[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

CNN doctor urges neurological testing for Biden

Nashville Trans Shooter Left Over 100 GB Of Evidence, All To Be Kept Secret

Who Turned Off The Gaslight?

Head Of Chase Bank Warns Customers: Era Of Free Checking Is Likely Over

Bob Dylan - Hurricane [Scotty mar10]

Replacing Biden Won't Solve Democrats' Problems - Look Who Will Inherit His Campaign War Chest

Who Died: Late June/Early July 2024 | News

A top Russian banker says Russia's payment methods should be a 'state secret' because the West keeps shutting them down so fast

Viral Biden Brain Freeze During Debate Sparks Major Question: Who’s Really Running the Country?

Disney Heiress, Other Major Dem Donors: Dump Biden

LAWYER: 5 NEW Tricks Cops Are Using During DWI Stops

10 Signs That Global War Is Rapidly Approaching

Horse Back At Library.

This Video Needs To Be Seen By Every Cop In America

'It's time to give peace another chance': Thousands rally in Tel Aviv to end the war

Biden's leaked bedtime request puts White House on damage control

Smith: It's Damned Hard To Be Proud Of America

Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi slams ‘deranged rant’ calling for assassination of Trump

Stalin, The Red Terror | Full Documentary

Russia, Soviet Union and The Cold War: Stalin's Legacy | Russia's Wars Ep.2 | Documentary

Battle and Liberation: The End of World War II | Countdown to Surrender – The Last 100 Days | Ep. 4

Ethereum ETFs In 'Window-Dressing' Stage, Approval Within Weeks; Galaxy

Americans Are More Likely To Go To War With The Government Than Submit To The Draft

Rudy Giuliani has just been disbarred in New York

Israeli Generals Want Truce in Gaza,

Joe Biden's felon son Hunter is joining White House meetings

The only Democrat who could beat Trump

Ukraine is too CORRUPT to join NATO, US says, in major blow to Zelensky and boost for Putin

CNN Erin Burnett Admits Joe Biden knew the Debate questions..

Affirmative Action Suit Details How Law School Blackballed Accomplished White Men, Opted For Unqualified Black Women


9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Ex-CIA: 911 Almost Certainly A 'Monstrous Series Of Lies'
Source: Rense
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 1, 2007
Author: Paul Chen
Post Date: 2007-04-05 11:26:02 by WTC7 911Smoking Cannon
Keywords: None
Views: 891
Comments: 70

David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement. This is by virtue of his previous four books on the subject. Professor Griffin and a growing list of scholars, other researchers as well as diverse experts and activists, reject the official Islamist mastermind conspiracy theory about 9/11 advanced by Establishment interests.

Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon."

It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government and the Big Business controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it.

In David Ray Griffin's new book entitled Debunking 9/11, shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked.

"Debunking 9/11 is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods," says Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA.

Mr. Christison further indicates that, "This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen."

Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Professor Griffin critically challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine.

Professor Griffin also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications -- which one might have expected to be supportive.

Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly levelled against critics of the official theory -- that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith -- actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory.

"Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed," says Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States.

"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics," says Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan administration.

"David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called 'the official story of 9/11/01,' which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans," further indicates Meria Heller, Producer Host of the Meria Heller Show (<http://www.meria.net).>http://www.meria.net>http://www.meria.net).

This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim -- that 9/11 was an inside job -- remains the only explanation that fits the facts.

David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), 9/11 and American Empire (2006, ed. with Peter Dale Scott), and Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 (2006)


Poster Comment:

Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon."

Hey, BeAChooser, suck on that.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47.

#10. To: WTC7 911Smoking Cannon, ALL (#0)

David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement.

As long as you folks keep spamming the forum with the same Griffin nonsense I'll offer this in response (which, of course, you'll simply ignore because I'm *evil*):

The following is a rebuttal of claims made by Griffin in his new book "9-11 and the American Empire":

**********

Links to reposts of this very long post found here:

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48892&Disp=11#C11

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47885&Disp=1#C1

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47593&Disp=3#C3

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47233&Disp=16#C16

******************

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-05   20:27:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: christine (#10)

How many times should the exact same huge spamming post be allowed to be repeated?

I think the above post should be reduced to a link to the previous post just like this one.

Same post also found in these threads:

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48892&Disp=11#C11

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47885&Disp=1#C1

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47593&Disp=3#C3

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47233&Disp=16#C16

robin  posted on  2007-04-05   20:55:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: robin, christine, ALL (#12)

How many times should the exact same huge spamming post be allowed to be repeated?

As many times as basically the same thing about/by Griffin gets posted to the forum? I'm sorry if posting the truth about your hero upsets you robin. Maybe you could make me stop if any of you ever actually tried to counter the facts I note about his views and statements ... and succeeded. But given that this is the 4um, that's a real longshot.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-05   21:12:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: BeAChooser (#15) (Edited)

i'm tired of you demeaning this forum and all the members. stop it. you post links and quit the repeat spamming, BAC. those are the rules for you. abide by them or your evil ass gets dumped.

christine  posted on  2007-04-05   21:20:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: christine, robin, ALL (#16)

in the future, use links to your copy and paste repeat spam posts.

i'm tired of you demeaning this forum and all the members. stop it. you post links and quit the repeat spamming, BAC. those are the rules for you. abide by them or your evil ass gets dumped.

Are you aware, christine, that virtually the exact same statements as in this thread's article were posted in one of the articles that robin linked and complained about me responding to with my post? This one: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47593&Disp=0#C0 .

That thread starts off as follows:

"By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11."

Notice the similarity to the way the current thread's article starts:

"David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement. This is by virtue of his previous four books on the subject."

The current thread article goes on to say:

"Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon. It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government and the Big Business controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In David Ray Griffin's new book entitled Debunking 9/11, shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked."

The thread robin linked says almost the same thing:

"Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon. It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked."

A little later, the current thread's article says:

"Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Professor Griffin critically challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine."

Guess what? The thread robin linked and complained about says almost the same thing, word for word:

"Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine."

And the similarity continues. BOTH articles say this, word for word:

"Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly levelled against critics of the official theory -- that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith -- actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory."

Now many would call that plagerism. Do you condone plagerism on your forum, christine?

I'll simply call it the same article ... in which case I see no cause for you to complain about me reposting my response whenever this same article is posted at 4um.

And by the way, you may not have noticed but these two threads that robin linked and complained about

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47233&Disp=16#C16

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47885&Disp=1#C1

are the same article. Doesn't this forum have a policy about reposting the same article over and over? Isn't that equivalent to spamming the forum? Apparently that's ok as long as the article agrees with *the party line*.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-05   22:58:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: BeAChooser (#20)

false comparison. different thread titles posted by different posters. we have a lot of duplicate posts that the search engine doesn't find. that similar info exists in different articles is absurd for you to try and use. that doesn't compare to your reposting of the same very long posts over and over and no one else posted that their purpose is to spam as you did. the rules FOR YOU still stand.

christine  posted on  2007-04-05   23:35:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: christine, ALL (#25)

false comparison. different thread titles posted by different posters.

But they are still basically the same article. Clearly plagerized from one or the other. Are you saying that I can only respond to one and that the other gets a free ride here at 4um? And how about the case where the same article was posted twice ... even if by two different people? Is 4um's rule that I can only respond to one with a given set of text? That, unlike the article, I must be completely original if I respond to the other? Or am I at least allowed to plagerize my own post and need only rephrase it slightly in the second response?

I just want to make sure that 4um's rule are CLEAR and APPLY TO ALL? Or do they, christine?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-06   0:42:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: BeAChooser (#38)

i already told you. those rules are just for you.

christine  posted on  2007-04-06   0:49:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: christine, ALL (#40)

i already told you. those rules are just for you.

Could you clarify them for me?

If a second thread has the same article as another thread that I've already responded to (or something basically plagerized from a first thread's article), can I repeat the comment I made in the first thread in the second thread? Yes or no?

If not, can I modify it slightly (i.e., plagerize my post like the second article plagerized the first)? Yes or no?

If not, must I be entirely original?

Am I allowed to repeat any of the facts I listed in the first thread.

Or must I come up with entirely new facts.

How afraid of the inconvenient facts are you, christine?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-06   0:59:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 47.

#48. To: BeAChooser (#47)

Could you clarify them for me?

No, you are not worth the effort.

...  posted on  2007-04-06 01:01:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: BeAChooser (#47)

f not, must I be entirely original?

Yes.

...  posted on  2007-04-06 01:01:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: BeAChooser (#47)

Am I allowed to repeat any of the facts I listed in the first thread.

No.

Other people can do this, but you have abused the system with your spam. And that has consequences.

...  posted on  2007-04-06 01:02:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: BeAChooser (#47)

If not, can I modify it slightly (i.e., plagerize my post like the second article plagerized the first)? Yes or no?

No, because experience has shown that you will abuse the privilege.

...  posted on  2007-04-06 01:03:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: BeAChooser (#47)

Now stop your fucking whining little boy and grow up.

...  posted on  2007-04-06 01:03:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: beachooser, Destro, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#47)

How afraid of the inconvenient facts are you, christine?

You have so many on this forum so totally disgusted, that those rules are uniquely yours, BAC.

{Enjoy!}

If you're not smart enough to keep from insulting Christine, BAC, you deserve to go back to ElPee & Goldi.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-04-06 01:17:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]