9/11 an inside US govt. job?

Noted theologian David Ray Griffin claims that there is plenty of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job led by the US Government. He’s written two books and gives lectures to overflowing crowds about this theory. I don’t believe it and it sounds outlandish and paranoid, of course. His “evidence” should be easy to refute (ex.s - none of the first responders at the Pentagon crash saw a plane or parts of a plane at the crash site and there are no pictures showing a plane. There are contradictions about whether the WTC had certain internal structures that should have prevented such a collapse, etc.). Griffin apparently has a lot of respected followers who support his theory. Why can’t I quickly find anything online proving him wrong?

Wow, I’ve never heard that one before. You can’t prove a negative, of course – but it seems unlikely to me that all the debris from the plane was placed there afterwards without anyone photographing it or reporting it. I’m sure that David Blaine would be impressed by the level of misdirection required to casually drop a palmed 757 engine and tons of other debris at the site.

Not to mention all the eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the building. I’d file this one under “too silly to spend any time on.”

I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for, or if I have the same conspiracy theory in mind, but there was the popular “Hunt The Boeing” website, which claimed there was no plane visible in the Pentagon crash site.

Here’s a Snopes debunking:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Yes, there’s a French guy claiming the US government was behind 9/11, too.

Sure, it’s a silly theory. But what’s bugging me is that the American guy, David Griffin, seems to be an articulate, reputable guy and I can’t find any wholistic refutations of his crazy ideas.

Here’s a Popular Mechanics article debunking the most common myths about 9/11

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

They don’t specifically address Griffin, but they do a pretty good job of breaking down some of the claims he’s made - such as the fact that the WTC supposedly could not have collapsed under the damage inflicted by the planes - in pretty decent detail.

There seems to be a conflation of two issues here. Whether 9/11 was an inside job? How was it carried out? The assumption among conspiracy theorists seems to be that if it was an inside job, the means would be different than what the accepted narrative of events is. But in order to answer the first and principal question, you’d need full access to all documents and administer some sort of ‘truth serum’ to the supposed conspirators. If it is an inside job, I doubt it would be carried out using US resources and personnel. So, Al-Qaeda did carry out the attacks and as reported. The pertinent line of inquiry is whether they acted with some assistance or on the prodding by some US interests?

The Wikipedia article about him is a good starting point for anyone who wants to go further. It seemed a good summary of the positions involved.

He “…makes it clear he has not verified the truth of all the premises of the researchers he cites…”

Boy, talk about your scientific method.
He’s a raving loon, of course, but it is a good starting point.

Because reputable scientists resent having to explain basic science, repeatedly, to a hostile audience, and because nobody believes that debunking a lunatic’s claims will have any effect on the level of following he (or she) receives.

If someone offered $100,000 for the best, most concise, most accurate debunking of a 9/11 conspiracy site, the non-crazy might be able to rival the effort put in by the crazy.

Or you could just search back on the SMDB and check out threads like [thread=273359]this[/thread] and [thread=236602]this[/thread].

The reason, by the way, that there is essentially no plane visible in the post-crash pictures of the Pentagon is that what parts of the plane that didn’t come apart like a cheap gold watch on impact are crammed up in the D and E wing sections of the Pentagon. Planes are mostly empty space, and as someone who has designed aerial work platforms to work on and around planes they’re treated quite delicately. They certainly aren’t going to survive a high speed crash intact. Just because you don’t see the bullet doesn’t mean you can’t infer from the bloody gaping wound that your mate just got show.

As for 9/11 being an inside job–is this guy the definition of batshit crazy or what? How exactly did the US government–the one that regularly fucks up in trying to overthrow Latin American nations and can’t even manage a medium sized war effectively–recruit and train 19 fanatics to sacrifice themselves but not leave a single piece of defintive evidence? This ranks up their with Holocaust Revisionism and Lysenkoism on the credibilty scale.

He, Art Bell, Bo Gritz, and Louis Farrakan need to get together, sort out exactly what it is they believe regarding the various goverment/New World Order/Zionism conspiracies, and call for the mothership to come and pick them up.

Stranger

Here’s another site that specificallly refutes Griffin’s main points linking them specifically to what Griffin says.

I read somewhere that the gas station across from the pentagon had a camera taping at the time, and a few minutes after the plane hit, some men came and took the tape, it never being shown to anyone who inquired.

I blame Kennedy. He faked his own death so he could mastermind 9/11.

Why would a security camera at a service station show a plane hit the Pentagon? Wouldn’t it be aimed at the service station?

It makes perfect sense to me that any CCTV that might possibly have any useful images should be used - who knows what the perirphery of the service station camera’s angle would encompass? What I don’t get is this idea that the FBI, or whoever takes such tape, should deviate from normal procedures when investigating crimes, just to satisfy a few conspriacist nutjobs. Not that it would pacify them, because it’s whack-a-mole and they’d then claim the footage was doctored or something.

Actually, I seem to remember seeing footage of this sort either on TV or online sometime after the event. (If it really needs to be said, I’m not FBI nor do I have any sort of special security clearance with the government).

It may or may not have been altered, but what I remember was grainy, blurry footage showing pumps and such in the foreground and a nondescript building across the street. It wasn’t a full framerate video, maybe one or two frames per second. IIRC, in one frame you could see something just start to enter the right side of the frame, then in the next frame, an explosion at the building. It may even have been on one of the conspiracy theorists’ websites saying “WHERE WAS THE PALNE!!! OMG!”

We all know how humans unconsciously invent memories, but I’m fairly certain I actually saw this footage. Again, whether it was altered or not, and even whether it was really of the 9/11 incident or not, I can’t say for sure.

I’ve seen the same video. I can back up your description.

Other than the several hundred eyewitnesses, there is no proof of a plane at the Pentagon. Well, the physical evidence, but that could have been planted. And the footage, but that is not conclusive.

A conspiracy so vast that the fact there is no proof of it is all the evidence an open mind needs.

And the planes were flown by Elvis, Jimmy Hoffa, D B Cooper and Amilia Earheart.

I don’t think Jimmy Hoffa could fly.

:stuck_out_tongue:

Stranger

Stranger I’ll agree that the US government might not be competent to pull a stunt like that off, that’s almost a given. But rounding up 19 fanatics that would do it would be easy. The world is full of people to be influenced to sacrifce themselves for the “Greater Good”, either real or imagined. Al Quieda does not have the market cornered on fanaticism.