9/11: Omissions and Distortions, a Review
David Ray Griffin’s The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions is troubled on premise alone. In the introduction, he writes:
A fourth reason to scrutinize the 9/11 Commission’s final report, therefore, is to see whether it puts [...] the suspicion that the Bush administration planned the 9/11 attacks as well as the more widespread suspicion that the Bush administration was at least complicit in the sense of deliberately not preventing them. I will primarily address this fourth question. (4)
In presenting this particular conspiracy theory as a valid contender to the theory of events and rationale put forth by the official 9/11 Commission Report, Griffin has to cast them both as sketchy conspiracy theories. In this way, the official account becomes tainted with the connotations that come with the term “conspiracy theory”–crackpot, irrational, paranoid—and the actual conspiracy theory becomes legitimized. In actuality, the Commission Report presents a well-reasoned and highly factual account which would be extremely difficult to criticize without the use of sophistry to break down its authority.
One of the tools Griffin uses to install a sense of preemptive doubt into the minds of the reader is the word “theory,” which to a layperson implies a strong sense of uncertainty and fallacy. No word could be farther from the truth in describing the 9/11 Commission Report when taken in that sense. Formally, the Commission Report does present a theory, but scientifically that theory has been validated and reconstructed from evidence by a scientifically motivated party of intelligent fact-finders. Thus, the official theory and the conspiracy theory cannot be compared. The official theory is a theory in the scientific sense, while Griffin’s conspiracy theory is a theory in the lay sense–i.e. a set of unfounded ideas. To use the same word with two different meanings is just another technique to confuse the reader into equating the legitimacy of the Commission Report and Omissions and Distortions.
Another way Griffin creates confusion rather than clarity is when he assumes conclusions he has not yet proved, such as the legitimacy of his alternate theory:
[An impartial investigation] would have tried to investigate equally the two basic theories about the attacks: that the attacks were planned and carried out solely by followers of Osama bin Laden, and that the attacks were able to succeed only because of the complicity of the Bush administration itself. (10)
Here he repeats the conclusions about his alternate conspiracy theory without having given any reasoning as to why it should be considered equal with the official 9/11 account. For example, I could construct Elliott’s 9/11 Theory here:
A band of desperate Canadian computer hackers reprogrammed the flight computers of 4 commercial airlines to crash into the banking centers of America in order to erase tracks of a hacking operation gone wrong….
Pointing my finger at a particular group (say, the Bush administration) does not lend immediate credence to my theory. Without proper development, I cannot draw conclusions about from a premise which has not yet been accepted as a realistic alternative. So, claiming that the Commission Report should have immediately considered the two theories that Griffin proposes assumes that there are two reasonable theories without proof thereof.
Griffin’s apology to the Commission Report starts with the most sensational and un-provable topics first, and the most factual and analytical last. Common sense suggests that the order of topics in a book, if not chronological, would be in order of importance. To place material which is clearly an implausible imaginative stretch at the front of the book implies that material is the most relevant to a discussion of the problems with the 9/11 report. This is then a paradox. Take, for example, the section labeled “Six Alleged Hijackers Still Alive,” which reads:
One problem is that at least six of the nineteen men officially identified as the suicide hijackers reportedly showed up alive after 9/11. (19)
The problem with this is that either stolen identities or mistaken identities provide a simpler, more convincing explanation to a question with no physical evidence than the theory that the 9/11 hijackers are actually alive. A Saudi embassy official was quoted in the Chicago Tribune saying, “You cannot throw a stone in Saudi Arabia without hitting an Al Ghandi,” implying that the hijackers may have been simply using the Arabic equivalents of the English surname “Smith” to disguise themselves. Simply turning up six men with the same names as the 9/11 hijackers used does not mean that they are the hijackers, or that the Commission Report got their names wrong.
Griffin also unfairly assumes that a lack of shown proof is the same as a lie. When discussing the passenger manifests of the four planes, he writes:
Do we have any publicly available proof that any of the 19 men named by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission were on any of the four planes that day? The shocking answer is: No. We have been told that their names were on the flight manifests. [...] Presumably the 9/11 Commission, with its subpoena power, could have obtained copies. (23)
But, it does not seem shocking to me that the 9/11 Commission has access to documents outside of the reach of an everyday citizen. It is likely that much primary material has been classified to prevent public meddling. So, merely because Griffin cannot find a way to get his hands on the manifests of the four 9/11 flights does not mean either that they do not exist, or that they do not contain the alleged 19 suicide hijackers’ names. Here is where we trust that the 9/11 Commission Report with its extensive staff and fact-checking is correct. We have no way of telling either way, but it is unreasonable to assume a deliberate government cover-up when a simpler explanation serves. Griffin’s unwillingness to trust even the most basic facts presented in the 9/11 Omissions Report taints his investigation and leads his readers down a path of paranoia.
David Ray Griffin is a 67 year old professor of theology at the Claremont School of Theology. Why, then, is he writing an entire chapter about structural problems with the 9/11 towers’ collapse? I would feel better if the chapter were left off to a structural engineer or any kind of scientist, rather than a theologian with an undisclosed agenda. When he writes that:
Fire had never before caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse, even when the fire was a very energetic, all-consuming one. (25)
And Popular Mechanics writes:
“Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800 degrees it is probably at less than 10 percent.”
I am more likely to believe Popular Mechanics, who enlist certified experts in the field of inquisition rather than listen to a theologian talk about structural engineering, thermodynamics, or explosives. While Griffin may or may not have debatable points regarding the collapse of the 9/11 towers, he does not adequately certify himself. If Griffin will not present himself as worth listening to in this field, why even write the chapter?
What is an omission? When we read that “the commission adds, ‘further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11′” (54) and Griffin quotes the San Francisco Chronicle saying, “This volume of purchases raises suspicions that the investors had advance knowledge of the strikes” (53), can we count this as an omission of the 9/11 report, or simply a figment of Griffin’s imagination. Clearly, it is not an omission according to the 9/11 Commission Report, which discusses in some detail their considerations of the so-called insider trading that may have occurred around 9/11. After looking at the facts, they rejected this hypothesis. Griffin may or may not believe them, but he cannot call it an omission and blame its logic, which is not given in the report itself, as faulty.
However, Griffin shines when he is able to write about political reasons for the absence of factual information. For example, when discussing possible funding from Pakistan’s ISI, he writes:
Surely Dr. Philip Zelikow, who has produced several scholarly books, would have given the directive for a [search on books with 9/11 in the title]. In this light, can we really believe the Commission’s statement that it had seen “no evidence that any foreign government—or a foreign government official—supplied any funding?” (107)
Here, Griffin is using his wide survey knowledge of the 9/11 attacks to find omissions from the 9/11 Commission Report which have both objective and political importance. If Pakistan were involved in funding the 9/11 terrorists, the public and history itself should know, for pure truth’s sake. However, releasing information connecting Pakistan and the 9/11 attacks into the news media would politically damage relations with Pakistan for a long time. Pakistan, as a new nuclear power, is critical US-India relations as well as its own. So, as Griffin postulates, because we could not afford to offend them, the 9/11 Commission Report conveniently ignores facts which put Pakistan in a publicly unfavourable light. To me, this is more reasonable than his earlier material about material structure and unfounded claims of conspiracy: start reading at chapter 9.
| This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 at 4:12 am and is tagged with david ray griffin, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theories, report omissions, fact finders, factual account, 9 11 commission report, sophistry, layperson, complicit, 9 11 attacks, crackpot, connotations, distortions, bush administration, fallacy, actuality, 9 11 commission, contender, rationale. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback. |
[...] Other courses: all are going well. My two English classes are very easy and quite enjoyable. I just wrote an essay on a 9/11 book, which I think takes it apart pretty well. Asian 212 is enjoyable and interesting–I am learning lots about China. And Chinese 102 is hard, but fun. Languages are always fun. We’re learning the ba3 structure for objects right now, which is making the grammar a little harder because verb-end sentences are not at all like English structure. [...]
I am not going to comment on your entire article but one point only: You say that the guys they found alive have the same names only. Do yourself a favor. The BBC took the most-wated information given by the FBI, with the name, age, and PHOTO of the 19 highjackers. The people they found don’t have the same names only: they have the same names, the same photos, and the same information (known address, family, etc) as given by the FBI. If you really want to debunk skeptics, you need to do your research. Go find the BBC video segment; then you can talk about Griffin’s work. The rest of your “review” is equally sloppy and inaccurate. If I find the time, I’ll come back and talk about the rest.
You are gullible is all I can say…for all practical purposes you seem to imply that that you accept the 9/11 commission report as being wholly 100% the whole,entire truth,and nothing but the truth. You seem fit to attack and to criticize David Ray Griffin because he disagrees with,and he questions the 9/11 commission report. You just don’t seem to like it at all when other people disagree and question the report. That seems to upset you,and it upsets you so much,that you took the time to write your article. David Ray Griffin is a Professor of Theology.He teaches Theology. He isn’t an Engineer,He isn’t a Structural Building Engineer,He isn’t an Airline Pilot or a Bomb Expert…He is simply a person who disagrees with the report as it is, and he questions it…who the hell said you have to be an expert on 9/11 and you have to be connected to it in some type of professional related field of expertise before you can question it??…who the **** said that?? …why can’t ordinary private citizens question,and scrutinize and criticize the 9/11 report….why???…I want to know..Who te **** died and left you in charge and gave you the power and the god given authority to decide who is able to criticise and question the report and who isn’t able….I don’t recall anyone putting you in any such position or giving you any such type of authority. Your article,just like the towers were after the attacks,is full of holes. Too bad you were not on one of those two planes that hit the towers that day,then you and your article could have been blown out the windows along with the rest of the victims that day.
I have to say that I’m glad to see a logical breakdown of one of the conspiracy theories. Clearly, some of the previous commenters haven’t had a class in logic as they would then understand that you were pointing out the logical fallacies of the book.
Although your article is written well and sounds nice, it doesn’t really say anything to “debunk” anything. Either (1) you have yet to look at all the facts, (2) you are not as intellegent as you sound, or (3) you have some other agenda than the truth.
One more question. Have you actually read the entire book? I ask because many people seem to explain away a few topics (found at the beginning of the book) as if though all the facts can be explained away as such. This is simply NOT the case. The New Pearl Harbor presents even more hard facts. I have yet to find anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence that can look at ALL the facts of this subject and continue to refer to all this as some silly conspiracy theory. It seems as if the hardest thing to do is to actually get people to look at the facts, ALL OF THEM. They CANNOT be explained away by any stretch of the imagination. I think that’s why Operation Northwoods is always presented, so that people will at least understand that this entire idea is not impossible, as many people seem to assume. Like I said, if someone looks at ALL the facts and continues to write articles such as this one (that sound nice but don’t say much) that person’s agenda is clearly not the truth.
Anyone who doesn’t know that 9/11 is a fraud probably doesn’t WANT to know.
The review seems to attack Griffin’s presumption, rather than the arguments of his book.
Griffin says quite clearly alternative theories should be considered only when they match the physical evidence. The theory that space aliens did it does not warrant examination.
The 9/11 Commission Report is contradicted by the following:
1. physical evidence, videos, eyewitness reports, expert testimony
2. reports in mainstream media
3. testimony to the Commission itself
4. statements made by Cheney, Clarke, Minetta and others within the government
5. itself. There are internal contradictions within the Report, for example the ability of Hani Hanjour to fly Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
Did Bush do 9/11? Griffin doesn’t prove that.
Is the government lying about 9/11? That is conclusively proven by this book.
Pay Day Loans Low Fees…
Short term finance small loans unrifled short term finance small loans pay day loans lilting pay day loans….
“In actuality, the Commission Report presents a well-reasoned and highly factual account which would be extremely difficult to criticize without the use of sophistry to break down its authority.”
In light of the following comment by Commission member Thomas Kean-
“Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advance an account of 9/11 that was untrue.”
how do you reconcile your statement above? Many of us who were cogent enough to deduce that the facts and the timelines did not coincide with the official account never assumed for an instant that something was “highly factual” absent the presentation of evidence and supporting testimony.
You did and on that basis you disparaged a man whose sole contention was, the official story appears to be false. We do not know what happened, nor who was behind it absent the provable and factual. When those entrusted with our security and trust are found to be liars and dissemblers, what are we to assume? Where are we to go?