From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2006-09-09 11:28:17
Again, the article is light on facts and evidence and there is judicious use of quotation marks as in “back up” – subtle journospeak for “it doesn’t really mean ‘back up'” The Guardian does employ “investigative” journalists doesn’t it? Also, the headline is terrible – “CT” taking precedence over “Professor of Theology” – pretty disgraceful labelling if you ask me. But at least people will have a chance to see through these cheap jibes. www.guardian.co.uk/s…,,1868479,00.html Audrey Gillan
Saturday September 9, 2006
The Guardian They call it the 9/11 for Truth Movement, and tonight those who believe the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were carried out by the American government and not jihadist hijackers will gather in London’s Conway Hall to listen to one of the biggest figures among a growing number of disbelievers. Two days before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, David Ray Griffin, emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont graduate university, and author of The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, will ask his audience: “Was 9/11 an inside job?” He will be joined on stage by the ex-MI5 officer David Shayler, who will introduce the talk, for which tickets have almost sold out. Prof Griffin is a founder member of the 9/11 Scholars for Truth movement in the US. He is joined by 75 academics who write in books, journals and essays that they have overwhelming evidence that shatters the official version of events on that September morning. And it seems that a growing number of people are listening to them. A recent poll in the US found that 36% of Americans believed it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that their government was involved in allowing the attacks or had carried them out itself. There are many people in the UK who agree with them. The theories as to what happened on that day, when almost 3,000 people were killed, differ but their unifying theme is that a neo-conservative cabal within the US government staged the events as a pretext to wage wars, become a dominant force in the world and establish “the new American century”. The attacks, it is said, were not carried out by al-Qaida terrorists but were a “false flag” event used to justify invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Films have been made on the subject, websites show countless images that “back up” the claims, chatrooms are screaming with conspiracists and there is a plethora of published material. Much of this argues that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by a controlled demolition and not by the aeroplanes which slammed into their sides. Ian Neal helped form the British 9/11 for Truth Movement, which he says is a “loose network of campaigners who have grown up over the past two years”. The official 9/11 commission investigation into the attacks firmly dismissed the conspiracy theories, but those who expound them say this is precisely why there needs to be an independent inquiry.