Griffin___The_New_Pearl_Harbor___Disturbing_Questions_about_the_

A philosopher at the Claremont School of Theology, Griffin scrutinizes the time line and physical evidence of September 11 for unresolved inconsistencies. Griffin draws heavily on three similarly skeptical examinations, by Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson and Thierry Meyssan, whose The Big Lie was a bestseller in France, and which the New Republic has called "thinâ€"and thinly argued." Based on these sources, Griffin maintains that a full investigation of the events of that tragic day is necessary to answer such questions as whether American Airlines Flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon (though many will find it impossible to doubt this) and how United Airlines Flight 93 was downed. He claims that if standard procedures for scrambling fighter jets had been followed, the hijacked planes should have been intercepted in time, and that structurally, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers most likely was caused by explosives placed throughout the towers, not from the plane crashes. He strongly implies that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attack and sought to conceal what Griffin suggests was the Pakistani intelligence agency's involvement in the planning for the attacks. His analysis is undergirded by the theory that a significant external threat, on the scale of Pearl Harbor, was very much in the interest of the Bush administration, which he believes is intent on self-interested aggressive foreign policies. Even many Bush opponents will find these charges ridiculous, though conspiracy theorists may be haunted by the suspicion that we know less than we think we do about that fateful day. Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80
udp://open.demonii.com:1337
udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969
udp://exodus.desync.com:6969

dougaldog2002 (2009-03-17)

Give me a fucking break! These myths have been debunked time and time again and the more people perpetuate crap like this the more rediculous they appear. Besides, since when did a philosopher at a shcool of theology become an expert on structure, explosions, military operation procedures, etc?
"The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the ?government version? or ?the official version.? In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let?s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: ?I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . .?
The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree."

 Djofullinn (2009-03-17)

Don´t worry about it.
Nobody in their right mind believes the official 9/11 fables. They were concocted by proven and accomplished and pathological serial liars who have lied about everything, 9/11 included.