David Aaronovitch tells Salon.com "9/11 conspiracy theory" is "the most baroque," slams David Ray Griffin
David Aaronovitch, British author of Voodoo Histories, responds to a recent Salon.com interview question about which widely accepted conspiracy theory he finds the "most implausible" with the following:
"I think 9/11 is the most baroque. I can’t tell you what it feels like to see videos on YouTube of David Ray Griffin addressing people about it — one of America’s leading theologians expressing with absolute certainty the existence of a conspiracy so ludicrous it takes your breath away."
To offer one example of Aaronovitch's explanation of 9/11 in his book, consider this passage from page 257:
"On a more general level, the picture painted by the commission of inquiry into 9/11 was one of an Establishment taken utterly by surprise by the events of 11 September.... In the form it took, the attack was neither expected nor predicted; once it was under way it took some time to realise what was going on, and no one knew what might happen next."
Veterans of this blog will see many factual errors in this characterization, notwithstanding the fact that he is talking about "the picture painted" by the 9/11 Commission, which was underfunded, lied to, and stacked with White House insiders.
If the "Establishment" was caught by surprise, how does Aronowitch explain the multiple pre-9/11 intelligence warnings, insider trading on affected airlines, and revelation of an FBI whistleblower that the government knew the time, date, and targets of the attacks? Or how about the multiple war games exercises that rehearsed the same scenario as that which unfolded on 9/11? Or what about the August 11 PDB? Or, simply, what about the first military notification of hijackings in progress prior to 9am that morning, later changed to post-10am after the military realized how bad their first story looked?