EDITORS OF POPULAR MECHANICS
DEFEND OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
G. Edward Griffin responds
© 2006 September 14 by G. Edward Griffin
On 2006 September 12, I received a letter from John Nerling who wrote:
As a loyal Freedom Force member and subscriber, and in the interest of fairness and truth, I humbly request that you include a link to the attached article in your next posting of Unfiltered News From the Reality Zone.
I'm very grateful for the information I've received from you, via these weekly postings, the CDs, and the talk I attended on June 11, 2006. I believe you are an extremely knowledgeable person of good will, and I especially appreciate your writings on the Federal Reserve System. In fact, I regularly use much of your material in the university Economics courses I teach!
That said, I'm unconvinced of the 9/11 conspiracy theories that you appear to support. I'm not sufficiently informed to debate you on that subject, and neither of us has the time to do so anyway. I would say, though, that I believe this subject is a major diversion from the primary goal of Freedom Force, which is to help extricate humanity from the clutches of totalitarianism.
This is the link.
It was posted to Unfiltered News on 2006 September 13.
This was my reply:
I agree that there are many claims about 9/11 found on the Internet and in underground videos that are difficult to defend. In our own limited contribution to this topic, such as "Burning Questions" (click here) we have made it clear that we do not endorse many of them. However, because some of these claims are questionable (at least until more facts are available) does not mean that all of them are. There is a tendency for debunkers to seize upon one or two claims that cannot be supported and offer that as proof that the official version of 9/11, in all of it's absurd inconsistencies, must be correct. If only one of the many anomalies of 9/11 leads to proof of a false-flag operation, then we have a duty to our country to expose those who have perpetrated the crime and corrupted our government. We can never extricate humanity from the clutches of totalitarianism by turning a blind eye to the deeds of totalitarianism.
The collapse of Building 7, for example, is as close to conclusive proof of an inside job as you can get. No plane hit the building. The fires within it were very limited. The smoke was black, indicating that the fires were going out. No steel building in history had ever been brought down by fire (except, of course, the Twin Towers themselves on that same day. Never before in history. Yet, three in one day! The owner of Building 7, Larry Silverstein, said in a TV interview that they decided to "pull" the building. In the building trade, that means a controlled demolition. The visual evidence of the manner in which the building collapsed supports the contention that it was, indeed, "pulled." It takes weeks or months of prior planning for a controlled demolition, which means that the decision was made, not on 9/11, but long before.
The following Internet video presents a compelling case for controlled demolition on 9/11. Even the most die-hard skeptic will be impressed by the evidence. None of this is theory, conspiracy or otherwise. These are facts, and nothing that the editors of Popular Mechanics can say will make them go away. This is the link to the video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&q=controlled+demolition&hl=en.
You also may be interested in the debate that took place between the editors of Popular Mechanics and the producers of Loose Change, one of the video documentaries that the editors derided as being a conspiracy theory. As mentioned previously, I think that the producers went a bit too far out on a limb with a few of their assertions; but so did the editors of Popular Mechanics. All-in-all, I think the producers held their own pretty well. This is the link to the debate: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203.
Thanks for writing, John. I'm proud to have you on the Freedom Team.
Ed Griffin
Back
