A Disturbing Book
I suppose it’s inevitable that every major modern media event will have its conspiracy theorists (Kennedy’s assasination, Watergate, the Moon Landings). Still, when I saw this ad in the university student magazine, I wanted to read this.
The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
Taking to heart the classic idea that those who benefit from a crime ought to be investigated, here the eminent theologian David Ray Griffen sifts through the evidence about the attacks of 9/11 – stories from the mainstream press, reports from abroad, the work of other researchers, and the contradictory words of members of the Bush administration themselves – and finds that, taken together, they cast serious doubt on the official story of that tragic day. He begins with simple questions: Once radio contact was lost with the flights, why weren’t jets immediately sent up (“scrambled”) from the nearest military airport, something that according to the FAA’s own manual is routine procedure? Why did the administration’s story about scrambling jets change in the days following the attacks? The disturbing questions don’t stop there: they emerge from every part of the story, from every angle, until it is impossible not to suspect the architects of the official story of enormous deception. A teacher of ethics and theology, Griffin writes with compelling logic, urging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence. The New Pearl Harbour is a stirring call for a thorough investigation into what happened on 9/11/ It rings with the conviction that it is still possible to search for the truth in American political life.
Check out the reviews on Amazon, too.
listening to Disposable Heros of Hiphoprisy | Television, the Drug of the Nation
posted by xhile at 8:27 am
2 Comments:
One of many reviews from Amazon
As a former journalist ... March 22, 2004
Reviewer: David E. Roy, Ph.D. "drdavid" (Fresno, CA)
[5 stars]
As a former journalist, I am incredulous that this overwhelming abundance of evidence, all of which points to a story of incredible magnitude, has not been seriously and thoroughly investigated by the press. Watergate, exposed by Woodward and Bernstein, potentially pales into insignificance in comparison with the implications of the data and arguments offered in this extraordinarily well-researched and clearly written book. Prof. Griffin's courage and tenacity must be admired. This is a quick and chilling read. I highly recommend it.
April 15, 2005 10:52 am
Another of many reviews on Amazon
Disturbing questions about the author, December 20, 2004
Reviewer: Brian Hunt (Bellevue, WA USA)
[1 star]
If there's any case to be made for another investigation of 911, it would have to be better reasoned and more robust than this book. I'm very disturbed that in America today, people on the Left and the Right accept anything that fits their world view without any critical thinking.
Any intellectually honest examination of the questions raised in this book would preclude the writing of the book at all. The author uses innuendo and citations of citations (some of which I couldn't even verify) to cobble together an inchoate mess that makes no good argument for anything except for better education in America.
Having been raised on JFK books, I can testify that Griffin's book could have been written using a template for conspiracy theories. The author starts out with the usual disclaimer of having come to his startling revelations after being a believer of the "official theory." Then he goes on to cover himself by stating that although some holes might be found in his arguments, there are so many arguments that the totality argues for acceptance. Finally he makes the stock claim that he's not arguing for a position on what happened on 911, only arguing for another investigation. This is all from Conspiracy Theory 101.
In addition to innuendo, Griffin resorts to such FoxNews-type tactics as "those familiar with the facts" when those he's writing about are Internet conspiracy theorists. Do we really want the standard of investigative research in America to be on the level of Matt Drudge? God knows we don't have any real investigative journalism going on in mainstream media but that doesn't mean we fall to the level of whatever is out there.
The author calls for a Congressional investigation but why would he trust the conclusions of the government? He also disparages the ideas of civil engineers who have theorized about the Twin Towers' collapse, some of whom were involved in building the towers. Who are these magical investigators who will make Griffin believe? They don't exist. This is just like JFK in that no matter how many investigations are conducted, no matter how many qualified experts offer data, the results will be met with, "Well, they're probably in on it or they can't be objective because the thought that the government is involved is just too hard to contemplate."
Case in point, there has already been an extensive forensic examination of all remains from the Pentagon. All but a couple of the victims on Flight 77 and in the Pentagon were identified by DNA and odontology. It doesn't matter because the folks lauding Griffin's book, if they read the report at all, will dismiss it as being written "by the government." Nevermind the dedication of those investigators who carried out the work. They're all in on it. Same goes with the NTSB investigation of the 757 crash.
I'm sure Griffin has the best of intentions. I have no position on the argument in his book, e.g. that there should be another investigation. I have a serious problem with his methodology. This is not the level of public discourse we want if we want a vital, informed democracy. There is a fundamental flaw in these overreaching mythologies in that they examine nothing and posit everything.
A more honest approach, and a much stronger case I might add, would be to take one aspect of the events of 911 and examine it to scientific standards. Whether it's the collapse of the towers or Flight 77, it would need examination by people qualified in the respective fields with experimental verifiability.
If those of us on the Progressive side of the political debate want to be taken seriously and seriously believe in the power of Progressive ideals and principles, we'd better be a hell of a lot more rigorous in the way we frame our ideas. Griffin's book does not meet that ideal and in my opinion, is the kind of weak distraction that feels good for those who want to demonize, but is harmful to the debate that needs to occur in a democracy.
That debate is about how we examine the important questions of our time. Methodology is important. The arguments in this book only meet the standards of Creation Science...and it requires the already-converted to follow them.
April 15, 2005 10:53 am
Post a Comment
<< Home