United States in XXI century - Book Report/Review Example

In the wake of the 20th century, the United s has undergone several advancements both in their industries and technology. Aside from these, the United States also has become the prime military force in the world. For decades, the United States has often played a part of being a policeman to the world; always to the rescue of oppressed countries and people, highlighted in events such as the World Wars and the various minor wars that occurred throughout the century. In the dawn of the new millennium, an infamous event happened that will forever be recorded in the chronicles of modern history. The attack on the towers of the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon has brought shattering headlines around the world. After this event, the globe witnessed how the United States, dubbed as the new Roman Empire, took on hand the actions that it believes to be against terrorism. The main purpose of this paper is to state and present the various allegations of Griffin and Scott in their book. Also, this paper is intended to scrutinize the allegations and provide some insight to the other side of the story and present some evidence that in turn will help in defending the government. This paper does not side with any of the opposing ideas since all the evidence provided by the authors are still not acknowledged by many. In the wake of the events that spawned a trail of wars in western and south Asia, a book that claims a conspiracy between the political and military leaders of the country has caused reverberations. The said book is the one that David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott wrote, entitled 9/11 and the American Empire. In this book, the two authors presented various arguments that claims that while the world watched in terror the September 11, 2001 attacks, little did they know that it was orchestrated by none other than the Bush administration. The claim is cited below: "According to a fourth view of 9/11, the attacks were not merely foreknown by the Bush administration; they were orchestrated by it. Although thus far no poll has tried to find out how many Americans hold this view, polls in Canada and Germany some time back indicated that this view was then held by 15 to 20 percent of their people." (Griffin 2005) In relation to the aforementioned claim, we are now presented with questions: Are the facts existing in the article enough to cement a conclusion in favor of the allegations Are the people really deceived into believing that this was a surprise attack to our country Was there really a conspiracy between the leaders of our country In their claim, Griffin and Scott also mentioned that the attacks may be made by terrorists but was perceived by the Bush administration as an opportunity of expanding there so-called empire. This kind of issue is not new actually. During the Gulf War, Iraq laid claim to Kuwait. The United States decided to intervene and in the process liberated Kuwait. After the war, various issues claimed that the U.S. exploited Iraq and the only reason why the U.S. interceded is due to its interest on the rich oil fields. Although the evidence presented by the authors are thoroughly detailed, so far, nothing of the allegations are proven. In addition to the primary allegations are questions that have surfaced in relation to the events that happened that fateful day. The first one is if the government knew what was going to happen. "They asked Schippers to use his influence to get the government to take action to prevent the attacks. Schippers was highly respected in Republican circles, especially because of his role in the impeachment of Clinton. And yet, he reported, Attorney General Ashcroft repeatedly failed to return his calls." (Griffin 2005). This statement is supposed to emphasize that yes, the government did know what was going to happen but did not do anything to stop it which in turn points out to the allegation that the government really did want the disaster to happen. Another question that surfaced is why didn't the government stop the attacks since they have the technology to do so. "The Military's Failure to Prevent the Attacks and Its Changing Explanations: One feature of the attacks that suggests complicity by US officials is the twofold fact that the US military failed to prevent the attacks on 9/11 and then, since that time, has give us conflicting explanations for this failure." (Griffin 2005). It was said that the standard procedure is within 10-20 minutes of detection of distress, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will automatically send fighter planes to intercept them. Then, why did it happen that they were not able to intercept the planes But according to an article created by Popular Mechanics, "In the decade before 9/11, North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts." The next question posed by Griffin and Scott's article is why did the World Trade Center collapse in the first place. "The Bush-Cheney administration has also failed to provide a credible explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. According to the official explanation, the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2) collapsed because of the impact of the airplanes and the heat of the ensuing fires. But this explanation faces several formidable problems. First, WTC 7 also collapsed, and in roughly the same way. This similarity implies that all three buildings collapsed from the same causes. However, unlike the Twin Towers, WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot, or long-lasting as fires in steel-frame high-rises that have not induced collapses." (Griffin and Scott). In addition to this is the fact that many witnesses claimed that they heard consecutive explosions like that of something being systematically demolished. Also, numerous demolitions experts agreed to the fact that the collapse of the towers were very similar to standard demolitions. However, no one can really be sure since the rubble has already been cleared away. Moreover, it is said that although the heat may not be enough to destroy the building, the impact of the planes might have resulted in the weakening of the foundations that in turn led to the collapse. A reaction to Griffin's allegation is shown in this statement: "Oooh, the designer said the buildings could handle the impact of a jet plane hitting it. Well, gee, the White Star Line said the Titanic was unsinkable. Guess estimation can be a little off, huh" (Source4book 2005). This statement may sound comic but as a matter of fact, it has truth in it. It is often for builders to estimate the strength of their buildings but none could ever prove them unless the actual disaster and damage is done. "The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building." (PopularMechanics 2005). This statement shows that it just might be possible that the towers' destruction resulted from minor weakening factors that when combined are enough to cause a collapse. Another contradiction to this claim is the fact that it would very hard to stash demolition bombs in the building since the towers are in operation everyday. In addition to the last question is why did the WTC 7 collapse when it was never hit by an airplane "First, WTC 7 also collapsed, and in roughly the same way. This similarity implies that all three buildings collapsed from the same causes. However, unlike the Twin Towers, WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane." In contrast to this question is the claim that the building collapsed because of the irreparable damage done to it by the collapse of the two towers. "National Institute of Standards And Technology (NIST) investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down." (PopularMechanics 2005) Another question posed by the authors is why did the President stayed in the pre-school when he knew that the country was under attack and that his life could be in danger "It was not terribly strange, therefore, that he decided to go ahead with the photo-op at the school in Sarasota. Word of the second strike, however, should have indicated to his Secret Service agents---assuming that these strikes were unexpected---that the country was undergoing an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet he was allowed to remain at the school for another half hour." (Griffin and Scott). However, the answer to this question is still a mystery since no explanations were offered by the government. As we come to the end of this paper, I have shown you the different claims that Griffin and Scott has presented in their book. And as I have stated in the introduction of this paper, I do not side with any of the opposing factors since the conspiracy theory is still not proven and that the issues are still undergoing investigation. In contrast to the arguments of Griffin and Scott, some evidence that disproves some of the questions have been presented through the article created by Popular Mechanics. "To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day." (PopularMechanics 2005) We may never know the truth behind the September 11 attacks. The evidences held by various contrasting parties have left the questions unanswered. It is up to us now to evaluate and think over the facts that surrounds the disaster. This paper, I state again is not siding with any of the factors but merely state some of the evidence that strengthens each of the parties' claims and opinions. References: "David Ray Griffin: 9/11 and the American Empire." 14 May 2007 . "Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story - Popular Mechanics." 2000. Hearst Communications,Inc. 14 May 2007 Read More