2004-05-26 A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9-11 Attacks

2004-05-26 \Amy Goodman\David Ray Griffin\Chip Berlet Democracy Now \9-11/anomalies\The New Pearl Harbor\interviews\audio\transcriptions http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/the_new_pearl_harbor_a_debate The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9-11 Attacks  In a new book, well known theologian David Ray Griffin alleges the Pentagon may have been hit by a missile on Sept. 11 and that the Twin Towers collapsed from a controlled explosion. The book has been hailed by many who question the official record of what happened on Sept. 11. But Chip Berlet of the Political Research Associates, who has studied conspiracy theory movements, charges Griffin's book doesn’t hold up because it is based on faulty premises and unreliable sources. Today we have a debate on the book and what happened on 9/11. The following section is apparently seen by some as proof that Griffin doesn't know what he's talking about:
 * AMY GOODMAN: Can you name an expert you have relied on, for example on the issue of the world trade center towers going down, expert in structural engineering who has said it is impossible for the explanation to be the planes hit, and the fires caused the towers to go down?
 * DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, again, I say I have got 40 pages of notes. I’ve got a lot of notes on that chapter, and so readers can go and see the –
 * AMY GOODMAN: Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down.
 * DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I’m sorry, I don’t have that information at my fingertips right at this moment.
 * AMY GOODMAN: Chip Berlet.
 * CHIP BERLET: Well, there was an extensive engineering study of the twin towers and what cautioned their collapse which is publicly available and conducted by one of the largest forensic engineering companies in America.

(Would "one of the largest forensic engineering companies in America" by any chance be NIST?)

Note that this claim -- that Griffin cannot or does not name a single structural engineer who agrees with him -- is not raised in Berlet's earlier critique of the book but only implied by Berlet's statement that many structural engineers disagree with Griffin.

It does seem odd that Griffin would have been blindsided by this question, however, since Berlet had pointedly raised the apparent fact of that disagreement in his critique. Griffin's response appears not to touch on that specific question, though he does make it clear he is arguing from structural analysis and rationality, not paranoia or personal feelings as Berlet implies. &ldquo;...Chip Berlet of the Political Research Associates, who has studied conspiracy theory movements, charges Griffin's book doesn’t hold up because it is based on faulty premises and unreliable sources.&rdquo;   