Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 9/8/2006 10:01 AM (GMT -6)

The five-year anniversary is upon us, and one of my coworkers is really into this whole 9/11-was-a-government-conspiracy thing. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, it was a missile. It wasn't the planes that caused the WTC to fall, it was a controlled demolition. That sort of thing. All because the administration was just itching for a good old-fashioned war in order to steal Iraq's oil and boost profits for the military-industrial complex and Big Oil. The agenda was to build American Empire.

So I've been curious how come these people find this stuff compelling. In my reading, I found out that David Ray Griffin, a well-known process theologian, is an outspoken advocate of this particular conspiracy theory. So I went ahead and bought his latest book on the topic. What connections, if any, do you suppose there are between DRG's views on process theology and his views on this conspiracy theory?

One thing I find quite interesting is that the far right and the far left are on the same page in this case. One coworker of mine is a founding member of the Minnesota Green Party, and another is an adamant Libertarian, and they completely agree about this conspiracy.

Do any of you have an opinion about this conspiracy theory? If so, what is it, and how did do you form it? How do you go about deciding which things to accept and which to exclude?

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 9/8/2006 10:21 AM (GMT -6)

I find it a bit unbelievable upon first hearing. At least the idea that it was misiles and not planes that struck the two buildings is, for me, unbelievable. The first plane striking the first tower was caught on video and can be viewed. No misile. Just a commerical airplane. Boom. You can see it. Everybody saw the second plane strike the second tower. What's to dispute?

Tom

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 9/8/2006 11:23 AM (GMT -6)

I find this stuff completely uncompelling, in fact I can't imagine how any intellectually honest person could. Which is why I was surprised that intellectuals like David Ray Griffin would get on board, not only that but adamantly so (see Theologian Charges White House Complicity in 9/11 Attack.)

Anyway, DRG argues that although other steel buildings have been hit by planes, none collapsed. Why then did these fall? I'm reading his book just to see how his mind works. I've only read maybe 5 pages so far, so I can't represent it very well yet. So far he's also mentioned the highly unusual activity on "put" options for those airlines and for the brokerages housed in the WTC. He claims this is evidence that people knew what was coming and cashed in on the opportunity.

Others point out that the size of the hole in the Pentagon is just too small to account for a 757 hitting it, so it must have been a cruise missile. Others say there were no windows on the planes that hit the WTC, so it must have been an modified 767 refuelling tanker. There's BUNCH of conspiracy sites out there if you care to google for them. I downloaded a couple "documentary" videos on the topic: In Plane Site and Loose Change.

I don't know why I'm spending time on this, except for the broader question of practical epistemology. The conspiracy seems to be a case study in logical fallacies. I'm amazed at the ability for otherwise sound minds to ascribe so much warrant to beliefs such as these. I hope I don't do the same thing. Our capacity for self-deception is incredible, bigger than I thought possible a few days ago. Ironically, my coworker has roughly the same opinion of me; I've willfully chosen to buy in to a deception, and he can't imagine how anyone with two brain cells could believe the official story.

Post Edited (Corey) : 9/8/2006 11:56:49 AM (GMT-5)

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 9/8/2006 1:16 PM (GMT -6)

I don't think there are any connections between the two. David Ray Griffin is a competent thinker (probably why he is still a process theist and not an open theist) who does thorough reasearch into his subjects. He is well aware of the accusations of "conspiracy theorist" and treats the subject with enough professionalism that I don't think one can readily dismiss the evidence he has gathered.

In fact, WJK press has a link on there homepage as to why they decided to publish his Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/ll. If you haven't already, you should check it out.

Why We Published This Book

"In arguing with others, the aim is not so much to persuade them to think as one does oneself as to explore with them

the possibility of so thinking, in spite of more or less plausible objections."
~Charles Hartshorne

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 9/8/2006 1:37 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for that (although there was a little sting in implying open theists are not competent thinkers!)

David Ray Griffin writes “One of our main tasks as theologians is to deal with current events in light of the fact that our first allegiance must be to God, who created and loves all people—indeed all forms of life. If we believe that our political and military leaders are acting on the basis of policies that are diametrically opposed to divine purposes, it is incumbent upon us to say so.”

I'd say amen to that. But I've not been convinced that the U.S. government is behind the 9/11 attacks or that its "policies are diametrically opposed to divine purposes". That's a separate topic.

I'm reading his stuff, trying to give it a fair shake. But so far it strikes me as more agenda-driven than evidence-driven.

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 9/8/2006 7:36 PM (GMT -6)

The washington post has an interesting story about such theories, with David Griffin quoted.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

In the article they also have a website to go which refutes most of the theories. Personally, whenever these things come up, the first thing I investigate is the person's personal views. For instance, what is Griffin's political views. If, for instance, he supports Bush, he would have more credibility then if he was a liberal. There is one person in the story that hates Bush. So I check out the person's background.

Post Edited (feelinahole) : 9/8/2006 7:41:28 PM (GMT-5)

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:08 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual