffin names three things. The behavior of Bush at the schoolhouse in Florida ("Secret Service should have whisked him out immediately if we're under attack but he stayed over 30 minutes. ... It's pretty clear evidence that they knew they wouldn't be attacked"), the strange pyrotechnics that brought down the World Trade Center ("fire has never brought down a steel high-rise building") and the poorly planned targeting of the West Wing of the White House ("all the important people are in the East Wing -- it doesn't make any sense").

Not only that, Griffin points to historical evidence that the U.S. government would be capable of such a thing. Operation Northwoods, a plan concocted by the Pentagon in the '60s as a way of taking Castro from power, included ideas about how a terrorist attack on U.S. soil could provide a pretext for military action.
"The goals would be to get control of the world's oil and establish a new doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. That was a difficult sell before 9/11."

While many conspiracy theories have been passed around, it's been very easy to dismiss many of the theorists as, well, crazy. But Griffin comes to his controversial conclusions with lucidity and calm. He even sees a connection between his long-standing work as a theologian and his new position as a political writer.

Please send thanks to the San Francisco Chronicle for this great article about Dr. David Ray Griffin.

page 5 in particular

page 5 in particular

I thanked the Chronicle and

I thanked the Chronicle and pointed out that "the White House" should be "the Pentagon". Otherwise, a good article, although I wonder if it is a good idea to emphasize that the West Wing of the Pentagon was hit instead of the East Wing where the top brass were. This can be easily explained away as a coincidence, at least unless one *also* points out that the plane (or whatever it was) hit in middle of the very narrow section of the West Wing wall that had been reinforced. (The entire West Wing wall had not been reinforced, as many seem to think.)

I'd like to find an authoritative opinion on whether it is physically possible to fly a large passenger aircraft at full speed a few feet above the ground. A pilot points out on PrisonPlanet that something called "earth effect" makes this impossible. The title of the PrisonPlanet article is "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training". Can someone help?

Good God:

Good God:

This reads like Kafka.

What a surreal low-point in our nation's history.

Vesa, That's an excellent


That's an excellent point about the 'earth effect.' It's also known as the 'ground effect', and arises because the air is compressed between the wing and the ground, creating extra lift. Fighter pilots say it feels impossible to get any lower, with their plane skimming over the flat desert or ocean. We passengers feel it while landing as the plane seems to hang just above the runway for a few anxious seconds.

So, is it even possible for a Boeing at near full speed to get down to the level of the Pentagon strike? Do any pilots or engineers out there care to comment???

Vesa, I think it's fair to

Vesa, I think it's fair to remark on the lack of skills of the 9/11 pilots. But it would be unwise to trumpet the difficulties they faced (if they flew the planes at all?!).

Here's a pilot Frank describing the automated features of a 767:

There's also a very interesting discussion posted at a website of experienced flyers. They are initially asked about a pilot with minimal skills assisting a 767 back to land when the usual pilots are sick or disabled in some way. The early responses are all the same: forget about it, you will crash and burn before you get near the airport. When the original poster reveals 9/11 basis for his question then suddenly the tune changes and everything becomes possible. It's an interesting read:;f=1;t=0...

ground effect is discussed here:

The article by Nila Sagadevan on "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training" should be viewed with caution in my view for several reasons:

(1) NS describes obscuring cloud cover on 9/11 when there are many reports (inc. official weather notices) that the weather was clear.

(2) NS suggests the (ex-veteran) pilots should have been able to flip the 767 over and "break the neck" of any terrorist in this way. From various reports this would seem (a)structurally dangerous for the plane itself (b) probably injure passengers c) not be consistent with hijacking training provided to pilots.

(3) NS claims considerable navigational difficulties would have existed. Various accounts (see Frank, above) suggest otherwise.

(4). NS claims to be a qualified pilot but (allegedly) is not registered on the FAA database (he may have European or Indian licensing, but again, at what level?)

(5) Other than the various comments provided in the article from those who trained the pilots there is very little that can be taken as authoritatively determining the issue of the difficulties facing the terrorist pilots one way or the other. It's an opinion piece rather than evidence. Personally, I am not a big fan of having to defend 'maybe' arguments or glaring errors of fact. There are enough difficulties explaining evidence discrepancies in 9/11 without covering the gaps in opinion pieces.

There are some good points in the Sagadevan article. But I find it interesting that he has published other articles at Scholars for 9/11 Truth where he is a member, yet he has chosen NOT to publish "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training" at their site. My feeling is that a rewritten and more argued version of this article could be helpful. I have emailed Sagadevan (as a supporter of the article) but I have received no replies to my questions.

I am not a big fan of this article.

Sorry, I posted in the wrong

Sorry, I posted in the wrong discussion place., it is the right one., it is the right one.

Thanks, Damien and

Thanks, Damien and physicist. I'll return to the topic later.