Four Interpretations of 9/11 by David Ray Griffin (America, muslims, islam)

[greatcalgarian]

Do you have any additional interpretation other than the four listed by David Ray Griffin in his lecture delivered at the University of Wisconsin at Madison on April 18, 2005?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00129.htm

3. 9/11: Four Interpretations
If “American empire” is understood in different ways, the same is all the more true of the term “9/11.”
(1) For those Americans who accept the official interpretation, 9/11 was a surprise attack on the US government and its people by Islamic terrorists.
(2) For some Americans, “9/11” has a more complex meaning. This second group, while accepting the official interpretation of the attacks, thinks of 9/11 primarily as an event that was used opportunistically by the Bush administration to extend the American empire. This interpretation is effectively presented by writers such as Noam Chomsky, Rahul Mahajan, and Chalmers Johnson.[14]
(3) For a third group of Americans, the term “9/11” connotes an event with a more sinister dimension. These citizens believe that the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and intentionally let them happen. Although no national poll has been taken to ascertain how many Americans hold this view, a Zogby poll surprisingly indicated that almost half of the residents of New York City do.[15](4) According to a fourth view of 9/11, the attacks were not merely foreknown by the Bush administration; they were orchestrated by it. Although thus far no poll has tried to find out how many Americans hold this view, polls in Canada and Germany some time back indicated that this view was then held by 15 to 20 percent of their people.[16]

If you prefer to listen instead of reading his lecture, go to the following links:

David Ray Griffin in Madison, WI on 4/18/2005

As Broadcast on CSPAN's BookTV (hosted by 911busters.com):

• 162mb WMV
• 191mb MOV
• 59mb MP3

[Buttercup]

Oh greatcal.....you just crack me up with your conspiracy theories. But, there's something likeable about you just the same so sometimes I feel compelled to at least humor you a little.

I cannot vote in the poll because there is not an answer I find acceptable. While I think the Bush admin had some warning in the year prior to the event....I think basically 911 was a surprise.

No conspiracy theories haunt me my friend.

[RevOxley_501]

i voted number four, although it isnt exactly correct---instead of "the bush administration" it should say "the powers that be, of whom the bush administration is a part of"

[akshar]

Radical muslims resorted to killing all 'non-belivers'

[Shadow Wolf]

I said three, but I only feel that to an extent. I feel they had plenty of warnings, plenty of clues to know that something was definitly going to happen, but chose to ignore the warnings.

[Ryan2065]

I said 2... Er... I think that 2 meant "The attacks happened and Bush exploited them to fuel his war"...

[dbakerman76]

I said one because I'm not prone to believing conspiracy theories.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Oh greatcal.....you just crack me up with your conspiracy theories. But, there's something likeable about you just the same so sometimes I feel compelled to at least humor you a little.

I cannot vote in the poll because there is not an answer I find acceptable. While I think the Bush admin had some warning in the year prior to the event....I think basically 911 was a surprise.

No conspiracy theories haunt me my friend.

Thanks for participating. Please vote #1, I think this matches closest to what you described.

Conspiracy theory remains a theory until you are convinced that there is some evidence, then it becomes a conspiracy. Please read or listen to David's lecture, or Steven Jones' talk, and after that if you feel conspiracy theory does not warrant you to vote #2, then vote #1 with full confidence. Thanks.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by dbakerman76

I said one because I'm not prone to believing conspiracy theories.

My friend, do you realize that #1 is also a conspiracy theory? If you voted for #1, you are believing in conspiracy theory #1.

[greatcalgarian]

I think I should include critics of David Ray Griffin:
John Foster "Chip" Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American researcher specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the United States, particularly the religious right, white supremacists, homophobic groups, and paramilitary organizations. He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories in the mainstream media and on the Internet.
And links:
Critics of Griffin's thesis, such as Chip Berlet, say that many of the claims in the book are refutable.[4] Griffin has rejected these criticisms [5] and debated Berlet[6]. Other reviewers like Mike Williams claim to have found various problems [7][8].

The New Pearl Harbor
Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin

Review by Chip Berlet

This book by David Ray Griffin is largely a compilation and restatement of materials from a variety of print and electronic sources, as the author points out in his Introduction and Acknowledgments. Griffin抯 book reflects a relentless disregard of substantial evidence from multiple sources that contradict the claims he is making. Griffin repeatedly uses classic Fallacies of Logic in his presentation rendering whole sections of the book refutable on this basis alone. In this review, examples of fallacies of logic are highlighted with the phrase "{Logical Fallacy**," and linked to a more detailed discussion of the specific fallacies of logic at the bottom of the web page.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Po...us_claims.html
David's reply:
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Griffin1.html
And the great debate between this two guys:
http://www.democracynow.org/article....4/05/26/150221