Arts and Entertainment, book reviews, latest

REVIEW: David Ray Griffin, The American Trajectory – Divine or Demonic?

by David Lorimer



The American Trajectory – Divine or Demonic
David Ray Griffin
Clarity Press Inc, 2018,
409 pp., $29.95, p/b –
ISBN 978-0-998694-795

This penetrating analysis constitutes the background or ‘prequel’ to David’s book Bush and Cheney: How they Ruined America and the World, reviewed in No 126 in April (p. 53) and puts one in mind of the bumper sticker stating ‘Be kind to America, or else we will bring you freedom and democracy.’ The starting point is the self-image of the US as exceptional, moral and a force for good, unlike previous empires. This rhetoric is still asserted within the political mainstream, for instance by President Obama (responsible for an extension of illegal US drone attacks) when he stated that “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.” However, Griffin also reports an interview by President Trump talking about Putin when he asks, “What, you think our country is so innocent?” provoking a rebuke from the New York Times for ‘drawing a moral equivalency between the United States and Russia.’

Replete with historical examples, Griffin shows the gap between moral rhetoric and practical politics and the indissoluble link between militarism and imperialism –America has 700 bases throughout the world. The overall thrust of the argument is that the trajectory of American foreign policy ‘has been more malign than benign, more demonic than divine’ (p. 31).

Beginning with an analysis of the elimination of Native Americans (whose population by 1890 had been reduced by 95% from 10 million to 228,000) he proceeds to describe interventions in the Philippines, Cuba and Hawaii, brutal invasions that are portrayed to the public as benevolent assimilation. The original ideals of freedom, self-determination and democracy are ignored when there is a conflict between liberty and profit or self-interest, the latter always prevailing, while the former continue to be used rhetorically for propaganda purposes. In practical political terms this is encapsulated in the so-called Monroe Doctrine where the US arrogates to itself a natural right to control the Western hemisphere and, through an ‘open door’ policy, to promote its own political and economic advantage.

There are striking and interesting parallels between US policy in World Wars I and II, between Wilson and Roosevelt. Griffin explains how Wilson, aided and abetted by Churchill, deceived the US people by claiming that he wanted to keep America out of the war ‘while doing everything possible to get into the war.’ The key incident was the sinking of the Lusitania, and Griffin’s analysis shows that the ship was deliberately endangered and was carrying highly explosive material, so that when it was hit by a German U-boat, it sank in 18 minutes, resulting in 128 American deaths; ‘a flame of indignation’ swept the country (c.f. 9/11) and enabled Wilson to argue that Germany had forced America to enter the war (there is further fascinating material on the detailed policies calculated to provoke Germany).

Roosevelt engaged in a similar deceptive strategy during World War II. He engineered a strategy to put Japan in the wrong, using the US fleet in Hawaii as bait to tempt them to act. When the attack on Pearl Harbour occurred, it was not a surprise to the US administration, but the officers in charge, Admiral Kimmel and Captain Short, knew nothing in advance; and when ‘on December 7 Washington received the information about the exact minute of the attack several hours in advance, General Marshall sent this information to Hawaii in such a way that it would arrive only after the attack had begun’ (p. 146). Perhaps the most disgraceful aspect of this incident is the deliberate cover-up and the discrediting the officers, much of whose testimony was omitted from the official report. Worse still, they were inundated with hate mail and called traitors, while other witnesses were intimidated into reversing their testimony, with one even thrown into a psychiatric ward and being told that “his testimony had better change or he’d be in the ward for the rest of his life” (p. 148). So it is obvious that the US administration of the time simply lied for political purposes. The officers were eventually exonerated (but only long after their deaths).

The chapter on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows how the decision to drop the atomic bomb was political-diplomatic rather than military. Already by 1943, the government had decided that the bomb would be used on Japan rather than Germany, having learned that the Germans had given up their attempt to create one. Roosevelt was told that if the bombs were not produced and used, the Manhattan Project ‘would be subjected to relentless investigation and criticism’. Its real military purpose was to subdue the Soviets, but the result was the nuclear arms race. Truman knew that the Japanese would never agree to surrender unconditionally, whereby the Emperor would be removed and tried for war crimes. As one historian put it, Truman needed Japan’s refusal to justify the use of the atom bomb. The fact that dropping the bomb was not militarily essential makes its use morally indefensible as a brazen demonstration of power, and even George Kennan regarded this as ‘an indignity of monstrous proportions.’ Griffin asks rhetorically if America can still regard itself as ‘exceptionally moral’ after such an incident.

The CIA was created in 1947 to ‘promote freedom’ through covert operations, of which many examples are given, for instance in Iran, installing the Shah in a military coup against popular will and propping up a dictatorial and repressive regime. This historical background explains a great deal about the attitudes of Iran towards the US. It turns out that, in the name of resisting communism (defined as totalitarian) the US government lent support to authoritarian governments opposed to communism, but who also oppressed their people. George Humphrey is quoted as saying (p. 223) that the National Security Council should stop talking so much about democracy and instead “support dictatorships of the right if their policies are pro-American”. In both Cuba and Brazil, a policy of neutral nationalism was thought to be threatening to US commercial interests, and, in the case of Cuba, this drove Castro into communism. In Brazil in 1961, the CIA spent millions of dollars supporting candidates opposing President Goulart and engineered his removal in a coup, after which the American ambassador remarked that it was “the single most important victory for freedom in the hemisphere in recent years”; the CIA clarified that the change “will create a greatly improved climate for private investment” (p. 229), thus revealing the underlying motive. The net result was that this March 31 Revolution, ‘said to be necessary to prevent a possible left-wing dictatorship, ushered in an actual right-wing military dictatorship that, besides lasting for two decades, was especially brutal.’

Further chapters detail coups, campaigns, false flag operations and wars in Greece, Italy, Korea, the Philippines, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Iraq, Indonesia and of course Vietnam, to which a whole chapter is devoted. This was ultimately about US potency and credibility while also avoiding a domino effect in south-east Asia. One memo from John McNaughton at the Department for Defence (elsewhere referred to as the Department for Projecting Power!) stated that 70% of the aim was to avoid a humiliating US defeat affecting their reputation as a guarantor, 20% to keep South Vietnam territory from Chinese hands, and only 10% to permit the people of South Vietnam to enjoy a better, freer way of life – these figures speak for themselves, and there is an additional aim ‘to emerge from crisis without unacceptable taint from the methods used.’ This aim was certainly not achieved, with the dropping of 100 million tonnes of herbicides and countless tons of napalm bombs, all resulting in up to 4 million Vietnamese casualties along with 700,000 Cambodians and 58,000 American troops. Senator Wayne Morse remarked in 1967 that the US was going to become guilty of being the greatest threat to the peace of the world.

I will select one final theme among many others that might be raised: the failure of the League of Nations and the United Nations to achieve the stated aims. In 1883, my great-grandfather James Lorimer, a Scottish legal philosopher and Professor of international law at Edinburgh published his magnum opus: The Institutes of the Law of Nations. I have his copy with the printer’s bill still inside. Griffin devotes a page to his work where he proposed that ‘disarmament would not occur without the prior creation of an international government with the necessary military forces to provide security.’ This international government would be the guardian of the freedom of all national governments. In the cases of both the LN and the UN, the great powers wanted to preserve the right, as Rousseau had put it, ‘of being unjust when they please’, perpetuating a system of international anarchy based on national self-interest. Then the U.S. Senate did not allow the country to join the League. The UN is often accused of being ineffective, but Griffin shows that ‘it is ineffective primarily because it was intended to be so by its architects, the primary architect having been United States itself’, which naturally wanted to preserve its right to intervene for reasons of self-interest in the affairs of other countries, whether overtly or covertly. Hence a historian’s conclusion quoted in the book that ‘the protection of their own sovereignty and freedom of action seemed more important to them than permanent peace.’ This is still the case, and one wonders when humanity will reach a sufficient degree of collective maturity to reorganize international affairs for the good of the planet and the whole body politic. In this respect, please refer to my review of Nicholas Hagger’s books in the last issue.

The penultimate chapter analyses the US drive for global hegemony, even in terms of what is known as Full Spectrum Dominance, implying the weaponization of space currently ongoing. Policy documents supporting this drive have been developed since the 1992 Pentagon publication entitled Defence Planning Guidance where, according to Paul Wolfowitz ‘calculations of power and self-interest rather than altruism and ideals provide the proper basis for framing strategy’ (p. 364). These thoughts were further developed by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose members recommended the removal of Saddam Hussein as early as 1998. The implementation of their foreign policy recommendations required a New Pearl Harbour, which occurred on September 11, 2001, and which is the subject of many other books by Griffin, previously reviewed in these pages. The 2002 National Security Strategy dangerously recommends pre-emptive action against emerging threats before they are fully formed.

I have only been able to include a proportion of the evidence adduced in this study, but sufficient to indicate the upholding of Griffin’s thesis that American exceptionalism in the sense that the US is morally superior to other countries is conclusively proved false. This does not excuse in any way similar behaviour by other countries, but the book is a major and necessary corrective to a self-righteous and ill-informed interpretation of US history and foreign policy. It is much better explained in terms of naked political and commercial self-interest than by the accompanying rhetoric of noble altruism in the name of freedom and democracy.

This review originally appeared in Paradigm Explorer: Journal of the Scientific and Medical Network 2 (2018)


  1. Thomas Prentice says

    MH17 shot down over Ukraine; deliberately endangered by the Ukrainian radar center (with ‘help’ of the CIA?) by flying it into danger over the Donbass territories where Ukrain was fighting a brutal war, the only flight so diverted. Over Donbass, a Ukrainian fighter shot it down with cannon fire direct to the pilot’s belly, possibly following an anti-aircraft missile fired by Ukrainian ground forces.

    RE: The key incident was the sinking of the Lusitania, and Griffin’s analysis shows that the ship was deliberately endangered

  2. Thomas Prentice says

    White man’s burden, American version.

    RE: “Beginning with an analysis of the elimination of Native Americans (whose population by 1890 had been reduced by 95% from 10 million to 228,000) he proceeds to describe interventions in the Philippines, Cuba and Hawaii, brutal invasions that are portrayed to the public as benevolent assimilation.

  3. nondimenticare says

    John Neal: David Ray Griffin himself has given informative, thoughtful speeches on 9/11/2001, available on YouTube. Former NIST scientist Peter Ketchum criticizes the NIST report, available on YouTube. And I believe that OffGuardian has an entire section on 9/11, which they opened up for discussion some time ago.

  4. MichaelK says

    It’s interesting that Holocaust Memorial Day is marked in the United States, only it isn’t the one remembering their own homegrown holocaust, the mass extermination of the native American indian population, but events on the other side of the world in Europe.

    • Antonym says

      As if North America was the only continent where the original natives perished. Many went due to newly imported infections by the way, not intended.

      • George cornell says

        Biological warfare/genocide was invented in North America by the British forces under Jeffery Amherst, after whom there are streets, towns and colleges still named, though now under siege. Amherst now lives forever in infamy and I append excerpts from his correspondence with Bouquet below, talking about smallpox in North America in the 18th c. He was promoted serially showing his attitudes were approved of.

        “P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard’s Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.”
        In response, also in a postscript, Amherst replied:[1]

        “P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blankets, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.”

        Genocide was alive and active in the English army in NA even before “Lord” Kitchener, who arguably invented concentration camps in the Boer war culling 30,000 women and children. What a legacy for the English descendants of these subhuman primates.

        So “not intended” , you say?

        • Antonym says

          Didn’t know that story: one evil Brit once distributed smallpox infected blankets at one place and time (fort Pitt). Wonder how he stayed healthy…
          Might add up to a few native Americans dying but doesn’t account for the rest.

          • George cornell says

            It’s more than a story, it’s directly quoted from surviving correspondence. Take a look at his subsequent career if you think he was “one evil Brit”. It was you that brought up the diseases. His attitude was basically the same one repeatedly used to justify slavery, i.e. the inferior race(them) and the finest race as Rhodes put it (us). one but few were as candid as Amherst. And now ask yourself why this has gone virtually unreported for more than 200 years. Then visit the Avalon project at Yale and read the Indian treaties, all self-justified if you think the other side is “vermine” .You are in another world, my friend.

            • mark says

              This isn’t the only imperialist slaughter that has been airbrushed out of our history. Ireland was the first British colony that provided a template for the exploitation and extermination that was practised globally. From 1641-1652, the population of Ireland was reduced from 1,500,000 to 600,000. 500,000 were massacred or died of starvation and exposure. 400,000 were enslaved and transported in slave ships to the plantations of the West Indies and America, where they were sold as chattel slaves at the auction block. At the time, Irish slaves outnumbered Negro slaves from Africa. Irish slaves were sold for £5 when the comparatively rarer African slaves cost £50. Cheap Irish slave women were bred with more expensive African male slaves. This only came to an end as African slavery took off later.

              In Australia, Aborigines were hunted for sport. English ladies organised family picnics to watch the fun. Like the present day Israeli family barbecues to watch all the slaughter in Gaza.

          • Thomas Prentice says

            Duh! It wasn’t one evil Brit is was TWO. DUH !! And they had ARMIES. And SETTLERS. Who KILLED INDIANS, BURNDED THEIR VILLAGE, STOLE THEIR LAND and ALSO started passing the smallpox idea around. Hitler had all of his Himmlers and Eichmanns and so did these Brits.

      • Robbobbobin says

        “Many went due to newly imported infections by the way, not intended.”

        Infectionously ad hominemed to death by heavenly forces of God on Our Side?

      • mark says

        Extermination of the native Americans was official Government policy from Independence certainly until the very end of the nineteenth century and beyond. This is reiterated time and again by all political and military leaders of any significance. The scale of the Holocaust, the true historical Holocaust, with over 100 million victims in North and South America, makes the so called holocaust of the 1940s trivial by comparison. From Day One of the European invasion of the New World, a policy of mass murder and mass enslavement was pursued without respite. Illness and disease is a red herring. People who are starved and brutalised tend to succumb to illness and disease. Nobody has ever suggested that Jews who died of typhus or TB are not real victims and can be discounted. Australia has a National Apology Day to commemorate the extermination of the Aborigines. A similar memorial is long overdue in the USA, instead of the Hollywood Holohoax Industry.

  5. Antonym says

    Roosevelt engaged in a similar deceptive strategy during World War II.

    Thanks God, otherwise we would have been typing this in German or Japanese!!
    I have nothing against both languages but everything against both ideologies at that time: misusing the power of Nationalism for ugly and Egoistic goals.

    Afterwards many shortsighted people left and right threw away the baby (healthy Nationalism) with the bath water, opening most countries blindly to good but also bad global streams and forces.

    • Antonym says

      I believe the US went “bad” under the Dulles brothers: president Eisenhower complained about the Cabal in his 1961 speech.
      Still it stays a country with a huge power and potential to do good, IF this Cabal and its mentality could be removed.

      • Thomas Prentice says

        The Dulles Brothers, vipers both, were late in the empire game and taking the US bad. The US was BAD from the British beginning. And the Spanish in Florida and the Southwest. Brutally imperialist countries do not birth Christ Child colonies.

      • mark says

        The US “went bad” from Day One of the Founding Fathers. Its defining characteristics are genocide and slavery. It may have the power to do good, it has just chosen never to exercise that power.

    • George cornell says

      Typing German or Japanese imo is a ridiculous cliche , used since WWII, but almost disappeared. There would have to have been an awful lot happen for that to occur and they would never have been able to achieve it, even if they had won. There is form on this and I really can’t think of any example where it has succeeded. The Russians tried it in the Baltics and despite forced immigration and forced schooling, had limited success in shoving Russian down the throats of the Estonians, Lithuanians and Letts.There are better delusions out there.

  6. John Neal says

    I’m new (and late) to the 9/11 debate. Only began to consider the possibility of false flag quite recently after the obvious lies being told about Syria, Ukraine and the like.

    So, my question would be – what are the best sources of information? There is a great deal of info, but much of int contradictory or seemingly extreme

    No planes hit the buildings?? – I don’t think I’m ready for that.

    Holograms?? even more hard fro me to swallow.

    Controlled demolition?? Yes, this is at least plausible to me. But I’m bewildered by the argument back and forth between “thermite” and “directed energy weapons” and “mini nukes”. Any good guidelines for finding my way through this?

    • Johny Conspiranoid says

      Al Qadea had a previous attempt at blowing up the World Trade Centre in the 1990s. This involved an attempt at controlled demolition. One of the buildings could have been rigged for controlled demolition some time after the planes were due to hit.

    • Hi John,

      One of the propaganda techniques used by the perps is to push out as many theories as possible causing confusion and dissension among truthers which stymies the truthers from ascertaining the truth and getting it out. The thing to do is concentrate on the salient points.

      The buildings came down by controlled demolition – that is all that is required to know that it was an inside conspiracy – what exactly brought them down is of little consequence.

      The next thing is the planes. 200 ton airliners cannot penetrate 500,000 ton steel frame buildings. That is a physical impossibility – and they certainly cannot pop out the other side – which is what we are shown. The 9/11 Consensus Panel which David Ray Griffin is a part of has also done excellent work on the very serious problems on the lack of “squawking” by pilots, the phone calls, the hijackers’ movements, the black boxes, the Shanksville and Pentagon planes and other aspects.

      A most important fact that many truthers reject or refuse to discuss, but which to my mind makes perfect sense and for which there is significant evidence, is that death and injury were staged. Of course, the perps are not going to kill and injure all those people when controlled demolition is so obvious! While we tend to swallow, if reluctantly, the propaganda from the powers that be under normal circumstances everything changes radically when a loved one dies. Then we become indefatigable crime investigators developing skills superior to those of professionals. And we take to the streets and start rattling cages. The perps would NEVER have killed and injured all those people. No way. And besides they are so very, very skilled at fooling us and love having a great chortle at our expense. This is my website on how massively we are hoaxed, covering 9/11 and other events – but there’s a whole lot more, really.

      • milosevic says

        The above poster (ex-“flaxgirl”) is a well-known disinfo disseminator on this forum. They have been repeatedly challenged to substantiate the claim that “200 ton airliners cannot penetrate 500,000 ton steel frame buildings — that is a physical impossibility”, but have been unable to produce any serious response. They simply ignore all refutations, while acknowledging their complete ignorance of the relevant physics, and continue to repeat the claim. Until quite recently, they were claiming that the people observed jumping from the upper floors of the WTC to escape the fire, were actually eleven-foot tall dummies!!! Apparently the “eleven-foot tall” part has now been retracted, but the “dummies” claim remains. Draw your own conclusions as to the reliability of this entity, but do not assume that their claims are representative of other people who post here.

        As for good sources of information and analysis, *Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth* is the best authority on the WTC building collapses. Here are some sites with more general information, which have been around for a long time. They are free from claims of “no planes”, “no victims”, “holograms”, “space beams”, and similar disinfo.

        • “well-known disinfo disseminator” – love it milo!

          I know we’ve debated endlessly but somehow I haven’t established the following:

          — Do you you it was Flight 175 that penetrated the South tower? If not, what plane or other machine do you think it was and where did it come from?

          — Do you think that if the perps could have faked Flight 175 they would have faked it rather than doing it for real? After all, 9/11 was a psyop, no? and would you agree that in a psyop you don’t do things for real unless you have to?

          — What is it about the footage of Flight 175 that says that it must be real and couldn’t be faked?

          • milosevic says

            Tens of thousands of people observed a large airplane crash into WTC-2 at 9:03am on September 11th, 2001, because they were already watching WTC-1, which was on fire due to another airplane crash seventeen minutes earlier. Dozens of those people were pointing video cameras at the buildings. The resulting videos show an airplane closely resembling a Boeing-767 crashing into WTC-2, and a large cloud of debris and jet fuel coming out the other side.

            This does not prove that the airplane was actually UA-175, which was previously reported as hijacked, but that seems like a reasonable assumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Claims that “it can’t be true because of physics that I don’t understand” do not count as evidence.

            It’s not clear what you think the direct witnesses saw, if not a large airliner. Perhaps you’re one of those who claim it was merely a giant open-air hologram, projected by some previously-unknown secret military technology. Was the resulting jet-fuel explosion also part of the hologram, or was that a pyrotechnic special effect?

            • Can we just set aside the alleged witness evidence for a moment and treat the footage as an object in itself? In the footage itself do you think there is anything about it that says “real” over “faked”?

              • milosevic says

                Can we just set aside the alleged witness evidence

                I don’t see why we should. Unless there is an alternative explanation for what they saw, that alone settles the issue in favour of an actual airplane crash.

                In the footage itself do you think there is anything about it that says “real” over “faked”?

                There’s a better copy of the same film at 5:25 in the video I posted above.

                Why do you think it is obviously faked rather than real?

                As I’ve asked several times before, what do you think should happen in this situation? Should the airplane bounce off the building, like a basketball? Should it stick in it, like a dart in a dartboard? Should it splatter, like an egg? Vanish in a puff of smoke?

                When a real airplane crashes into a real steel-frame building, what would you expect to see, and how does that differ from what all these videos show?

                • A bullet is a missile, a plane is not and they really have nothing in common except for the fact that they fly through the air – at very different speeds. The nose cone of a plane is not designed for penetration and can be damaged easily. Moreover, the bullet you show is not penetrating steel of the same thickness as the frame of the twin towers.

                  Please stop using video to support your argument that is completely irrelevant to a plane crash.

                  Before the alleged planes even got to the inner core columns they would have had to get past the outer columns. That would be an impossible feat in and of itself. The inner core was interlaced with steel and connected to (59 on each side and one on each corner) outer box columns that were 14 ½ inches by 13 ½ inches on the lower floors with 2 ½-inch thick steel on two sides and 0.875-inch thick steel on the other two sides. The outer box columns tapered to 13 ½- by-14-inch box columns that were 1/4-inch thick at the upper floors. Even though the outer columns did not have the strength of the inner columns they would have been an insurmountable barrier for any plane.

                  They have traditionally used 1/4 inch steel chest plates as impenetrable protection against rifle bullets in bullet proof vests. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) rated Level III body armor 1/4 (.25) inch steel plate protects against all handgun bullets, including .44 magnum rounds, and against rifle bullets 9.6g (148 gr) 7.62x51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s).

                  When a 200 ton airliner meets a 500,000 ton steel frame building I expect to see serious signs of collision, not a plane gliding into the building with no discernible signs of deceleration. That’s what I expect to see. Not unreasonable, no? Do you have any video of a vehicle, land or air, colliding with a heavier object showing no signs of deceleration?

                  • milosevic says

                    the bullet you show is not penetrating steel of the same thickness as the frame of the twin towers.

                    It also weighs only a few grammes, rather than 200 tonnes. What’s your point?

                    The outer box columns tapered to 13 ½- by-14-inch box columns that were 1/4-inch thick at the upper floors. Even though the outer columns did not have the strength of the inner columns they would have been an insurmountable barrier for any plane.

                    What do you imagine are the dimensions of the wing spars of a B-767, which must support the entire 200-tonne weight of the aircraft while in flight? Or the landing gear struts, which must support the same weight while it is on the ground?

                    I expect to see serious signs of collision, not a plane gliding into the building with no discernible signs of deceleration.

                    You should watch that bullet impact video again. Notice that the bullets that do not penetrate are visibly decelerating, while the ones that go right through do not appear to, although they must have slowed down slightly.

                    Do you have any video of a vehicle, land or air, colliding with a heavier object showing no signs of deceleration?

                    Try throwing a cup of water at a metal window screen, and see how much it decelerates. Your mistake is in regarding both the aircraft and the building facade as solid objects, whereas in reality, they were both shredded by the collision, as you can clearly see in the videos.

                • With regard to witnesses who saw the plane crash what is your evidence of these people?

                  I don’t necessarily think a hologram was used, I’m more inclined to think that witnesses were simply paid because there don’t seem too many of them, however, I really don’t know. Also, witnesses may well have seen a plane but not a plane crashing into the building.

                  What I do know is that 200 ton airliners do not glide into 500,000 ton steel frame buildings. There is no analogous phenomenon I’m aware of to support that phenomenon. Bullets certainly aren’t.

                  • milosevic says

                    There is no analogous phenomenon I’m aware of to support that phenomenon. Bullets certainly aren’t.

                    If your claim is that different laws of physics should apply at different scales, you are simply wrong. Stating it as a fact doesn’t make it so.

                    200-tonne airplane mass / 10-gramme bullet mass = scale factor of 2*10e7

                    The kinetic energy has to go somewhere. Some of it goes into shredding both the airplane and the exterior building columns. After that happens, the wreckage keeps travelling at a slightly reduced speed, and comes out the other side. What would you like it to do, bounce off?

                    • Admin says

                      Have you read any scientific refutations of the ‘no-planes-theory’? Can you locate any?

                    • milosevic says

                      Can you explain why the truck does not simply sail through the wall

                      I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the area of the WTC facade is about 50% window glass, 40% hollow steel box columns, and 10% sheet aluminum cladding. The wall in your video is solid concrete. That might have some relevance to what happened at the Pentagon, but not the WTC towers.

                      Also, that truck appears to be going about 60km/h. Kinetic energy varies as the square of velocity, so if it were going 360km/h, like UA-175, it would have 36 times as much energy, and there wouldn’t be much left of either the truck or the section of wall that it crashed into. See the bullet impact video for an example of how that works.

                      For a truck/wall collision with a different outcome, even at a much lower speed, see 2:15 in the video below.

                    • I need to answer your comment below from here as there is no Reply button.

                      The video you show is of concrete blocks, not a wall fixed to the ground so not really relevant.

                      I don’t understand your point. You say that if the truck were going faster like the plane it would be more demolished. Doesn’t the same apply to the plane?

                      Steel normally takes a frame-like structure and obviously if a 110-storey building can hold itself with a steel-frame structure it must be very, very strong.

                      Regardless of the gaps in the frame where the plane actually hit the steel why is there no sign of collision?

                    • milosevic says

                      The video you show is of concrete blocks, not a wall fixed to the ground so not really relevant.

                      On the contrary, it’s quite clearly made of poured concrete, as can easily be seen before the firetruck collision. The section that the truck hits is smashed into pieces, while the rest stays in place. You need better disinfo.

                      I don’t understand your point. You say that if the truck were going faster like the plane it would be more demolished. Doesn’t the same apply to the plane?

                      OF COURSE IT APPLIES TO THE PLANE. Contrary to your fatuous claims about it “popping out” the other side of the building, there is nothing left of the plane except debris and a big cloud of kerosene, which immediately explodes. see 9:40 in video below, or above.

                      Steel normally takes a frame-like structure and obviously if a 110-storey building can hold itself with a steel-frame structure it must be very, very strong.

                      Obviously, if a 200-tonne airplane can hold itself together with a steel-and-aluminum structure, while travelling through the air at 850km/h, it must be very, very strong.

                      The main support columns of the WTC towers are in the central core, and there is no evidence that the airplanes caused them any significant damage. Otherwise, the buildings would not have remained upright for over an hour (or 1h45m, for WTC-1) afterward.

                      The airplane collision that is on video is with the much lighter and weaker external facade of the towers, where according to your reference above, the box columns in the upper storeys are made of 1/4-inch steel plate. The B-767 central wing structure is much stronger than that, not least because it has to support a bending load, rather than a tension/compression load, as in the exterior columns of the WTC.

                      So once again, you don’t actually have a point.

                      Regardless of the gaps in the frame where the plane actually hit the steel why is there no sign of collision?

                      If you refer to photos of the holes in the buildings after the collisions, like the one below, it is quite clear that the columns have been smashed exactly where the aircraft wing spars and engines passed through them, but are otherwise largely intact, except for having the aluminum cladding knocked off them. The glass windows, however, are completely absent.

                      What other “signs of collision” would you expect?

                      Is anybody else getting tired of this stupid argument? I certainly am.


      • Thomas Prentice says

        Good point: “what exactly brought them down is of little consequence.” Same with jfk. He got the back of his head blown off and Israel got nuclear weapons.

    • harry stotle says
      • thanks for the links! Is Niels Harrit more reliable than Steven Jones? I’m reading his “The Physics of High Rise Building Collapse” at the moment. Jones is a physicist which I find is a good start

        • harry stotle says

          Harrits credentials

          As Alan (below) correctly points out there are a number of ways to approach 9/11 including hyper-technical discussions about the physics of building collapse (of which Steve Jones has been an important contributor).

          Technicalities aside what we do know is that 3 buildings fell after being hit by 2 planes.

          There is little technical support for ‘free-fall’ collapse due to fires.
          In fact fires were not reported in building 7 until a few hours after the planes hit the twin towers so its hard to conclude that fire spread led to WTC7’s ultimate demise (unless the fire hid somewhere for a few hours before sneaking across Manhatten).

          We also know that no similar steel structured building has fallen in on its own foot print (in the way the 3 towers did) before or since 9/11.

          The failings in the official myth go on and on once you start asking a few basic questions such as why Bush or Cheney never testified under oath, and on the record.

          It is also apparent that the so-called official investigations (NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission) are little more than a laughing stock with a few patsies willing to sacrifice their professional reputations for reasons we can only speculate about.

          It is the sum of these endless failings rather than Harrit vs Jones that is actually the more important point when it comes to analysing what really happened on that fateful day.

          • Admin says

            Harrit and Jones are colleagues not rivals – Harrit was lead author in the ‘active thermitic materials’ paper that covered Jones’s discovery of unignited thermite in the WTC dust

    • Alan says

      Dear John,
      as one who initially researched 9/11 in the Spring of 2003 and realised after several months of research that the official story was a complete lie I would advise the following:

      Forget about how the buildings were demolished. At the beginning it is irrelevant.
      Look for evidence to support the official story. Evidence that would stand up in a court of law. That means proof that all four planes were scheduled to fly, proof that they did fly, passenger manifests issued by the airlines showing the 19 Muslims on them, forensics at all three sites.

      Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analysed flight and radar data acquired under the FOA and also interviewed many witnesses in Washington. No forensics were done in New York. At the Pentagon you simply need to look at pictures taken immediately after the strike to see the limited damage to the building cannot have been caused by a large Boeing with two wings and 7 ton engines on them. The crash site in Pensylvania is simply a hole in the ground.No plane, no bodies, seats luggage – nothing.

      As you go into the rabbit hole you will discover all kind of other things such as the Dancing Israelis, Lucky Larry Silverstein, how NORAD works, the missing trillions (connected to the Pentagon attack) and so much more.

      • I don’t think that’s the strongest evidence, and anyhow is hard to establish. Planes or no planes – the towers came down, and if there were explosives pre-set that is all the proof we need the official story is false IMO. So I am tending to look toward HOW the towers came down as a first question.

        • harry stotle says

          Yes, you would have thought that was a rather important question, but for some reason Mayor Guiliani decided to vandalise the crime scene and dispose of vital forensic evidence.

          What possible motive could a hawkish neocon have for doing such a thing?

        • I found the most comprehensive explanation of the collapses in Richard Gage’s tutorials.

          Part I – An Architect’s Guide – WTC-7 –
          Part II – An Architect’s Guide – Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition –
          Part III – An Architect’s Guide – The Twin Towers and Extreme Heat –

          At the bottom of my page on WTC-7 there are 28 links to interviews with professionals including an explosives loader; architects; structural, civil, metallurgical, fire protection, mechanical and electrical engineers; physicists, chemists and psychologists.

        • Jen says

          Watch this video presentation by William Rodriguez, who had been a janitor working at one of the WTC buildings on 11 September 2001 and who mentions having heard explosions going off in the building basement:

          • It was while watching a video about Rodriguez that I had a light-bulb moment – it struck me that he was part of a truther-targeted propaganda campaign. He heard explosions but he was also given bravery awards for rescuing “hundreds” from the North tower. Saying things incriminatory of the government but also being awarded for bravery by it struck me as anomalous and then I thought of all the other people who might be in the same category: providing false testimony of loved ones or colleagues while hinting at blame of the government.

            He also tells the truth – “This is a false story …” which is a “sign” the perps give us.

            “Once my story came out, some people even joked, they say “Oh, this is Superman. This is a false story because the guy did incredible things on that day.”

            Someone who, ironically, believes the official story, points out the timeline anomalies in William’s testimony. The highly anomalous timeline is probably another “sign” from the perps.

            The truther-targeted propaganda campaign is to keep truthers believing the biggest lie of all: that 3,000 people were killed and 6,000 people were injured on 9/11.

      • mark says

        You hit the nail on the head – there’s no need to get bogged down in competing possible explanations – this is like arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head. Arguing about which US officials were directly involved and exactly how the towers were demolished. At the end of the day, these are side issues and details. The Pentagon attack was almost certainly a cruise missile, for example, but in itself these details are unimportant. All that matters is that the official explanation is a hoax from beginning to end, that this was a false flag carried out by Mossad, dual national Israelis, and the US Deep State, with a minor walk on part for Lee Harvey Oswald style Moslem patsies.

    • PelicanGlide says

      John Neal,

      Architect and Engineers for 911 Truth have done a great job of bringing solid science and engineering to the issue, so I would start with their material:

      – I highly recommend reading the 52 page ae911 document Beyond Misinformation

      For videos (all easily found on youtube):
      – Stand for the Truth: A Government Researcher Speaks Out | 9/11 Evidence and NIST
      – Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out

      Outside of ae911truth, the best 911 documentary is:
      “September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor” (also on youtube)

      You are right that the hologram and no plane theories smell fishy. They have no scientific basis, and seem to be an effort to discredit the 911truth movement by association.

  7. A more timely and powerful title might have been: “The American Trajectory – 9/11 Truth or World War 3?” But … yeah … then again, on 2nd thought, “Divine or Demonic” surely directs people to the heart of the matter.

  8. George Ebers says

    Ben Franklin, who might have been the smartest American ever, was very troubled by the proposal to have the bald eagle (on this book cover) as America’s national bird. He wanted the turkey, a truly native bird instead. He argued that the eagle was an aggressive bird of bad moral character, stealing the food of other birds and enjoying the fruits of their labours.

    Oh , the irony on more than one level! The illustration could have been of the eagle chewing on the newborn chicks of much smaller birds, helpless to defend them, instead of the American banner.

  9. harry stotle says

    “one wonders when humanity will reach a sufficient degree of collective maturity to reorganize international affairs for the good of the planet and the whole body politic.” – few signs of it at the moment.

    What we seem have instead is accelerating species extinction, environmental devastation and a pro-war MSM.

    But at least when the final armagedon does unfold the alternative media will have the satisfaction of saying, ‘don’t say we didn’t try to warn you’.

  10. elenits says

    David Ray Griffin is a theologian, albeit protestant. Surely he meant it when he asked if the US trajectory was demonic. It would have been nice to hear more about that in this otherwise good review.

  11. wardropper says

    It’s actually rather amazing that we can seriously ask whether it is divine or demonic…
    A quick glance at the Revelation of St. John says it all.
    People like John were seers. People who could actually see.
    People like us, if we would only open our eyes.

  12. you seem to have dumped my previous. So once again I would refer one to critical mass, death object, USStrategic bombing survey and the Avro Manchester to get a gig on the dropping of fission engines as cover for the failure of strategic bombing, whilst make work projects got all UKabos slaving like commies for 6 years and all the aircrew lost to airdefences and the whole thing just a load of carryon when at all points the shebbang could have been halted by stopping the money publishers. But no.

    The allies could not feed and clothe their own populations never mind separate anything.

  13. I would add just one thing to the argument of the rather excellent gentle man. Dropping fission engines on paper buildings was partly a cover for the illusion of strategic bombing.

    I would ask one to turn to critical mass, USstrategic bombing survey and death object amongst others.

    All the allies could not feed their own populations in the 1930s, to expect them to separate anything is beyond belief.


  14. Humberto Mafra says

    The philosopher and theologian Ray David Griffin “bearing witness” on the American imperial journey with great courage, insight, and accuracy. God Bless Him.

  15. summitflyer says

    In the style of David Ray Griffin , a good read of American history to be sure .I see that the citizens of Brazil have re-elected a right wing Bolsonaro to bring back the rule of the generals .Blood will flow unimpeded once again .We have such short memories. A must read for those of us that have only recently removed the proverbial cobwebs from our eyes.

  16. Denis O'hAichir says

    US is seated on the top rimming stool, serviced by the majority of nations governments aka muggwumpers, the nation’s not muggwumping US are being serviced also. The man of perdition is coming.

Comments are closed.