Discrepancies

Excerpt from a long discussion: The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi.

David Ray Griffin responds: You suggest that all of the timeline discrepancies I have documented are "minor." Let's look at some of them.

As I mentioned earlier, the military had originally said that the FAA notified it about Flight 175 at 8:43, which was 20 minutes before the flight would strike the South Tower. But the 9/11 Commission claimed that this notification did not happen until 9:03, when the building was being struck. This 20-minute difference cannot be described as minor: It makes all the difference with regard to whether the military could have intercepted the flight.

Turning to the discrepancy about Flight 77: NORAD had said in 2001 that the notification from the FAA had come at 9:24. The 9/11 truth movement asked why, then, was the plane not intercepted before it struck the Pentagon at 9:38. The 9/11 Commission, agreeing that the 9:24 notification time "made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond," solved this problem by claiming that the military "never received notice that American 77 was hijacked." This claim, besides contradicting what NORAD had been saying for almost three years, also contradicted the aforementioned FAA memo sent to the Commission by the FAA -- which said that the FAA had actually notified the military long before 9:24. The Commission, besides simply ignoring this memo in its final report, also contradicted statements by the FBI and the Secret Service. The discrepancy cannot possibly be called minor.

The same is true of the discrepancy about Flight 93. The 9/11 Commission claimed that the military "first received a call about United 93 at 10:07," four minutes after it had crashed. But General Larry Arnold, the head of NORAD's Continental region, had testified that the military had been aware of the flight for over 20 minutes before it crashed. He and many other officials -- including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- even said that the military was tracking Flight 93 and was in position to shoot it down. Hardly a minor discrepancy, especially given the evidence that the military did shoot the plane down.

Comments

[Seb]

Okay, here's my fundamental gripe with the 9/11 Truth crew: if they are indeed right, where does that leave us? Exactly where we are today. What would be gained from their allegations being proven true? A bunch of evidence that the Bush administration is an imperialist cabal of murderous plutocrats & Millenial death-wishers.

...y'know, in addition to all that OTHER evidence we have that the Bush administration is an imperialist cabal of murderous plutocrats & Millenial death-wishers. If the concern is nailing their asses to the wall for war crimes & torture, why not run on the proof we already have? Why do we need to turn them into caricatured Bond villains and 9/11 into a Michael Bay movie?

[Jodi]

Sebb--I agree. Even if they are right, the Bush admin is already so evil and corrupt and no one has done anything...

[chakira]

What I find amazing is the persistence of 9/11 rumors in our society as a persistence of 9/11. For most of us the conversation is over, not in a bad way, but we have said what we wanted to say about 9/11. For some, the days after and the 9/11 conversation were too captivating to let go of. They think that it must continually reshape our politics in spite of all the facts. For instance, that many more people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan or even from poor decisions on healthcare, than died in these buildings. I think there is an element of location here-- this is an event and we can point to it. This element leads to the event's durability for people of small imaginations.

[MacCruiskeen]

You are missing - wilfully, I believe - the obvious point: While the US population has traditionally been indifferent (at best) to the foreigners killed and maimed by its government, it also has a vested interest in not being killed or maimed itself. This is what makes 9/11 different from any US invasion of any other country. That this is blindingly obvious is demonstrated by the fact that you (still) can't see it.

"Sebb--I agree. Even if they are right, the Bush admin is already so evil and corrupt and no one has done anything..."

You mean: No one (or nearly no-one) at the universities has done anything - except resist the obvious for seven years and more. See Chomsky on "The Bounds of the Expressible": the intellectual class has a vested interest in not biting the hand that feeds it. QED, repeatedly.

By contrast, the people whom Seb refers to so contemptuously as the "truth crew" are doing their best to do something, day in day out, while Seb and you continue to pour lazy scorn on their efforts.

[MacCruiskeen]

"What would be gained from their allegations being proven true? A bunch of evidence that the Bush administration is an imperialist cabal of murderous plutocrats & Millenial death-wishers."

No, nothing as ineffective as that. What would be in fact be gained from their allegations being proven true would be: (a) a bunch of evidence that the Bush administration connived in the mass murder ***of Americans***; (b) the removal of the Bush administration from power; (c) the jailing of many members of the Bush administration; (d) the discrediting of both the Republican and Democratic parties; (e) a complete loss of public confidence in the perfected Spectacle that is US party politics.

These are all very positive practical goals, and they are all very different things from any individual's trivial assertion that any other individual is "evil and corrupt".

[Seb]

Oh, I get it: that 9/11 was a massacre of AMERICANS, as opposed to some anonymous mass of brown-skinned heathens halfway across the planet, is what makes it so horrifying. Gotcha. Good to know white privilege still counts for something! Nevermind the fact that every US president since FDR could feasibly be charged with some combination of torture, illegal incursions, instigating coups, supporting death squads, aggressive wars, and generally wiping their ass with the Geneva Conventions. We'll let 'em get away with that. But that the Bush administration willfully murdered AMERICAN CITIZENS is so gloriously outrageous that these fiends will finally be brought to justice! This outrage will not stand!

***of Americans***

Give me a goddamned break.

By the way, Chomsky thinks the 9/11 truth movement is bunk for the same reasons I do.

[MacCruiskeen]

"Oh, I get it: that 9/11 was a massacre of AMERICANS, as opposed to some anonymous mass of brown-skinned heathens halfway across the planet, is what makes it so horrifying. Gotcha. Good to know white privilege still counts for something!"

What age are you, Seb? I ask because I had presumed, perhaps rashly, that you can read.

[MacCruiskeen]

"By the way, Chomsky thinks the 9/11 truth movement is bunk for the same reasons I do."

Precisely: because, like you, he knows next-to-nothing about it and takes very good care to ensure he learns nothing more.

One of the few things less impressive than an argument from authority is an argument from no-authority. But then we live in the early days of a New Age, or at least you do. In this New Age, truths don't matter.

Here's a short history of the Liberal Clerical Class's responses to "9/11 Truth", minus the insults:

2002: It can't possibly be true.

2004: It is not, in fact, true.

2006: If it is in fact true, then the burden of proof lies with you.

2008: OK, it might well be true - but it doesn't matter whether it's true or not.

No wonder the US ruling class feels it can do anything to its populace, with impunity.

[Seb]

You make a lot of assumptions about my income, vocation, and citizenship. "Liberal clerical class" I ain't, nor am I American.

A question: why exactly was this particular act of violence by the American gov't against its own people different from the many, MANY other acts of violence it's committed against the citizenry? Murdered trade unionists, the Peekskill riots, Orval Faubus, Eugene Connor, Kent State, the People's Park riots, the toll of the Vietnam war, the LAPD, the NYPD, the Battle of Seattle, and of course 250 years of slavery. You could reasonably argue that state-sanctioned violence against the people is an American tradition. What makes 9/11 any more monstrous & evil than any other aggressive act?

Also: assuming 9/11 WAS an inside job, it required the collusion of not only both parties, but every branch & tendril of the federal gov't and most state & municipal authorities (at least along the east coast). In other words, damn near every public official in the country is in the tank. Why do you have any faith that public guilt would be sufficient to dismiss & jail the administration and collapse the American power structure? If they're that evil & power-hungry, what other than armed revolt on a popular level could dismantle the corrupt gov't heirarchy?

I'm also curious to know what special, extra information 9/11 Truthers have access to that the rest of us don't which divides them, the Enlightened, from we who know next-to-nothing. Do we have to reach OT III before we're given The Information?

And I wonder why one has to be working specifically in tandem with the 9/11 Truth movement to be considered an effective agent against the corrupt, imperialist American administration. What about Amnesty International? The ICC? Lobbying the UN for punitive sanctions? What about attending Black Block antifa action? Some combination thereof? Or does none of this matter a whit if we still think "9/11 Truth" is a red herring, a materialist-Millenarian fantasy, or at least a useless distraction?

[sounder]

Seb wrote...

"A question: why exactly was this particular act of violence by the American gov't against its own people different from the many, MANY other acts of violence it's committed against the citizenry?"

The atrocities that you cite were done under the color of law, 9/11 was not. Now, wake the Fuck up, (said in a most kidding and friendly tone.)

[MacCruiskeen]

Sounder, thanks for taking the trouble to state the blindingly obvious. (It's a hard job, but somebody has to do it. QED, again again.) There are also the small facts that 9/11 claimed nearly 3,000 victims in a single day, that it served to justify the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts, and that it is still serving as a Universal Casus Belli in October 2008. Unlike, say, slavery or Kent State. (Blindingly obvious, again again.)

"Also: assuming 9/11 WAS an inside job, it required the collusion of not only both parties, but every branch & tendril of the federal gov't and most state & municipal authorities (at least along the east coast)."

Utter nonsense. Have you never heard of compartmentalisation? It required the fully-conscious collusion of very few people indeed. They just had to be sufficiently powerful & privileged, and about as ruthless as the Bush gang and the CIA. I wonder where such people might be found.

Finally, Seb: your last paragraph manages be to both a straw man and a red herring. If you cn persuade it to play a tune, maybe the Arts Council will give you a grant to take it on tour. Good luck.

[va]

The problem I have with Truthers is that everyone thinks you're nuts if you think Flight 93 was shot down.

Not that it matters whether it was or not, etc.

[va]

Oh. .everyone thinks you're nuts...because you sound like a Truther.

[Chris L]

I'm with Seb and Jodi.
There's bigger fish to fry, here.

Whether or not 9/11 was an inside job is patently unprovable. All there is at this point is speculation based on grainy video, a few garbled news reports, and some conflicting information from various sources. It was a pretty busy day, people probably spoke a little rashly at times. Any evidence that would show, beyond a shadow of a doubt (that is, beyond the reams of circumstantial evidence that has been collected), that the Bushies were involved has long since been destroyed. The trail has gone cold, my friends.

There's more than enough ACTUAL evidence to prove that the guys in power are criminals (ie. Iraq!), and one can get a hell of a lot further trying to prosecute someone for something that's documented. The truth movement is full of some very dedicated people who suffer from a serious case of tunnel vision. Focus on the big fish, folks. You'll get further.

(Oh, and regarding the "Liberal Clerical Class' Responses", you may recall a quote that goes to the effect of "tell a big lie enough times and people will eventually accept it as truth." That line works on the 'official story', but by now it could fit just as well on the truth movement's story.)