Theorists bent on exposing falsehoods in The 9/11 Commission Report maintain the attacks were a conspiracy led by the Bush administration, as UW-Madison students heard Monday at an event sponsored by the Muslim Jewish Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth.Student quote:
The event, broadcast on C-SPAN, featured Christian theologist David Griffin, Ph.D, and his interpretations of the alleged Sept. 11 conspiracy theory.
Griffin's speech addressed his own compiled evidence that suggests the attacks were not only known about by the United States government and military, but orchestrated in order to expand an "American empire" allegedly based on oil and power.
"I definitely endorse his theory,"Here's the report from the other student newspaper, the Badger Herald:
[M]uch of the audience appeared sympathetic to Griffin, rewarding him with a standing ovation at the conclusion of the lecture.UPDATE: A reader sends this link to the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, which methodically debunks the various 9/11 conspiracy myths.
ANOTHER UPDATE: And here's the report from the Capital Times::
David Ray Griffin asks the tough questions about Sept. 11, contending U.S. officials had some knowledge of what was coming and possibly orchestrated the attacks.UPDATE: Let's look closely at the journalism here. My son John Cohen writes:
Griffin, whose book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11," came out a year ago, drew an enthusiastic standing ovation from the majority of the 400 or so people who packed his lecture Monday night at Bascom Hall.
A retired Christian theologian, Griffin, 65, taught for more than 30 years at the Claremont School of Theology in California.
His comments Monday night were directed at religious people, who he said need to respond to Sept. 11 - and the American empire that has ensued - based on the moral principles of their religious traditions.
Drawing laughter from the crowd, Griffin said he had in mind principles like: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors' oil" and "Thou shalt not murder thy neighbors in order to steal their oil."
While Griffin noted that his books and talks have not received attention from the mainstream media, C-SPAN had a cameraman at the event and plans to air the lecture at a future date. Madison's public access cable television station, WYOU-TV/Channel 4, meanwhile, will air the talk at 7 p.m. Thursday.
I noticed this from the Cap Times article you linked to today:For shame!
"Americans interpret the events of Sept. 11 in one of four ways, Griffin said: ... A second group accepts the official line but thinks Sept. 11 has been used opportunistically by the Bush administration to extend the American empire. People who hold this view often believe that America's response to Sept. 11, which has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, is far worse than the attacks themselves, he said."Notice how it's not clear who is saying that "America's response to Sept. 11" "has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths." It sort of seems like they're just reporting on what Griffin said, because the sentence ends with "he said." But that's not necessarily the case: you could also see it as a parenthetical remark that the Cap Times itself is inserting into their paraphrase of Griffin's view. (And of course they don't question the assertion.)
I didn't read the whole article, but just glancing over it I noticed that the Cap Times seems to take every chance it can to slant its wording to suggest that Griffin has credibility (not that this is surprising). One example:
"Griffin also made a case that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was brought on by thousands of explosives placed throughout each of the buildings."Saying someone "made a case" isn't quite saying that they made a good case, but it implies that they at least made a reasonable case.
Also, your excerpt of the Daily Cardinal says:
"Griffin's speech addressed his own compiled evidence that suggests the attacks were not only known about by the United States government and military, but orchestrated in order to expand an 'American empire' allegedly based on oil and power."This should read: "Griffin claimed that his evidence suggests....” When they refer to "his own compiled evidence that suggests..." they're saying that the evidence actually suggests what he claims it suggests. (And even just using the word "evidence" is kind of slanted.) (And it's just comical that they qualify one part of the sentence with the word "allegedly," as if they're being objective.)
I know I'm being very nitpicky about wording. And any of the things I'm pointing out might be just sloppy editing. But why is all of the sloppiness slanted in the same direction?