Distortion of Fact, by Andrew Burfield
Front Page
Claims 1-10 Claims 11-20 Claims 21-30 Claims 31-40 Claims 41-50 Claims 51-60
Claims 61-70 Claims 71-80 Claims 81-90 Claims 91-100 Claims 100-115
DISTORTION OF FACT
A Comprehensive Analysis of The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr David Ray Griffin.
A Comprehensive Analysis of The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr David Ray Griffin.
Throughout this document the phrases “The 9/11 Commission Report” and “The Report” refer to the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (ISBN 0-393-32671-3). “The 9/11 Commission” and “The Commission” refers to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The Unites States – the Government-appointed body which produced The Report.
INTRODUCTION
At this site, Dr David Ray Griffin – a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology – summarises part of his book; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omission And Distortions – by listing 115 points of contention which he asserts are omission and distortions in the report, amounting to lies (herein “The Essay”).
The Essay begins:
Quote:
In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.)
In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning.
But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11."
In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning.
But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11."
This analysis will attempt to determine the validity of Dr Griffin’s allegations by either affirming or rejecting each of his claims.
METHODOLOGY
The most common definition of “lie” is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. However for the benefit of this paper, rather than determine whether each lie alleged by Dr Griffin is indeed a lie (that is a deliberate effort to deceive on the part of the Commission) I will investigate the validity of the alternative claim raised by each of the allegations.
As example, the following statements:
1. The lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father.
2. The lie of omission that the car had six wheels.
From the perspective of determining whether each point is indeed a lie, it is essential to determine whether the Report was aware of the distortions or omission inherent in their claims, and to demonstrate that the Commission knowingly presented this false information (or failed to present this true information) with the intention of deceiving the reader.
Such a procedure is inherently difficult as I am not privy to the minds of the Commission members (as Dr Griffin, also, is not).
Instead, I intend to examine the alternative claim of fact which is inherent in each point of contention.
In example 1) above, “the lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father” contains the inherent claim of fact that the car did not belong to my father.
Likewise in example 2) “the lie of omission that the car had six wheels” contains the inherent claim of fact that the car did have six wheels.
To extend the metaphor, rather than determine whether the writer of the Report knew the inherent truths mentioned above, and intentionally deceived, I instead intend to consider the inherent claims themselves and determine their validity.
The methodology shall be displayed thus:
ALLEGATION OF FALSEHOOD (“THE ALLEGATION”)
The lie of distortion that the car belonged to my father.
CONFIRMATION OF THE CLAIM
On page 36 of the report it is claimed that the car belonged to my father.
OR ALTERNATIVELY
At no point in the report is it claimed that the car belonged to my father.
Quote:
Although determination that the claim was never made automatically constitutes rejection of the allegation as false, I shall nonetheless proceed and investigate the validity of the inherent claim.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM:
The inherent claim of this allegation is that the car did not belong to my father.
INVESTIGATION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM:
A detailed analysis of the inherent claim, determining as far as possible its validity. Sources for this section will be comprehensive. This section will constitute the major part of the work.
AFFIRMATION OR REJECTION OF THE INHERENT CLAIM:
The claim is correct; my father did not own the car – it was registered under my mother’s name.
OR ALTERNATIVELY
The claim is false; my father purchased the car on date X, registered it in his name, and renewed said registration in his name for a further 14 years to the present.
Although the 115 omissions and distortions listed by Dr Griffin in the essay are presented as distinct allegations, in fact some of them relate to the same claims. In these instances I have grouped the allegations together and responded to them collectively.
Numbers in parentheses at the end of each allegation refer to the pages of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions in which the allegation is discussed.