The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
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, whoseThe Big Liewas a bestseller in France, and which theNew Republichas 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.