The New Pearl Harbor : a great book about 9/11

[Slashead]

A philosopher at the Claremont School of Theology, David Ray Griffin scrutinizes the time line and physical evidence of September 11 for unresolved inconsistencies. Griffin draws heavily on three similarly skeptical examinations, by Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson and Thierry Meyssan, whose The Big Lie was a bestseller in France, and which the New Republic has called "thin??"and thinly argued." Based on these sources, Griffin maintains that a full investigation of the events of that tragic day is necessary to answer such questions as whether American Airlines Flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon (though many will find it impossible to doubt this) and how United Airlines Flight 93 was downed. He claims that if standard procedures for scrambling fighter jets had been followed, the hijacked planes should have been intercepted in time, and that structurally, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers most likely was caused by explosives placed throughout the towers, not from the plane crashes. He strongly implies that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attack and sought to conceal what Griffin suggests was the Pakistani intelligence agency's involvement in the planning for the attacks. His analysis is undergirded by the theory that a significant external threat, on the scale of Pearl Harbor, was very much in the interest of the Bush administration, which he believes is intent on self-interested aggressive foreign policies. Even many Bush opponents will find these charges ridiculous, though conspiracy theorists may be haunted by the suspicion that we know less than we think we do about that fateful day.

This is a great book. Which are your favorite books about 9/11 ?

[Slashead]

The New Pear Harbor by David R. Griffin was released in English in 2004 but it has only been translated in French a couple of months ago, that's why I'm talking about it. Richard Falk, Rosemary Ruether, and Howard Zinn have lent their names to the book.
Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon is very interesting too. Other authors as Barry Zwicker, Michel Chossudovsky, Peter Franssen or Michel Bounan (Logique du terrorisme, not sure if it has been translated in English) have been questioning the official version about 9/11. Their arguments are worth considering.

[Charity Case]

Stupidity really.   It's straight up moronic to not only think Bush had knowledge of the attacks before hand, but to also think he wanted it to happen.  Sometimes people have nothing better to do than to come up with moron conspiracy theories.  Even Michael Moore would have a hard time believing the Bush administration was actually behind the 9/11 attacks.

Get a new book dude.

[Slashead]

Stupidity really.? ?It's straight up moronic to not only think Bush had knowledge of the attacks before hand, but to also think he wanted it to happen.? Sometimes people have nothing better to do than to come up with moron conspiracy theories.? Even Michael Moore would have a hard time believing the Bush administration was actually behind the 9/11 attacks.

Get a new book dude.

Most of people who criticize Griffin's or Ruppert's theories haven't even read the books...

It wouldn't be the first time that State conspiracy happens : Oklahoma 1995. Gore Vidal isn't stupid, is he ? The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh: http://www.geocities.com/gorevidal3000/tim.htm

And in 1941, Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, but he did nothing.

[COMAMOTIVE]

Never quite understood how everyone and their mother refers to Bush as stupid and clueless, yet in the same breath claims this guy devised a plan like this to bring down the towers and also that he blew the levees in N.O.

Use your head people - you start spouting this crap and the real things to take issue with Bush on, get clouded by this nonsense

[Slashead]

Never quite understood how everyone and their mother refers to Bush as stupid and clueless, yet in the same breath claims this guy devised a plan like this to bring down the towers and also that he blew the levees in N.O.

Bush is just a puppet. Other people hold power, no matter who is in the White House.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Stupidity really.? ?It's straight up moronic to not only think Bush had knowledge of the attacks before hand, but to also think he wanted it to happen.? Sometimes people have nothing better to do than to come up with moron conspiracy theories.? Even Michael Moore would have a hard time believing the Bush administration was actually behind the 9/11 attacks.

Get a new book dude.

Most of people who criticize Griffin's or Ruppert's theories haven't even read the books...

It wouldn't be the first time that State conspiracy happens : Oklahoma 1995. Gore Vidal isn't stupid, is he ? The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh: http://www.geocities.com/gorevidal3000/tim.htm

And in 1941, Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, but he did nothing.

Yea, we know.  Every time a tragedy happens, morons like you blame whomever is in office.  Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe America isn't completely safe and secure and bad things can happen here like they do all over the world every day of the week.  McVeigh was a member of the National Alliance and god his idea from the book "The Turner Diaries."   Roosevelt had information that the Japanese may attack, but didn't know where.  It was anticipated it would occur at our bases in the Phillipines close to Japan.  We moved all of our aircraft together at Pearl Harbor to minimize an open attack -- they just didn't think that one through.  And now we have Islam Extremist who hi-jacked planes and flew them into buildings.  All the evidence and PROOF is there to support that.  All you provide is what ifs and shady information and draw a conclusion from that, without a single shred of proof.  Don't you think that if 9/11 was an inside job someone would have spilled the beans?  The all powerful American government couldn't hide he Cuban-Missle Crisis, it couldn't hide Watergate, it couldn't hide Iran-Contra, it couldn't hide Lewinsky and it can't hide Foley, yet 9/11 the most elaborate and terrorist attack ever  is being hidden my members of our governement.   And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

[mrlee]

Never quite understood how everyone and their mother refers to Bush as stupid and clueless, yet in the same breath claims this guy devised a plan like this to bring down the towers and also that he blew the levees in N.O.

Bush is just a puppet. Other people hold power, no matter who is in the White House.

Are they called the patriots XD

[-Jack-]

Never quite understood how everyone and their mother refers to Bush as stupid and clueless, yet in the same breath claims this guy devised a plan like this to bring down the towers and also that he blew the levees in N.O.

Bush is just a puppet. Other people hold power, no matter who is in the White House.

Are they called the patriots XD

Lol is that a little MGS2 joke? 

[SLCPUNK]

Yea, we know.  Every time a tragedy happens, morons like you blame whomever is in office.

"Morons"

[Slashead]

McVeigh was a member of the National Alliance and god his idea from the book "The Turner Diaries."?

Several experts (Samuel Cohen, General Partin among others) demonstrated that McVeigh's truck wouldn't have been able to destroy the FBI building. There were bombs in the building. It means McVeigh wasn't alone. McVeigh is a new Oswald. Gore Vidal : "The FBI not only knew about the plot, it was involved in it. Having infiltrated the rightwing militia group that planned it, it did nothing because it wanted to pressure President Clinton into pushing through draconian anti-terrorist legislation he was refusing to sign. "Within a week of the bombing, Clinton signed it for 'the protection of the state and of persons', using the exact language that Adolf Hitler used after the Reichstag fire of 1933."
The FBI did nothing to find the people who 'helped' McVeigh. McVeigh was the only person sentenced.

Roosevelt had information that the Japanese may attack, but didn't know where.? It was anticipated it would occur at our bases in the Phillipines close to Japan.? We moved all of our aircraft together at Pearl Harbor to minimize an open attack -- they just didn't think that one through.?

You're wrong. Please read John Toland's Infamy : Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath , Doubleday, 1982. In 1939, the entourage of president Roosevelt openly wished the entry in war of the United States at the sides of England to channel a plethoric American industry towards the effort of war and with a more remote aim to prepare an immense Asian market in the USA. But he also had to spare a frankly isolationist public opinion. On November 26, 1941, he addressed to the Japanese government an incredible ultimatum requiring "the immediate withdrawal of all the Japanese troops of Mandchourie and Indo-China". Japan was driven back with the war and on December 7, the American military base of Pearl Harbour was attacked by Japanese aviation without declaration of war and without the officers of the base being warned. This "terrorist" attack upset the opinion and determined the entry of the United States in the Second World war. The brain trust had its war.

Some questions were put afterwards. Why Pearl Harbor was so badly defended whereas in January 1941, J Grew, ambassador from the United States in Tokyo, had announced, in a letter to Roosevelt that Pearl Harbor would be the first target in case of a Japanese attack ? This warning to Roosevelt was repeated in August 1941 by Dies, a member of Congress. The Japanese secret code was known for a long time by American secret service as well as several allies, and the Dutch admiral Helfrich, inter alia, had warned Washington of the attack. But the commanders of Pearl Harbour, them, had not been informed by it. The night preceding the Japanese aggression, Roosevelt had joined together some graded at the White House to await the "surprise" attack and, a few days later, he required of a half-dozen of officers absolute silence on this secrecy of State: "Gentlemen, this goes to the tomb with us."
There was however an investigation, but according to the historian John Toland, "the witnesses' depositions changed under various pressures, or the files were destroyed or 'lost', or the key figures of the government 'forgot' where they had been,? what they had said and what they had done preceding the crucial hours the attack ". The Japanese aggression made possible the Roosevelt government to involve the United States in the Second World war. And the American large-scale industries (General Motors, ITT, Standard Oil, Ford, etc), after having largely contributed to the effort of war Nazi which was going to destroy Europe, were engaged in a world war during which the victory would belong without surprise to the country whose industrial production was most dynamic. And this war opened to the United States not only the Asian market coveted by Roosevelt, but also that of bloodless Europe.

I'll answer you about September 11th a little bit later.

[Slashead]

Today the world situation is different. The opening of new markets is not any more the only stake in the big industrial groups; but above all the energy necessary to put on the production itself. The search for new oil-fields to cover a demand increased in all the countries, the immense reserves of the Arabic countries, and the possibility of forwarding this energy through controlled zones, are henceforth the object of latent conflicts between the United States decided to sit their hegemony in this crucial domain, and the other industrial nations of Europe and Asia. To seize such reserves at the cost of the rest of the world requires an absolute military ascendancy and at first a considerable increase of the budget of the Defence, the measures that the American population was, recently even, at all inclined to confirm. But, as noted it Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential designers of the American foreign policy and which recommended from 1997 the military occupation of Central Asia: " the search for the power does not lift spontaneously the passions of the people, except when the people feel abruptly threatened "(The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic).? He supported even the perspective as, to impose these measures, would be needed a " new Pearl Harbour " (op. cit.). On January 11th, 2001, the Rumsfeld committee, asked to defend the project of a " antimissile American shield ", still evoked the idea that one " Spatial Pearl Harbour, so to speak, will constitute the event which will pull the nation of its lethargy and will push the American government to the action ".

On September 11th, 2001 in the morning, four American civil liners are hijacked by terrorists. Two of the devices crash on the two biggest towers of Manhattan. Buildings collapse one after the other, entailing the death of several thousand persons. The third device would have collided a wing almost closed down of the Pentagon, the fourth finally crashes in the campaign. The attack of Manhattan, filmed by the American television, is broadcast all over the world: the fire, the collapse of the towers, bodies precipitated down from high rises, ripped, carbonized.
The national and international emotion is obviously considerable.
Within hours which follow, and even before a board of inquiry was only able to be gathered, we learn that the operation was led by a commando group belonging to an international terrorist network, Al-Qaeda, animated by the Saudi billionaire Ben Laden. The former Minister Henry Kissinger requires then an immediate military answer, an answer " who will end in the same result as the one who followed Pearl Harbour's attack, destruction of the system responsible for this attack: a network of terrorist organizations which shelter in the capitals of certain countries " ( "Destroy the network", Washington Post, in September 11th, 2001).

In some days, the popularity of the American president passes from 55 % to 86 % in the polls. America is ready for the war. We know the continuation. At first the invasion of Afghanistan, accused of serving as base to the network Al-Qaeda and as refuge to his leader Ben Laden. Then the conquest of Iraq, after the American government had asserted to the world to hold the proof which this State held " massive weapons of destruction " and which it got ready to deliver them to international terrorist organizations. Finally different still vague threats against several "rogue States".
The numerous unlikelinesses and the incoherence of this history were already found by several authors (Chossudovsky, Franssen, etc.). Among the most remarkable:

1. In the attacks of Manhattan, pilots amateurs made a success of an exploit of precision of which few professional acrobats declare themselves capable. On the other hand, we know that such a precision can be easily obtained thanks to the said technology " global hawk ", finalized and held by the American defence, the technology which allows to take the control of a device in flight, and to operate it by remote control.

2. The passport of one of the terrorist pilots was found INTACT in the smoking ruins of both towers, allowing to identify him as well as his presumed accomplices.

3. In the week preceding the attacks, a lot of people had been warned of what got ready. The services of German, Egyptian, French, Israeli and Russian information, had alerted in vain their American homologues. Much more seriously, there were several "insider tradings" concerning the American airline companies involved in the attacks, as well as the companies tenants of the towers. Regrettably, the justice remained dumb on the identity of these "initiated". We can thus suppose that it was about particularly influential persons.

4. The financier of this operation was identified. It is the Pakistani general Mahmoud Ahmad (on his order, hundred thousand dollars had been transferred to the leader of the pirates, Mohammed Atta). In the week of the attempt, he had had particular conversations with the director of CIA, as well as with several senators and the American State Secretaries. Same morning of September 11th, 2001, he lunched in the Capitol with the president of the committee of information to the senate.

5. The invasion of Afghanistan did not allow the American army to seize the Saudi Bin Laden. It contented itself with Afghanistan. And the conquest of Iraq did not either allow to find these " weapons of destruction mass that the American government had promised to discover (not even these chemical weapons which the Americans had delivered to the Iraqi government and who had allowed to gas the Kurds). The lie besides appeared in full light when, before even the entrance of the English-American troops in Iraq, the purpose of the war was modified out of the blue and without explanation. It was a question this time of freeing Iraq of one of these effectively terrifying dictatorships, which practise the torture and the murder of his opponents, but which the United States protect all around the world where these slaughterers' regimes are useful ( Indonesia, Turkey, Colombia, Saint-Domingue, Haiti, Grenada, etc.). As for the criminal Iraqi chief of state, condemned by the UNO in 1986 and 1987 for his use of chemical weapons, he escaped the international penalties only thanks to the American government which opposed to it and which even increased its help to the exterminator of the Kurds.

6. Certainly, the Saudi Bin Laden practically recognized his "Islamist" responsibility in the attacks of September 11th, but which value to grant to his testimony as far as this character was bound himself to CIA for a very long time and as far as he still worked with its services in 1999 in Belgrade and in 2001 in Chechnya a little bit before the Manhattan attacks ? (cf Peter Franssen)


To conclude this story orderly and summarized by the Maffia terrorism, we can store its operations under diverse columns but what in a degree or in the other one we can find in certain cases of the current terrorism.? Political opponents wrongly accused of terrorism by means of proofs made by the police, in the manipulation of excited individuals and in the control of important terrorist groups, up to the military attacks intended to justify a war of expansion, all these forms of manipulation can be observed in the most recent cases. Maybe it will be objected that the examples, even numerous, of such manipulations, cannot be spread to the other terrorist operations for which it is difficult to establish this kind of connections. But the only fact that after an attack, neither the media nor the authorized specialists ever evoke these numerous examples and the hypothesis of a police manipulation makes suspect all their incidental speeches, and it is strange that these commentators do not feel it.

[zosobob6]

Never quite understood how everyone and their mother refers to Bush as stupid and clueless, yet in the same breath claims this guy devised a plan like this to bring down the towers and also that he blew the levees in N.O.

Bush is just a puppet. Other people hold power, no matter who is in the White House.

well said ? ?there are people who are higher than the president, probably the Bilderberg group?? thanks for the info on the book, i may i have to pick this one up




http://www.prisonplanet.com

[Slashead]

The war led by terrorism against his declared opponents is completely improbable. To be credible, this story would require trebly and simultaneously an excessive stupidity of the terrorists, an extravagant incompetence of the police, and a crazy irresponsibility of the media. This unlikeliness is such that it is impossible to admit that the terrorism is really what it claims to be.

[Slashead]

You may think these texts are quite anti-American...

You will soon see that states as Italy, France and Germany in the last century have used manipulated terrorists to serve their ends too...