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 #52: Griffin's method is poor [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
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
52. Griffin's method is poor
Whilst he writes well and this may help gloss over some of the poorer passages in his books, it cannot hide that he is only as good as the authors on whom he is relying and they have a distinctintly uneven quality. Of them I would put Paul Thompson at the top and Thierry Meyssan very firmly at the bottom. I read one of Meyssan's books (Pentagate) and it was absolutely awful. Whatever you do, don't buy it.

(1) I prefer the position because they clearly demonstrate with photographs that the hole was 90 feet wide. The 90-foot wide hole is visible in the photographs (the link to the Guardian analysis is well worth following, even if it is a long article); as the 90-width can be seen, the hole cannot be 18 feet. is one of the most highly regarded sites in the "9/11 truth movement" (and rightly so) and they believe (I don't, by the way) that the attack was a false-flag operation by the US government, so I really, really doubt they work for the government.

(2) There is also a discussion of the wreckage at You can find it here:
The piece of wreckage I posted seems rather large for a missile - aren't they supposed to explode on impact? In addition, as far as I can see its curvature roughly corresponds to that of a 757 body. Further, we can see the red paint characteristic of the American Airlines logo.

Anyway, here's another piccy:

(3) I saw this manifest about a year ago, although I believe it was published in 2001. I assume that Griffin took his claim from an untrustworthy source and declined to check it.

(4) You said "other witnesses noted a missile hitting the Pentagon." However, as far as I could see, in the link you provided there were merely some witnesses to (part of) the event who compared the plane to a missile. says it very well:
"Literature of the no-757-crash theorists is full of suggestions that eyewitness saw something other than a 757 fly into the Pentagon, such as a commuter jet or cruise missile. In fact only a few eyewitness recalled seeing a plane smaller than a jetliner, and none reported seeing a missile. In contrast there is an abundance of accounts describing a large twin-engine jetliner like a 757."

(5)(a) Well, General Myers would say that wouldn't he.
The Terror Timeline says:
"A few minutes after 9:03 a.m., a squadron pilot at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland (just ten miles from Washington), hears that two planes have crashed into the WTC. He calls a friend in the Secret Service to see what's going on. The Secret Service calls back, and asks whether Andrews can scramble fighters. According to weapons officer, Major Dan Caine, who takes this call, the Secret Service agent then tells them to stand by and that somebody else call. Apparently anticipating the need, one commander has already started preparing weapons for the fighters. However, the weapons are located in a bunker on the other side of The Base, and the process takes time. The fighters don't take off for about another hour and a half (see (10:42 a.m.)). Apparently anticipating the need to launch fighters, one commander has already started preparing weapons for the fighters. However, the weapons are located in a bunker on the other side of the base, and the process takes time. Senior Master Sergeant David Bowman, 113th Wing munitions supervisor, says, We were doing it as fast as we could, because for all we knew the terrorists were getting ready to hit us. It normally takes three hours to get weapons from the storage sheds and load them onto the fighters. However, on this occasion, it is later claimed, it only takes 45 minutes. The fighters don't take off though for about another hour and a half (10:42 a.m.)."

(b) AFAIK Kyle Hence sometimes asks good questions and sometimes doesn't. I don't think this is any big deal. He hung up, so what?

(c) "combat units in the highest possible state of readiness" does not mean alert fighters. There was a system of alert fighters and it didn't include Andrews. There are lots of journalists and professionals who know this.

IMHO the main point that should be made in reference to the poor air defense response (the quality of the response actually deteriorated during the crisis) is that after 9:03 it was an absolute no-brainer that Washington was a potential target and it is hard to see why the national command did not realise this. The first non-alert fighter was scrambled at 9:29 (with the two alert ones from Langley) and non-alert bases who called and offered to scrambled non-alert fighters were not urged to do so. What on earth were they doing?
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