Jim Hoffman praises David Griffin book for ignoring Pentagon small-plane
evidence thereby giving 9-11truth movement needed credibility, avoiding
(eastmanish) "over-reaching" conclusions, going "all the way" into "the
core
physical evidence issues" of the Pentagon attack which "core," according
to
Hoffman and Griffin, totally excludes all of the Pentagon evidence
pointing
to the small-plane conclusion.
Would someone tell me why Griffin did not interview me about the Pentagon,
why he has never written me or responded to my evidence mailings to him
over
the last two years?
Why does Hoffman not carry the small-plane evidence?
Either Hoffman has reason for endorsing the blacklisting and slandering
this
evidence or he does not.
How about it Jim -- is the small-plane finding faultily derived from the
evidence? Why isn't the Pentagon evidence establi****ng the small-plane
attack part of the "core" of physical evidence issues.
I'd really like to know, Jim.
Dick Eastman
Yakima
From: "jim hoffman" <j_hoffman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date: May 21, 2004 6:30:11 AM GMT+07:00
I think David Griffin's book is excellent, and that an interview
with him on DN could be a big breakthrough in waking up so many
people who continue to be led down the garden path by Larry Bensky,
David Corn, etc. First I'll summarize why I like the book and
second why I think this is an im****tant opening.
The book is sober, well-organized, and very well-sourced.
Griffin avoids over-reaching conclusions, arguing points carefully,
and yet 'goes all the way' into the core physical evidence issues
of the WTC demolition and Pentagon attack. The biggest issue he
doesn't take on directly is the hijacker myth -- though even then
he points out the incompetence of the alleged hijackers of F77.
I think there is a reason he avoids that issue and that topics
like the WTC demolition don't jump out in the TOC -- I think he
designed the book to bring around readers who are conditioned to
reject such 'outlandish ideas'. The title and his whole approach is
questioning rather than assertive, and the chapters arrive at core
physical evidence issues from an indirect route -- like getting into
the demolitions by starting with the story of Flights 11 and 175.
I also know that when David Griffin was interviewed on Dennis Bernstein's
Flashpoints, he listed a series of unanswered questions that I think
would be difficult to improve on.
I think this book goes a long way to giving our movement what it needs
most -- credibility. Things that the book doesn't do -- like connecting
dots about criminality beyond the Bush Administration -- will be easier
for others to do with the opening his book affords. It's already well
on its way to being the most influential book on 9/11/01 to date.
I don't think that Amy Goodman's spiking of 9/11/01 research and findings
to date means that anything she does in the future is tainted, nor that
she could spin a David Griffin interview to make it useless.
There are a number of theories about Amy's position re 9/11/01 to date.
Two of them are:
(1) She is afraid to cover the truth of 9/11/01 for fear of retribution,
from defunding to things more sinister.
(2) She is afraid to do so because she is afraid it will destroy
her hard-won credibility.
The dynamics behind both of these will change over time.
As time p*****, more people are willing to look at and discuss the attack
without fear. In regard to (1) The more extensive the body of work
exposing the attack grows, the less risky it is for a journalist to do
honest re****ting on it. In regard to (2) I think we are approaching
a turning point where questioning the official story of the attack
will become fa****onable among the standard-bearers of the left.
Griffin, whose careful, well-reasoned approach is much more difficult
for the naysayers to assail, may be the door to credible questioning
of the attack that Amy has been waiting for.
-Jim
"Dick Eastman" <de1949@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:...
> TRUTHBAZOOKA
>
>
> Good-bye 9-11 Cover-up!
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
>
>
>
|
