Exposing More David Ray Griffin Lies 2

     Continuing from my previous article, here are some more of David Ray Griffin’s lies exposed.  Again, unless otherwise indicated, all of Griffin quotes ( which I found at 911myths.com) are from Griffin’s book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.”

     Claim 5, from page 265: “After the 1999-2000 millennium alert, … Clarke held a meeting of his Counterterrorism Security Group devoted largely to the possibility of a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda… [T]he possibility was imaginable, and imagined”  (source )

     Readers will notice that Griffin is rather vague here and doesn’t describe the type of aircraft or where the hijacked plane would go.  However, here is the full quote in context from page 345 of the 9/11 Commission Report from 911myths.com: “In late 1999, a great deal of discussion took place in the media about the crash off the coast of Massachusetts of EgyptAir Flight 990, a Boeing 767. The most plausible explanation that emerged was that one of the pilots had gone berserk, seized the controls, and flown the aircraft into the sea. After the 1999 — 2000 millennium alerts, when the nation had relaxed, Clarke held a meeting of his Counterterrorism Security Group devoted largely to the possibility of a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda.17

     In his testimony, Clarke commented that he thought that warning about the possibility of a suicide hijacking would have been just one more speculative theory among many…” As you can see, while it was discussing a possible suicide hijacking, specifics were lacking ( source ).

     Claim 6 from page 265: “In early August 1999, the FAA’s Civil Aviation Security intelligence office summarized the Bin Laden hijacking threat… [T]he paper identified a few principal scenarios, one of which was a ‘suicide hijacking operation’” ( reference )

     Of course, in typical “truther” fashion, Griffin is engaging in quote mining.  Here is the quote in its proper context provided by 911myths.com: ““In early August 1999, the FAA’s Civil Aviation Security intelligence office summarized the Bin Laden hijacking threat. After a solid recitation of all the information available on this topic, the paper identified a few principal scenarios, one of which was a “suicide hijacking operation.”The FAA analysts judged such an operation unlikely, because “it does not offer an opportunity for dialogue to achieve the key goal of obtaining Rahman and other key captive extremists. . . . A suicide hijacking is assessed to be an option of last resort.”   As you can see, despite Griffin’s claim to the contrary, this actually bolsters NORAD’s statements

     Claim 7, from page 265, “A CIA report on June 12, 2001, said that KSM “was recruiting people to travel to the United States to meet with colleagues already there so that they might conduct terrorist attacks on Bin Laden’s behalf. On June 22, the CIA notified all its station chiefs about intelligence suggesting a possible al Qaeda suicide attack on a US target over the next few days.” (source )

     Anyone with an ounce of logic would realize this is pretty flimsy evidence-  where is the mention of hijackings?  Furthermore, those increased threat reports were NOT limited to the United States.  The G8 summit in Genoa, Italy was also a possibility (reference ).

     Claim 8 from pages 265-266, “In late June [2001], because of threats, Italy closed the airspace over Genoa and mounted antiaircraft batteries at the Genoa airport during the G-8 summit which President Bush attended” (258). We learn elsewhere that the Italians kept fighters in the air over the city, and that the threat was taken so seriously that Bush stayed overnight offshore, on an aircraft carrier. Although this example, like the first one, is about a threat in Europe, not the United States, it obviously counts against the thesis that there was a “failure of imagination” with regard to the possibility that terrorists might try to use airplanes to attack President Bush. (Another puzzling thing about this example is that the Commission, in mentioning that “antiaircraft batteries” had to be mounted at the Genoa airport, failed to point out that the White House and the Pentagon already have their own antiaircraft batteries, which would shoot down any aircraft except one with a transponder signal indicating that it belongs to the US military.)” (reference)

     Once again, the threat was not necessarily in the United States or about hijackings. In addition, Italian officials stated that the anti-aircraft batteries were meant to deter a small plane, not a commercial jetliner, plus there are other problems. While Bush did stay on the carrier overnight-  and it would not be unreasonable to assume that he did so to reduce his exposure to possible terrorist attacks, there’s no evidence that threats from the air were the specific reason. Terrorist attacks can come from many directions, plus other leaders, such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia also stayed offshore. (source )

Last but not least, claim 9, from page 266, “On August 6, 2001, the Presidential Daily Brief included an intelligence memo stating, amongst other things, that “[one threat report said] that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft… FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks… CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives” (reference )

     First, as we see here, the PDB memo was nothing more than a status report and, if you’ll pardon my language, a rather half-assed one at that.

Second, the hijacking report was an old one from 1998 ( hmm, once again, when CLINTON was president), and couldn’t be corroborated ( source ).

     This quote from page 262 of the 9/11 Commission Report further shoots down Griffin’s claim: “Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”  As you can see, it was a rather vague description and could describe just about any type of terrorist activity (reference ).

      Clearly, the only omissions and distortions are from David Ray Griffin.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: