Getting Agnostic About 9/11 - Los Angeles Times

[Guest guest]

r

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:38:57 -0400

Getting Agnostic About 9/11 - Los Angeles Times

 

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-crgriffin35aug28,1,3\

835884.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine & ctrack=1 & cset=true

 

August 28, 2005

 

METROPOLIS / SNAPSHOTS FROM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE

 

 

Getting Agnostic About 9/11

# A society of nonbelievers questions the official version

 

MARK EHRMAN

Anyone who types the words " 9/11 " and " conspiracy " into an online

search engine soon learns that not everybody buys the official

narrative of what took place on Sept. 11, 2001. As a professor

emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, 66-year-old David Ray

Griffin would seem to have more affinity for leather elbow patches

than tin hats, yet after friends and colleagues prodded him into

sifting through the evidence, he experienced a conversion. Now he's

spreading the bad news. Griffin compiled a summary of material arguing

against the accepted story that 19 hijackers sent by Osama bin Laden

took the aviation system and the U.S. military by surprise that awful

day in his 2004 book " The New Pearl Harbor " (published by Interlink, a

Massachusetts-based independent publisher covering areas including

travel, cooking, world fiction, current events, politics, children's

literature and other subjects). He recently followed up with the book

" The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions " (Interlink), a

critique of the Kean commission document in which he suggests that a

chunk of the blame for the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil lies

closer to home than the caves of Afghanistan. We contacted him at his

Santa Barbara-area home for a report on his journey from mild-mannered

scholar to doubting Thomas.

 

How did you join the ranks of those questioning the official account

of the 9/11 events?

 

I was rather slow getting on board. For the first year and a half I

just accepted the conventional view, really the blowback thesis, that

this was blowback for our foreign policy. When a colleague suggested

to me about a year after 9/11 that he was convinced our own government

or forces within our own government had arranged it, I didn't accept

that. Then several months later another colleague sent me [a link to]

a website that had a timeline. Once I started reading that and saw all

those stories drawn from mainstream sources that contradicted the

official account, I decided I needed to look into it more carefully,

and the more I looked, the worse it got. I considered it an obligation

to kind of organize, compile the evidence and put it out there for the

public.

 

The Internet is full of 9/11 conspiracy theories. What have you

contributed to the discussion?

 

My main contribution has been the second book, [showing] that the 9/11

commission report is not worthy of belief, and the implication of that

is that they were covering up the government's own guilt.

 

What would constitute a " smoking gun " against the official 9/11 account?

 

There are many. By just ignoring them, the 9/11 commission implicitly

admitted they couldn't answer them. The towers coming down into a pile

only a few stories high is a smoking gun. Many laws of physics had to

be violated if the official story about the collapses is true. [The

collapses] had all the earmarks of a controlled demolition by

explosives. One of those is total collapse into a small pile of

rubble. The fact that Building 7 [a skyscraper near the towers]

collapsed when it had not been hit by an airplane, and collapsed in

seven or eight seconds, that's a smoking gun. The fact that standard

operating procedures were not followed that morning, and we've gotten

three different stories now by the U.S. military as to why they did

not intercept the planes, that's a smoking gun. The Secret Service

leaving the president and themselves wide open to being attacked by

[not responding immediately], that's a smoking gun. I can't say one is

bigger than the other. You've got six or seven that are equally big.

 

Critics of the official 9/11 account seem to draw sinister inferences

from instances where people, buildings or physical objects didn't

react or behave as one might expect in theory. For example, if the

hijackers were devout Muslims, why were some drinking, eating pork

chops and cavorting with lap dancers? Doesn't real life unfold

inconsistently, even bizarrely?

 

That's true, but the 9/11 commission simply ignored those questions.

They're creating this image of fanatics who were so devout and

convinced of the truth of their religion that they were ready to meet

their maker, yet here's all this evidence that suggests they were not

devout at all. [The commission] simply ignored evidence.

 

Dissenters also seem to find it suspect that in a dire emergency,

individuals and agencies bumbled, fumbled, delayed, dropped the ball

or choked. Won't that occur in any emergency?

 

Well, of course, that is the official theory. It's a coincidence

theory that just happened to be that on those days, everybody became

terribly incompetent. Take the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration].

They've got these standard procedures: If a plane goes off course, if

you lose radio contact or lose the transponder, you call the military.

On this day we're told these FAA officials hit the trifecta. They got

all three of these things, and yet they would stand around debating,

" Should we call the military? No, I don't think so. " And when they

finally call, the people at headquarters won't accept their calls

because they were in conference or wouldn't pass the call on. They

have roughly about 100 hijack warnings a year where planes have to be

scrambled, but suddenly they become just all thumbs. The whole thing

is just implausible. The other thing is, if you've got accidents,

screw-ups, some ought to go one way and the others the other way. Here

everything goes the same way. Everybody fails to do their jobs in

relation to something to do with 9/11.

 

With others, you have alleged that inconsistencies, omissions or lies

in the 9/11 record point to a cover-up, or even collusion or

orchestration, by the American government. What would motivate such a

scenario?

 

You've got liberal Democrats and Republicans and Independents who are

appalled by what Andrew Bacevich [a professor of international

relations at Boston University] called " the new American militarism "

in the book " American Empire. " New meaning, qualitatively different

than before. This post-9/11 push to a new level has made the world an

enormously more dangerous place. Many people apart from thinking about

9/11 as an inside job have decided that the United States is doing

what [Princeton University emeritus international law professor]

Richard Falk calls a " global domination project. " Chalmers Johnson

[Japan Policy Research Institute president], a previous conservative,

now says that we have become a military juggernaut intent on world

domination.

 

Have you followed polls on what the public believes about 9/11?

 

There was a Zogby poll in New York. The question asked was, do you

believe the government had advance knowledge of the attacks and

consciously let them happen? Forty-nine percent in New York City said

yes. I believe it was 43% statewide. That is a pretty remarkable

figure. In this country there has not been a poll that asked, do you

believe the government actually planned and orchestrated the attacks?

The question has been raised in Europe and Canada and has gotten to

somewhere around 20%. It would be interesting to have such a poll in

the United States.

 

Conspiracy theorists are often dismissed as marginal types. Where do

your views on 9/11 place you in the eyes of your peers in academia?

 

One thing to point out is, the official account itself is a conspiracy

theory. It says that 19 Arab Muslims under the influence of Osama bin

Laden conspired to pull off this operation. The question is not

whether one is a conspiracy theorist about 9/11. It's which conspiracy

theory do you find most supported by the evidence?

 

Does your role as a 9/11 dissenter depart from your life's work as a

scholar and theologian?

 

At first glance it may seem strange, but the task of a theologian is

to look at the world from what we would imagine the divine

perspective, [which] would care about the good of the whole and would

love all the parts. [so] 9/11, if it was brought about by forces

within our own government for imperial reasons, is antithetical to the

general good.

 

Evil has been a subject of your academic writing. It's also been a

recurring theme in administration rhetoric. Is that strange?

 

In these politicians' mouths, it's used to describe certain groups and

organizations when it's politically convenient to do so, and then to

overlook even greater evil when it's politically convenient to do so.

If you understand the divine as an all-powerful and wrathful creator

who seeks vengeance, and uses overwhelming power to destroy its

enemies, why then, if you've got the political power, you're probably

going to think you're acting like God if you do that. The [Christian]

church during the early centuries was anti-empire. Rome was the enemy.

With Constantine, the empire accepted Christianity, and Christianity

started accepting empire and all that entailed. There has been a long

history of support for militarism, so from that perspective, it's not

so strange.

 

Prior to your 9/11 work, did you have an anti-establishment streak?

 

I never burned my bra. I was fairly critical like a lot of Americans

are, but I don't think people would have looked at me and said,

" There's an anti-establishment guy. "

 

Do you get hate mail?

 

I've had a few people suggest I need to see a psychiatrist, and one

psychiatrist in L.A. even kindly offered his services.