Dr. David Ray Griffin and Kevin Barrett Respond to Recent NYTimes OpEd

The following two responses have been issued from Dr. Griffin and Kevin Barrett in response to the NYTimes OpEd from last Sunday.

David Griffin Replies to NY Times "Conspiracy Theories 101"

If universities were to enforce this restrictive interpretation, it would mean that biology professors could not explain their reasons for accepting evolutionary theory rather than “creation science”; physics professors could not profess their belief in (or against) the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory; and so on.

Fish would surely protest that he did not mean anything so absurd. He meant his restriction to apply only to political questions, as shown by his indications that what professors cannot do is promote “partisan political ideals” and “urge political action.” It is on this basis that he would argue that professors should not be allowed to tell their students that they believe the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration.

However, even with this less obviously absurd interpretation, Fish’s position is untenable. The question of who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks is a purely factual question, and if professors are prohibited from giving their answers to some such questions, academic freedom has been seriously curtailed.
The appropriate question to ask about professors who give their opinions about 9/11 in the classroom, whether to embrace or reject the official theory, is the standard one: Do they do so in an academically responsible manner, supporting their opinions with evidence in a way that could be defended before their peers?

Kevin Barrett Responds to NY Times Op-Ed "Conspiracy Theories 101"

Fish is right. As university instructors, we are being paid to teach students to think critically, not to parrot our personal views or regurgitate received wisdom. I say this despite the fact that one of my most valuable learning experiences as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the 1970s was auditing the classes of the late Harvey Goldberg, a radical socialist firebrand whose lectures, delivered in an inimitable rant while stalking the stage and gesturing in the manner of Mick Jagger, could hardly be described as dispassionate critical performances. Goldberg is still a hero of mine, though I no longer fall within hailing distance of his ideology or teaching style.

So how will I teach students about "9/11 and the war on terror"? Fish writes: “Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth.” In an introductory course on Islam, it is entirely appropriate to devote a week to inquiring into the structure, history and influence of the “war on terror” as it is perceived by Muslims as well as non-Muslims. The fact that somewhere between 60% (Pew, 6/2006) and 89% (al-Jazeera, 10/2003) of Muslims and al-Jazeera viewers respectively believe that the story of the “19 Arab hijackers” is a lie is interesting, and worthy of critical analysis and inquiry. Likewise, the fact that 42% of Americans believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is a coverup (Zogby, May 2006) and that half of New Yorkers believe that top US officials committed high treason and conspiracy to mass murder on 9/11/01 (Zogby, 8/2004) is worthy of critical analysis—in the New York Times as well as the academy. Since there are a great many critics of the 9/11 Commission Report who appear to be arguing rationally and citing evidence that is not easily dismissed, it is imperative that the full light of critical scrutiny be focused on their claims.

The thing that bothers me is

The thing that bothers me is that most of the 9/11 reasearchers particularly David Ray Griffin for example are allways saying that this was only a "Bush Administration" conspiracy. That is a very naive notion and can have damaging impacts on the movement becouse it turns away conservatives and reinforces the "liberal Bush bashing" view from republicans.

It is also very stupid to believe that the Bush cabinet one day had a meeting and someone said: "Lets carry out an attack on the WTC" and that all of the Bush administration were involved and noone besides them also knew.

I mean look at the evidence about how deep this is. Listen to Paul Thompson's lecture and read his timeline.... This goes way back not only to Clinton, but to 1980's war in Afghanistan, Iran Contra, CIA and drugs, and maybe even the Kennedy assasination. The notion of "Bush amdinistration carried out 9/11" ignores shadow government, federal reserve, CFR, Israeli Mossad..etc

This was a much more complicated thing, a lot of people in the government and intelligence agencies knew something, but a lot of them did not. Only maybe a few knew the entire plot.

When the attack happened however, all of the governemnt logically came to the conclusion that it's best to pretend it was a real Al Qaeda terrorist attack as it was made to look like. Reasons for that are not hard to think of.

The "100% only Bush Administration, 0% Al Qaeda inside job" idea can also expose official story sceptics to ridicule that they claim Islamic radicals do not even exist and so on.

It also fails to mention what Al Qaeda is and how it was funded by CIA, drug smuggling, ISI, Saudis etc.

If people believe Al Qaeda is a real terrorist organization wih no connections to USA as it is claimed in the official myth made out of people who hate America, they will have a hard time believing 9/11 was carried out by our government and not Al Qaeda.

You also have to convice people that terrorism is mostly not a sociological fenomenon. I.e: It is in large part not an act motivated entirely by hate, revenge ...etc, but it's main purpuse are the EFFECTS and CONSEQUENCES, witch can be much bigger than the attack itself and not hard to predict.

Eloquently stated. 9/11

Eloquently stated. 9/11 Truth has found its voice.

It's a shame those

It's a shame those intelligent responses are not published in the NY Times.

Does the NY Times even have

Does the NY Times even have one article ever published that somehow is critical or questioning the official story, or have they maintained perfect complicity to date?

I suscribed to their electronic Archives a couple months ago to see what I could find for past articles on 9/11, and, while not exhaustive, I was astounded by how little I found of interest. I am not a professional reseacher by any means, but it was apparent how little of anything that was not Official was contained in any of the stories.


Did you see the listing in

Did you see the listing in st911.org stating that Stanley Fish will be the guest on Jim Fetzer's August 3rd radio program? That should prove interesting!

Do you see the comparison

Do you see the comparison between Griffin and Barret? Who sounds more trust worthy? I think it would be wise for people who want to spread the truth to take Griffin's diplomacy, level-headedness and the thought he puts into the statements he says, into account when presenting the movement. It will make this biggest impact.

This is all a great,

This is all a great, personalized distraction from the truths about 9/11, by making it about Kevin (and his teaching style), and about MUjca...

People tend to be, by nature, social animals. Any 'movement' can thus be easily sidetracked/derailed by getting it too interested in, and talking about, itself.


IMHO, the best single measure of a 9/11 presentation's value is how
impossible the presenter makes it for people to keep clinging to the
belief that they can blame "Muslim hijackers" for 9/11. Further, if
the presentation tries to advance that unfounded belief (especially
subliminally), then it is acting as government propaganda.