Exposing More David Ray Griffin Lies

Now, it is time to expose some more of David Ray Griffin’s lies.

            David Ray Griffin does not consider the claim that NORaD didn’t recognize the threat of airliners as missiles to be valid.  Once again, 911myths.com provides a quote from his book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,”  “The contention that the threat really was not recognized was based partly on the fact that the Kean-Zelikow Report combined the second and third presumption into a single twofold presumption–that commercial airliners would not be (1) hijacked within the United States and then (2) used as guided missiles by suicide hijackers. Given the fact that both conditions would need to be met to have a counter-instance to Eberhart’s “no recognition” claim, the Kean-Zelikow Report can dismiss seeming counter-instances by pointing out that one or the other of the two conditions was not met. The Report mentioned, for example, a proposed readiness test for NORAD based on the idea of “a hijacked airliner coming from overseas and crashing into the Pentagon” (346). This example, by having the aircraft come from overseas, provided no refutation of the contention that no one had imagined a plane hijacked within the United States and then used to strike the Pentagon–the crucial difference being that if the plane were coming from overseas, there would be plenty of time to identify the aircraft and scramble interceptors.

However, even with the stipulation that both conditions would have to be met, there is considerable evidence that counts against the credibility of Eberhart’s claim. 

Some of this evidence is, surprisingly enough, provided by the Commission itself. I will list nine examples provided in the Kean-Zelikow Report that either clearly do, or at least may, contradict the Report’s endorsement of Eberhart’s “no recognition” claim.” Griffin implies that the plane from overseas hitting the Pentagon is the whole point of the exercise-  however, that particular scenario was scrapped as being too unrealistic ( source).

            Prior to 9/11, NORAD considered the main threat to be from cruise missiles. Aircrafts as weapons were considered a possibility in the late 1990’s ( hmm, I believe it was CLINTON who was president then) but they were concerned about aircraft laden with WMD’s, NOT passenger jets. In short, they are acknowledging that they were aware of the possibility of suicide hijackings but it was considered unlikely ( reference ).  Hmm, I believe it was CLINTON who was president in the late 1990’s.

            David Ray Griffin considers the fact that there are reports of the possibility of suicide hijackings, planes as weapons, or both to be “proof” that he is right.  However, those qualifications are rather broad. Furthermore, the military NEVER said they were unaware of said reports, as evidenced by this quote provided at 911myths.com: “Now, there were some talks about in post hijack situations where they talked to about people over the demands were made that they were going to crash, one instance, into the Eiffel Tower, but even the work that was done and the hijackings that were planned for the Philippines, which is a well-known plot, they planned to hijack the airplanes and blow them up primarily.

So, no, the threat perception, there was not — the intelligence did not point to this kind of threat, and I think that explains our posture.”

            9/11 Myths.com has some much more stringent qualifications than Griffin, and proceeds to show the problems with his 9 claims.  I will deal with the first four claims in this article. 

For your reference, all of Griffin’s quotes ( which I found at 911myths.com)   are from his book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” unless otherwise indicated.

            “First, we have this quote from page 264 “[A]n Algerian group hijacked an airliner in 1994, … possibly to crash it into the Eiffel tower” (345). The airplane was hijacked in Algiers. But since the distance from Algiers to Paris is less than the distance across the United States, there might have been less time to intercept it than is available to intercept a plane hijacked within this country. It would, therefore, not take much imagination to transfer the scenario to the United States” (source )

However, here is the FULL quote provided by 911myths.com: “an Algerian group hijacked an airliner in 1994, most likely intending to blow it up over Paris, but possibly to crash it into the Eiffel Tower.
9/11 Commission Report
Pages 344-348

Footnote #14 to Chapter 1:
…The Algerian hijackers had placed explosives in key areas of the cabin. However, there was some speculation in the media based on reports from a passenger aboard the plane that the hijackers had discussed crashing it into the Eiffel Tower”  (reference )

Note the phrase, “ MOST LIKELY INTEDNING TO BLOW IT UP OVER PARIS,”  and you’ll see that they only TALKED about crashing the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

            In point of fact, it was actually a hijacking that occurred on the ground and the plane stayed on the ground for a day.  When the plane finally did take off, it was with the regular flight crew at the controls.  In short, this was a conventional hijacking and comparing it to 9/11/01 is comparing apples to oranges ( reference ).

Second, there is this quote, also from page 264, “In early 1995, Abdul Hakim Murad-Ramzi Yousef’s accomplice in the Manila airlines bombing plot–told Philippine authorities that he and Yousef had discussed flying a plane into CIA headquarters” (345). It was, we saw, this plan that provided the basis for Wolfowitz’s “failure of imagination” comment.” (source )

However, while it does allow the possibility of suicide pilots, it does NOT necessarily have anything to do with hijackings or commercial airliners as weapons.  In point of fact, the aircraft in phase one were simply going to be blown up (reference ).

Claim three, from pages 264-265: “In August of [1998], the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the World Trade Center. (344-345). The Commission does not explicitly say that the plane would be hijacked from within the United States, but it also does not explicitly say otherwise.” (source )

However, here is the FULL sentence, “In August of the same year, the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the World Trade Center.” ( reference )

Notice there was no mention of the type of plane and here is another quote from 911myths.com that exposes David Ray Griffin for the fraud he is: “For the August report, see Intelligence report, “Terrorism: Alleged Threat by Arab Terrorists to Attack the World Trade Center in New York,” Aug. 12, 1998. An FAA civil aviation security official believed the plan was improbable because Libyan planes were required to operate within airspace limitations and the Libyans did not possess aircraft with the necessary range to make good on the threat. Jack S. interview (June 13, 2004). On September 30, 1999, the FAA closed the file on the August report after investigation could not corroborate the report, and the source’s credibility was deemed suspect.”   Notice the threat COULD NOT BE CORROBORATED.

Claim  four from page 265: “[Richard] Clarke had been concerned about the danger posed by aircraft since at least the 1996 Atlanta Olympics… In 1998, Clarke chaired an exercise [that] involved a scenario in which a group of terrorists commandeered a Learjet on the ground in Atlanta, loaded it with explosives, and flew it towards a target in Washington, D.C.” (345) The Commission elsewhere concluded the description of this exercise by saying that the terrorist group “took off for a suicide mission to Washington” (457-58 n98).”  ( source )

However, Griffin isn’t quite being honest here.  If you read the paragraph closely, you’ll see that it isn’t necessarily about a hijacking and it was a private aircraft laden with explosives that Clarke was concerned about. Furthermore, the Department of Defense was not inclined to offer resources, which makes it pretty obvious they thought that type of attack was highly unlikely. In addition, Richard Clarke himself said that since the reports were 5-6 years old, combined with the volumes of other reports that the intelligence community received, it is understandable they may have missed a few things ( reference ).

I will address claims 5-9 in the next article.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: