New Article Posted At The Journal Of 9/11 Studies By Dr. David Ray Griffin

A fine paper by Prof. David Ray Griffin has been published in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

The American Empire and 9/11 (PDF)

We appreciate the interest and rapid growth of informative peer-reviewed papers in this Journal.

Sincerely,

Steven Jones

Journal of 9/11 Studies

It's great to finally see a paper by DRG in the Journal.

In the letters section, there is now a Japanese translation of Steven Jones' paper "Why Indeed did the WTC towers completely collapse?"

However, I noticed within footnote 39 of DRG's paper:

39 [...]

Judy Wood, “A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory,” Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://www.st911.org) [...]

Dr. Jenkins has shown that Judy Wood's collapse model is disinformation/misinformation (i.e. misleading). DRG should take it out of his paper, if he does not want to be criticized for quoting this weak source. Even 9/11 mysteries, a generally reliable documentary quoted Wood--but her argument is fallacious. Here is Jenkins’s explanation for why Wood’s collapse model is not reliable:

"In an attempt to analyze the collapse times of the WTC towers (what she calls the ‘billiard ball’ analysis), the conservation of momentum and energy are flagrantly violated. She assumes that with each collision, all momentum in the problem is obliterated (figures 6 to 8). Her underlying assumptions are left unstated and the reader is left to ponder this egregious violation of physical law. There are only two possibilities to remedy this apparent lapse in reason. The first possibility is that no mass travels downward from previous impacts—a heinously false assumption since more than 50% of the tower mass fell on its own footprint as evident by the debris stack in the sublevel collapses in conjunction with the smaller contribution from the above ground rubble piles. The second possibility is that all velocity is obliterated in each collision, which is synonymous with annihilating all kinetic energy with each collision. This is impossible to justify since each progressively lower event will accelerate through the same distance (1 story in the case of figure 6) involving more mass, thus generating excess collisional energy greater than that necessary to ‘pulverize’ and ‘fail floor supports’ (as defined on page 3). This violates the initial assumption that all kinetic energy is necessarily obliterated at every impact event, thus proving her reasoning is logically flawed and her analysis violates the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. "

Steven Jones has also criticized Wood on this. 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Griffin's The American Empire and 9/11

The American Empire and 9/11

David Ray Griffin

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0703/frontpage/empire911

Editor’s Note: Because we at Tikkun are aware of extensive arguments that have appeared elsewhere against the perspective presented by the author of this piece, we debated long and hard about whether to present David Ray Griffin's argument here. We decided it was still important, given that if his view is true, the position he articulates would provide adequate grounds for impeachment of the president, grounds far more substantive than those that formed the basis of the impeachment by a Republican dominated Congress of President Bill Clinton. You are invited to give your responses to this piece.

Click here to read a critique of this article by Rabbi Michael Lerner.

This is a very good article, but I have some reservations about Griffin’s claims about the Pentagon strike. Any good researcher can promote misinformation—even by mistake. Disinformation is not always obvious to even the best researchers. For example, he quotes Jamie McIntyre out of context:

JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

Earlier in this same interview he had described:I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.”

In reality, McIntyre was responding to this question: “[a witness] who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.”

It might have appeared that way” was in likely in response to “landed short of the Pentagon”.

Read the link if you don't believe me.

I know that David Ray Griffin very much respects the value of eyewitness testimony. From my own research, I would highly recommend that he take a look at what I have found.

Pentagon Testimony: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

Pentagon Testimony Arranged by what witnesses described: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html

Good reminder, Arabesque

I don't know why DRG clings to the no-plane at the Pentagon material, especially when it means forwarding weak evidence such as this. I think we should foreground eyewitness testimony, because it helps make the case for CD at the WTC; but it also means abandoning the no-plane material because the eyewitness testimony is overwhelming.

My concern is that he presents

both plane and no plane arguments, and they are not internally consistent. I also think the Cheney/Mineta/Clark contradictions are open to various interpretations and could be easily refuted.

How is this a mistake?

It is taking a statement out of context to make it appear that McIntyre said something unequivocally, and your treatment of this as a great researcher being misled by disinformation seems both inaccurate and bit too charitable.

That said, I read McIntyre as ambivalent about the small amount of debris he saw, and Griffin's reading is probably closer to the truth.

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Gerard Holmgren might say that you are "Griffinating."

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/slithering.html

self contradicting claims

On the one hand he says “no evidence” and on the other he describes “evidence”. These are self contradicting claims. Read the entire interview to find out what he means. It you want further “evidence” in the eyewitness testimony see those links in my post. It’s pretty conclusive.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I don't really care what he means

I'm not the one who cherry picked McIntyre's words to say that he said "no evidence."

But I've read the interview, and he describes seeing some small pieces and that's it. Not really contradictory -- some debris, but not the debris he would expect. Hence, evidence/ no evidence, as you say.

And the much more significant contradiction is in Dr. Griffin's work on the Pentagon, which swings from a no-plane premise to a plane premise. This is not a coherent way to analyze and present information.

Dr. Griffin asks a great question

On page 18, Dr. Griffin asks about the Pentagon:

If there were any videos giving clear support to the official story, would we not have seen them as often as we have seen the strikes on the World Trade Center?

Yes, and the reason we have not is because it would much harder to fake a plausible video of the Pentagon strike.

That's changing the subject

Of course we should demand videos of Flight 77, and of course it is suspicious that they have not been produced. But that's not proof that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

Griffin is making an unsupportable supposition here. There are many possible reasons why the videos have not been released. The fact that we haven't seen them does not automatically mean it is because the videos show a Global Hawk or something plowing into the Pentagon. For the moment, I choose to believe the "honey pot" theory.

Look, I share your suspicion. But I haven't seen a credible refutation of the eyewitness accounts, nor a good explanation of why the light poles were downed, nor an explanation of how, if there was no plane, the military managed to scatter plane parts (however small) on the lawn in broad daylight without anyone noticing. It seems apparent that some kind of plane definitely hit the Pentagon. At best, you can ask whether it was a commercial airliner full of people, or something else. If it was something else, then we have to travel down the rabbit hole of faked DNA results, questions about missing passengers, massive coverup of evidence (video and otherwise), and we have to believe that hundreds of eyewitnesses were lying or deceived.

This is why I choose to remain agnostic on the Pentagon, until we see clear video footage of 77 hitting it. You and many others here may choose to believe in the no-plane theory until you see a video, but I don't think the known evidence supports that.

Those are good points

And I did change the subject. My main point is that making both plane and no plane arguments makes for an incoherent argument. First we are told that the plane impact is not physical. Then we are told that a plane hit and Cheney ordered that it be allowed to happen. I think it is hard to assess information without a coherent theory of what happened.

There are other possible explanations - Cheney's order was a shoot down order and the plane was a fighter 50, 30, 10 miles out from the target. Alternatively, the plane was a passenger aircraft 50, 30, 10 miles out from a predetermined line that it would not be allowed to cross.

To be honest, I think all the planes were inputs:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-think-this-is-damn-input-to-b...

Therefore, Cheney could order shoot downs all he wanted, if there was no plane to shoot down. And remember, the FAA was tracking a dozen of these inputs -- he could have been speaking of a plane other than 77 or 93.

I find it hard to believe that Cheney would be involved in the actual operation, to where his order was key to its success.

Speculation time: plane parts could be released from a missile or another plane. I'm not saying there were not planes in the area. This would account for eyewitness accounts, the great majority of which are not of the actual impact.

Speaking of "honey pots" -- how do we know that Mineta's testimony is not a honey pot?

I understand that Mineta's testimony will be a big argument in Loose Change Final Cut, and that concerns me greatly.

Someone should put this on Digg..!

This article by DRG, it should be upped to Digg, and Netscape. It's REALLY GOOD!

We need these types of things, to continue to forward the truth to the rational minds of the mases.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Here ya go...

David Ray Griffin paper published in The Journal of 9/11 Studies (pdf file)

_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Mineta *sigh*

Knowing that many people will not like to hear it and expecting a negative rating again, I have to insist that Mineta's testimony should not taken as a dogma and that the evidence that he's lying is much bigger.

So with all respect to Mr. Griffin, whose attitude to unify the movement and include researchers of all colours I appreciate very much, I have to say again that the argument that Cheney himself admitted that he was inside the PEOC before the Pentagon strike - as proposed by Griffin and many others - is fallacious.

Griffin writes:

///////The full brazenness of the Commission’s lie is
illustrated by the fact that it contradicts Cheney’s own
account, which can still be read on the White House website.
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11,
Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president, . . . I
went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency Operations
Center. . . . [W]hen I arrived there within a short order,
we had word the Pentagon's been hit.”. //////

And now Griffin makes a conclusion I really don't understand:

////////So he got there, as Mineta said, some time before the Pentagon was struck, not 20 minutes afterwards.////////

I disagree. A little bit before, Cheney says that he was moved out of his office when Flight 77 entered the "DANGER ZONE", which matches the official time 9:35 and not something like 9:15.

/////VICE PRES. CHENEY: And when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement.//////

The evidence that Mineta is lying is overwhelming. Another point, for instance, is that Mineta is the ONLY one claiming to have known the position of Flight 77 at 9:25. Noone within the FAA, no controller, noone at the Command Center in Herndon, noone in the FAA headquarters knew it, not even Monte Belger, deputy FAA director, who allegedly (Mineta) tracked Flight 77 on a radar display. At 9:20, Belger was busy with setting up a FAA video conference. He testified in front of the Commission, too. Did he mention the approaching Flight 77 ore something similar? No.

More detailed information here: The four lies of Norman Mineta

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/04/four-lies-of-norman-mineta.html

To make it absolutely clear: Yes, I think the Mineta testimony is a smoking gun, but most people don't even think about the possibility that he's lying and not Cheney. Understandable - I also would prefer Mineta to Cheney as a neighbor - but this is not a moral question.

I just endorse to be careful with conclusions.

Leaps of logic

p. 21-22 "[The interpretation that the order Mineta heard Cheney refer to was a shootdown order] does not fit what actually happened. The plane was not shot down."

The plane not being shot down is not proof that the order was not a shoot down order.

p. 22 "It would also make the story unintelligible: The young man's question whether the orders still stood would not make sense unless they were orders to do something unexpected --- not to shoot the aircraft down."

Again, in hindsight, with the story being that the plane hit the Pentagon, it may seem unexpected not to shoot the plane down. However, if the order was to shoot down a passenger plane full of civilians, which had not yet crashed, it would not be at all surprising that an officer would confirm such an order.

I am assuming that this is the Pentagon plane they are talking about, but I think it would be hard to prove that giving the disputed timing. Even if it is the Pentagon plane, you cannot assume that the order was a stand down order just because the plane (allegedly) hit, particularly where the interceptors are reported to have not made it to the scene on time.

The fact that the plane supposedly got through speaks for itself. My concern is that people are overly relying on a "smoking gun" -- which can backfire if not proven. "See, Mineta was wrong."

Same with the WTC, where the unphysical "collapses" speak for themselves: "See, there was no molten steel." "See, no evidence of thermate [radiation] [DEW] was found."