It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

25 Intolerable Contradictions: The Final Undoing of the Official 9/11 Story

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I admire David Ray Griffin's work regarding 9/11. This is a review of his latest book.




At last there is a book about 9/11 that politicians and journalists can openly discuss without fear of being labeled "conspiracy theorists".

9/11 Contradictions advances no theories. It simply exposes 25 astonishing internal contradictions that will haunt the public story of this unparalleled event for all time.

Until now, the persistent and disturbing questions about the day that changed the world have confused and alienated journalists and politicians, because:


The technical issues regarding the collapse of the towers, the failure of the military to intercept the flights, and the relatively minor damage to the Pentagon have been considered too complex for analysis in the media.
However, Griffin’s new book requires no technical expertise from the reader, because each readable chapter revolves around one simple internal contradiction inherent in the public story. "If Jones says ‘P’ and Smith says ‘Not P’, we can all recognize that something must be wrong, because both statements cannot be true."

Many who have doubted the official story have offered alternative theories which have been dismissed as "conspiracy theories" by a press which must understandably place a high value on its credibility.
However, this book offers no alternative theories to explain the contradictions within the public story. It simply presents the glaring contradictions that have never been probed by Congress or the media, and beseeches members of these institutions come to grips with the reality and lead the charge for a truly independent investigation.

The 9/11 issue is six years old, journalists are busy people, and the world has moved on.
Though six years have passed, this matter is by no means closed, nor is the trail cold. "The accepted story about 9/11 has been used to increase military spending, justify wars, restrict civil liberties, and exalt the executive branch of the government." Indeed, this reviewer notes, the public story has recently been challenged in foreign forums (Japan Parliament, January 10, 2008, and at the European Parliament building in Brussels, February 26, 2008). The 9/11 Commissioners themselves have cast doubt on the credibility of the Commission Report in their January 2, 2008 New York Times article, "Stonewalled by the CIA." (Ref. www.nytimes.com...)





Let us now turn to the contradictions. But first, to quote Professor Griffin:

"Within the philosophy of science, there are two basic criteria for discriminating between good and bad theories. First, a theory should not be inconsistent with any of the relevant facts....Second, it must be self-consistent, devoid of any internal contradictions. If a theory contains an internal contradiction, it is an unacceptable theory."

Unacceptable, for example, is the following internal contradiction, quoted from the chapter summaries that have been helpfully provided at the end of the book interested investigative journalists and members of Congress:

With regard to the identity of the plane spotted over the White House around the time of the Pentagon strike: The military’s denial that it was a military plane is contradicted by CNN footage of the plane’s flight, which showed, as former military officers have agreed, that it was an Air Force E-4B.

[Reviewer’s note: "The E-4B serves as the National Airborne Operations Center for the president, secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff or JCS." Cited from a current US Air Force factsheet at www.af.mil...]

In his 2004 "The New Pearl Harbor", Griffin had already noted that the Standard Operating Procedures regarding flight interceptions had been inexplicably dropped on September 11th. This reviewer deduces that because a complex network of defense systems could not have been fully disabled without coordination from a senior military level, it was logical for Dr. Griffin to open the current volume by asking questions that the 9/11 Commission failed to ask: what were President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and General Richard B. Myers, Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doing that morning? In each case, inexplicable contradictions emerged in the reports of their whereabouts, and the same applied to Vice President Dick Cheney. None of these public officials were questioned under oath, and now it is abundantly clear that the contradictions surrounding them must be laid to rest in by a thorough and rigorous investigation.

In Part II, Griffin carefully tracks the disparities in the reported times at which the military was notified about the erratic behaviors of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. In each case, the striking contradictions he unearths are shown to require a serious investigation into how this over-arching failure actually did happen, and---this reviewer suggests---what connection it may have had to the unprecedented military air drills that were progressing throughout the attacks.

In Part III, probing questions regarding the pre-9/11 tastes and habits of the alleged hijackers are closely pursued through early press reports, with the confounding revelation that they had taken up Western sexual and drinking practices, and could certainly not be characterized as devout Muslims ready to meet their maker. The contradictions revealed in the investigation of cell phone and airphone reports of their actions on the planes is nothing short of brilliant, negating the entire phenomenon of the aggregate onboard myth.

Finally, Part IV deals with the towers themselves, including advance knowledge of their collapses, and the extraordinary oral testimonies of dozens of firefighters who reported, for example, massive explosions in the sub-basements of the buildings: a 50-ton hydraulic press reduced to rubble; a 300-lb. steel door wrinkled up like a strip of aluminum foil.

It is interesting to note that Dr. Griffin has become a virtual one-man clearinghouse for the vast accumulation of research that has been done on this world-changing event. It now appears highly likely that his neutral approach to this impressive body of evidence will be the axe that finally splits the issue open. Each one of the 25 carefully researched contradictions represents a crumbling brick in the official facade that shields the world from the unknown underlying




posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I like the approach of this book. While many of us offer different theories on 9/11 there are certain undeniable contradictions with the official story.

Ofcourse we here on ATS are more conspiracy oriented and that is perfectly fine by me!


But we need to approach this subject in a way that will not frighten your average citizen. Just point out the facts and ask or insist on a new investigation which will address all of our issues.

We simply want the perpetrators of this crime to face justice. It is as simple as that!



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Leo, I ask you to read Ryan Mackey's white paper that destroy's Mr. Griffins book. Then write to Mr. Griffin and ask him why he has been unable to refute it. ( he was given a copy months ago.)

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

[edit on 19-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Leo, I ask you to read Ryan Mackey's white paper that destroy's Mr. Griffins book. Then write to Mr. Griffin and ask him why he has been unable to refute it. ( he was given a copy months ago.)

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

[edit on 19-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]


Nothing at the link.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by zerocd
 
I guess that settles that. The page could not be found. So I'm guessing there is no paper destroying Griffins work. I'd still like to know how a one hundred ton aircraft could be vaporized, and yet, dna was able to be extracted. Doesn't seem plausible to me.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by zerocd
 


zerocd,

I checked, and the links were broken for me as well. However I was able to find the documents he was talking about at that site.

Try these links:

PDF version:: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Doc version: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Hope those work for you...


[edit on 19-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Nothing has done anything to affect the FACTS that Griffen exposes. Ryan is a total fool and parrot of the Neocon perps and is an attention drone.

There is and never will be any refutation of the hard and cold facts that surround this event. The poster with that obnoxious and aggravating yammering mouth icon under his name is always making grand and sweeping claims that have no substance. Griffen tells us about FACTS. Irrefutable facts. There is only the state of denial that exists for the majority of people who swallow the official lie...and the purposeful tales told by shills to obfuscate and stall the truth.

That 9-11 was an inside job is a given..assumed correctly as truth. Only those who would deny hundreds of odds shattering ' inexplicable anomalies ' as meaningless can support the official fairy tale. Griffen is a scholar of reknown who has researched and studied and written authoritative books detailing the facts involved...who are these people who close their eyes and swallow blindly all that the Bush cabal shovels down their throats? Why should their reasonless mutterings distract us from the pursuit of truth?

1. People in denial.

2. People who agree with the perps intentions for monetary gain or philosophical agreement.

Those are the ONLY two categories that make any sense. No one can deny the evidence that screams that it was an inside job. All that they can do is to distort and twist and muddy the waters with false claims and silly imaginings so real progress is stalled.

Some people are more than capable of understanding the simple and plain truth; all we have to do is present the facts clearly and the mere odds ...the simple ODDS alone will sway anyone on the fence. It is so far beyond ridiculous to accept odds that are beyond the pale.....astronomical by any standard...and the oficial story drones always do the same thing: They treat outrageous odds as if they were actually quite possible and even probable!! That calls for gaul..nerve of the most blatant kind...the kind of denial that slaps you in the face as an insult to your intelligence and the facts.

It is calling black white and up down. It is denial of the most accepted and basic laws of reason, logic and common sense so that an unfounded and totally unproven assumption may be foisted upon the uneducated and unwary. Sad to say, the vast majority of Americans are brain
dead when current events and important and life changing matters are involved. However, if you could sit the average American down and turn off the TV and get his attention focused, it would be very easy to get his attention and his acceptance of the facts.

The MEDIA is complicit and criminally negligent. It is their fault to a huge degree that we are in the fix we are in: A Neocon NWO cabal has taken control of the US government, all branches, my murder and intimidation and much more. All provable. All factual. If one goes to the Patriotsquestion911.com site and reads the scores of extremely well placed people, many professional soldiers at high ranks and engineers and pilots..etc. etc., if you can walk away still accepting the official story than either you have lost all ability to rationally distinguish reality from fantasy and cannot properly judge evidence and form conclusions. no way.

At some point we must all boil it down; isolate the issues into their prime categories and make anyone that claims that the official story is true to provide some evidence beyond the nonsense offered by the coverup artists that we have seen so far. For some reason we are always asked to TRUST the perps when they say that they have no need to compare serial numbers because ' we know what happened ". There is NO hard evidence that gives us reason to believe the official lie. None. ALL of the CRITICAL, necessary and telling evidence is either destroyed intentionally or denied as existing by the perps.

What does it take? Only the facts unobstructed by nonsense and twisting of the facts. Griffen does a great service by doing it this way: It gives the drones NO wiggle rom; they cannot accuse Griffen of doing anything more than stating facts...and that is what the official story drones fear above all: The unvarnished facts presented alone. It takes about one minute to figure out that the official story is a lie, and a bad one. Only an uneducated public and a complicit press can account for what we see today. No other way. So ignore the people who claim to shred Griffen: If you read the facts there is only ONE conclusion. Inside job.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



Trying not to disrupt this thread but here is a snippet of Mackey's paper.


Their [Bazant's] calculations show to my satisfaction that if a single floor (at or below roughly the 98th floor) were to be destroyed, even if the rest of the structure was totally undamaged, we would expect a total collapse of the entire structure.


Funny how NIST doesn't think so. They say that a single floor could hold 11 floors worth of weight and 6 floors worth of dynamic load. So, one floor failing wouldn't do squat.

So, how does this "safety engineer" think that a single floor being destroyed could cause an expected total collapse?

BTW. Notice how he states "the entire structure".

Well, people survived in the core of WTC 2, so therefore the statement of "the entire structure" would be erroneous. Because it didn't happen.

And that's just the first paragraph I read.


[edit on 3/19/2008 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Mackey.....
Dr Griffin doesnt need to justify his argument to this guy...

Try this on

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I have yet to get an explanation of this photo - anyone care to take a crack at it?

farm4.static.flickr.com...

By the way - before the next smart uneducated comment. Those two six ton engines impacted at over 500mph.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by KMFNWO]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
^^Dont know if you've ever seen this shot before, but it is a contradiction all itself, just look at it closely.

hidebehind.com...

Yep, 250 000lbs of jet and fuel vaporised into that hole.



[edit on 19-3-2008 by Retikx]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Retikx
 
You must have missed it, Yes the jet crashed through that very small hole only, to punch a tidy hole through the C ring in almost a perfect circle. All this from a 'Vaporised passenger jet" and yet they (the authorities) found enough body parts to indentify almost all of the passengers on the flight. Well, to me it's implausible, but, that's just me.

I didn't go to college, but I can honestly say, I have good common sense, and nothing I've seen and read about the official story of 9/11 makes sense to this non educated schmuk.

Thank you believers, but my common sense tells me that the official story is bunk. Like it or not, The official story is nothing more than fiction, made so that we bow down to the "elite" and give up our rights so that the "elite can take over easier than even THEY thought they would be able to.

Do I have proof? nope, but you have NO PROOF that the official government story is true, unless it comes from the government. Yep, I'll believe that, about as far as I can chuck them. At least Bush and Cheney got the price of oil to record high prices, before they are done, IF they are done.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO
I have yet to get an explanation of this photo - anyone care to take a crack at it?

farm4.static.flickr.com...


Sure, your photo sucks.

The plane is drawn in the wrong position. It's too high.

Look at the damage below where the plane is drawn in........ Don't you think that perhaps THIS is where the plane hit?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


If the plane was any lower, it would have hit the cable spools, and the jet wash would have tossed them out onto the highway.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Thanks for stating the obvious - no seriously - I figured the average educated person could have figured that one out, but no, someone had to point it out because the best that anyone could come up with is "your photo sucks"


Thanks Jack



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Here's something else I have been thinking about regarding Flight 77. Why didn't the wings get shorn off when they hit the light poles? I mean, those things aren't as small and lightweight as they look in pictures. They're big, heavy, bolted into concrete pilings sunk into the ground, and desigend to withstand powerful forces. Think about what a telephone pole does to a car, and a phone pole is not even designed to be as strong or durable as those light poles.

Even if it they didn't rip the wings off, shouldn't they have at least thrown the plane off-course, like we see in mid-air collisions?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


If the plane was any lower, it would have hit the cable spools, and the jet wash would have tossed them out onto the highway.



And I say they wouldn't have hit the spools.

I also say the spools are too heavy to be thrown by jet wash.

See how that works? Not too well when one makes assertions, eh?

If you disagree with the damage below being made by the plane, a better discussion topic would be to say something like.... "no, I disagree, it was made by xxxxx, and here's why." Or," i have a more probable explanation. it goes like this...."

Try that if you wish to continue.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO

I figured the average educated person could have figured that one out,


So this explains why you had to ask in the first place?

Just curious....



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Here's something else I have been thinking about regarding Flight 77. Why didn't the wings get shorn off when they hit the light poles? I mean, those things aren't as small and lightweight as they look in pictures. They're big, heavy, bolted into concrete pilings sunk into the ground, and desigend to withstand powerful forces. Think about what a telephone pole does to a car, and a phone pole is not even designed to be as strong or durable as those light poles.

Even if it they didn't rip the wings off, shouldn't they have at least thrown the plane off-course, like we see in mid-air collisions?


there's a program to replace solid light poles with ones that have breakaway bases when they're placed in a place where cars could hit them. These were like that.

A pole is gonna throw a 150 ton plane off course whenit's doing 500 mph? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Whodunnit
 


Alright smart guy - where did the 2 6 ton engines impact the building at 500 mph?

Inquiring minds want to know.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join