You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #35: My response to your criticisms [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. My response to your criticisms
First of all, I would like to clarify that I did not cavalierly disregard any facts. Any relevant facts not included in my post were left out because I wasn't aware of them, and also of course I wanted to keep the post within a reasonable length.

Also, I make it clear both in the second paragraph of the post and in the paragraph right before the "Summary of some striking problems..." section, that I am basing much of my discussion on 9-11 on Griffin's book, and I don't pretend to have independent expertise on the technical issues that I discuss. Also, I note (or imply) that Griffin himself didn't pretend to have independent expertise on many of the technical issues he discussed, but rather his main point was that these were issues of controversy that should have at least been addressed by the 9/11 Commission.

Now, to address your individual points as best I can:

(1) You point out that there has been an analysis of the hole and other damage to the Pentagon purported to have been caused by Flight 77, which indicate that indeed this damage is consistent with a Boeing jet crashing into the Pentagon -- and you feel that this analysis is better than or supercedes the other analyses that contend the opposite viewpoint. I was not aware of this information, and at this point, not having any information on any rebuttal to that analysis, I'm not going to attempt an independent assessment of the photographs, which is beyond my technical skill.

One thing worth mentioning about this, I believe, is that the author of the article that discusses this analysis is anonymous. Could this have been written by a government official? In any event it is not clear to me why you prefer this analysis to others which have come to an opposite conclusion.

(2) You object to the quotation in my OP that no large pieces of a plane were found in the vicinity, and you combat that conclusion by showing a picture of something. It is not at all evident to me that the picture you provide represents a large piece of a plane (or any piece of a plane), as opposed to a missile. Is it obvious to you?

And anyhow, if there was nothing to hide, then why did the FBI seize the video of the event:

(3) Griffin stated in his 2005 book that "the flight manifests that have been released have no Arab names on them". He provides references for that in his book, and I found another reference for that claim.

Yet you provide a manifest that has 5 Arab names on it. Can you explain the discrepancy? Was the reference you provided here released after Griffin's 2005 book? And whether it was or not, why would it differ from the manifests that Griffin has seen, which lead him to his conclusion noted above?

(4) You ask me for a link to my assertion that other witnesses noted a missile hitting the Pentagon.
I provided a link to that in my OP, under a hyperlink entitled "missile".
Here it is again, and it provides links to the statements of several witnesses who saw something that they believed not to be a plane:

a) General Myers himself said shortly after 9/11 that fighter planes were sent up from Andrews AFB within minutes of the attack on the Pentagon, and here is an article that supports that:
But if they could be sent up AFTER the attack, why not before?

b) Griffin relates in his book a converstaion he had with Kyle Hence, co-founder of Citizens Watch, where Hence notes a conversation he had with Donald Arias, Chief of Public Affairs for NORAD's Continental Region. Hence notes that when he tried to press Arias on his contention that no figher planes were available at Andrews to defend the capital, Arias hung up on him. Griffin references this conversation with Arias with e-mails that he has in his posession.

c) Griffin notes that the U.S. military's website just prior to 9-11 stated the following about Andrews AFB, referring to its 121st Fighter Squadron: "This squadron, equipped with F-16s, was said to provid 'capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of natural disaster or civil emergency'". And the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 provided "maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness." (NYT September 15th, 2001) And the District of Columbia Air National Guard website said that its mission was "to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness". (NYT September 12th, 2001). Griffin then goes on to describe on page 163 of his book how shortly after 9-11 these websites either came down or were changed substantially to indicate a lesser state of alert for Andrews AFB.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC