See other 9/11 Articles
Title: David Ray Griffin debunks the official 9/11 story
Source:
http://commonground.ca/iss/0705190/cg190_griffin.shtml
URL Source: http://commonground.ca/iss/0705190/cg190_griffin.shtml
Published: May 2, 2007
Author: Elizabeth Woodworth
Post Date: 2007-05-02 18:19:16 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 156
Comments: 14
David Ray Griffin debunks the official 9/11 story by Elizabeth Woodworth David Ray Griffin is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology and a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories that implicate members of the US government in the attacks. His just-released book is Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Interlink Publishing). Griffin’s 9/11 books include The New Pearl Harbor (2003) and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004). New testimony from on-the-job first responders provides proof positive that 9/11 was an inside job. Eminent, world-renowned, Whitehead philosopher Dr. David Ray Griffin has been dogging the steps of the 9/11 official theory since colleagues first pointed out discrepancies in 2003. Griffin, whose bottom line is the ecological crisis, believes the 911-spawned “War on Terror” is keeping ecology on the back burner. Along with Griffin, hundreds of scholars, pilots, veterans, first responders and CIA, government and military officials, had, by May 2006, convinced a polled 42 percent of Americans that a new independent 9/11 investigation was needed. (See http://www.patriotsquestion911.com) Disturbed by the poll, in August of 2006, proponents of the official theory launched a four-pronged attack on the evidence that wouldn’t go away. They overhauled the official theory with revisions presented through a NIST (National Institutes of Standards and Technology) factsheet with information from Without Precedent, written by 9/11 commissioners Kean and Hamilton and material from Popular Mechanics’ Debunking 9/11 Myths, endorsed by Condoleezza Rice. To buttress these revisions, the government handed previously unreleased NORAD tapes to Vanity Fair’s Michael Bronner, whose 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes claims, astonishingly, that the military originally lied to the 9/11 Commission, withholding the fact that they had not known about the hijacked airlines until after they had crashed. The FAA had not bothered to tell them. Counters Griffin: “Is not this portrayal rendered especially unbelievable by the lack of reports that any FAA employees at Boston, Herndon or Washington were fired or even reprimanded for dereliction of duty?” Griffin tracks the official account’s misadventures as it defensively shifts blame for preposterous feats of incompetence from NORAD, to the FAA, to the fighter pilots. Griffin systematically invalidates the logical fallacies – evidence suppression, circular reasoning, special pleading and unsupported claims – of the evolving official story. Take the identity of the highjacker of flight 93, which was supposedly buried after nosing into the ground at 580 miles per hour: “So we are supposed to believe that although Jarrah’s body, being in the cockpit, was thrust dozens of feet into the ground, his passport, presumably in his pocket, flew out of the cockpit when the plane’s nose impacted the ground and landed intact on the surface.” Griffin details how NIST “tweaked the data” for its computer simulation model until it matched its hypothesis that fire had melted the steel, causing the “progressive collapse” of the Twin Towers. The revealing steel beams had been swiftly whisked away on flatbed trucks. A congressional science committee complained that the “… lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence.” Griffin notes, “The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC 7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically-baseless hypothesis devoid of historical precedent.” And though Pentagon flight 77 was supposedly “… vaporized… this claim was wildly incompatible with the assertion that the bodies of the plane’s occupants were later identified by their DNA.” The plane’s hitting the Pentagon was “… like taking a Coke can and smashing it against the wall. The back and the front become one… but smashing a Coke can does not reduce its weight. So why has no one reported finding a 100,000-pound piece of steel and aluminum in the wreckage?” Point by point, Griffin’s multi-faceted evidence converges on the conclusion that 9/11 was a false flag operation by vested interests seeking public consent to occupy the Middle East. If worldwide calls for an impartial investigation succeed, Griffin’s reference works will help guide the investigators through the growing maze of lies and cover-ups to an understanding of what actually happened that day. The resulting truth could well relieve the world of the fear, hatred and ugliness the event has spawned. Dr. Griffin speaks at St. Andrew’s-Wesley Church (Burrard at Nelson), May 16, 7:30 PM. Doors open 7 PM. Tickets: http://www.v911truth.org/drg.html, drgvancouver@yahoo.ca, 604 608-5667.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Outstanding, short and to the point recap of some of the more important points about 911. Thank you.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Great tagline.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition just bump it, Mark.
The book is an intense read, but incredibly detailed - thank God. Griffin didn't miss a single detail in the convoluted 'official' account of 9- 11. The Bush Cabal (and BAC) won't like it. (Yeah, I'm prejudiced!)
No shit. Anyone with half a brain is prejudiced also. We're tired of the lies, the corruption, the cover-ups, and the outrageous deceptions that this regime is still trying to perpetrate on the world. We're tired of our soldiers dying for a lie. We're going to be judged for killing innocent men, women, and children - for nothing but corporate profits. The Great Whore Babylon is going down.
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=51466&Disp=2#C2 Now I have to be careful not to spam this thread with something I wrote previously about David Ray Griffin. I guess it's ok to spam the forum over and over with something complimentary about him but woe to he who points out the dishonesty and lack of qualifications of this so-called *expert* on 9/11. So let's take a look at what Elizabeth Woodworth writes. I see he is still a theologian and philosopher. Guess he's been too busy to get that degree in structures, material science, macro-world physics or that experience in demolition that he really needs to be an expert regarding what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and the damage at the Pentagon. Guess he will have to rely on the same old group of experts he's used in the past ... a sub atomic particle physicist, an expert in dental materials, a expert in water treatment, a software developer, a janitor, an economist and a lawyer. Oh, he does have one new expert ... a commercial pilot who had his license revoked. Yes, the American public is not very sharp when it comes to seeing dishonesty, are they. Of course it helps to have a media that is both incompetent, sensationalist and liberally biased. It helps to have a school system controlled by liberals that has dumbed down the populace for a couple generations now. And it helps to know that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will be eventually be believed. Here's an example of the media's incompetence or bias, folks. NIST's hypothesis is NOT that fire melted the steel causing a progressive collapse. So either Griffin lied about that and the author of this article didn't bother to fact check anything, or the author incompetently or deliberately misrepresented what Griffin said. Either way, it's not a pretty picture. Funny. I don't hear any structural engineers, construction material experts or experts in demolition anywhere in the world complaining or saying that explosives is what brought down the WTC towers. Only a couple are now claiming that explosives brought down WTC 7 ... and that may be because they were only shown a video hand selected by conspiracists and weren't told before reaching their conclusion that fires burned unfought in the building for many hours or that firemen said the building was leaning long before the collapse and was going to collapse. And I bet that Grimmer is still claiming WTC7 took only 6.5 seconds to collapse. Did you know that's false? Here's a video to prove it: --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
As was Leslie Robertson who obtained a Bachelor of Science degree but never obtained any but an honorary engineering degree.
Funny. Unlike Griffin, Leslie Robertson did and is still doing something CONSTRUCTIVE with his life. And engineering schools and engineering organizations around the world have recognized that excellence. Had it not been for the act of insane arab terrorists, the towers he was instrumental in designing would still be standing. And doing the job they were created to do. By the way, the towers are not the only structures he's famous for designing. Now had the towers not been destroyed, what would Griffin's *monument* be? Another lie filled book about some other crazy notion? And what would you be doing? Promoting it too?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Unlike BeAChooser who is merely a disruptive shill.
I didn't get my license revoked, BAC - that's another of your perpetual lies; but few expect anything more of you. Christine, get rid of BAC, or E-mail me when you finally do. He's been given way more chance than he deserves. I can't speak for others, but I have much better things to do than monitor for the psyops & disinformation from the likes of him. This forum deserves far more. {one way or another, ".... buh-bye, BAC!"}
Now had the towers not been destroyed, what would Griffin's *monument* be? They did fall. In the New York Times on May 29, 1966, Ada Louise Huxtable wrote: Another lie filled book about some other crazy notion? Nah. Debunking crazy notions by BAC such as a guy not yet qualified to practice engineering in New York being the "Lead Structural Engineer of record" on the World Trade Center project during 1962, 1963 and 1964. The PM authors next suggest that the engineers, in constructing the towers, perhaps forgot to think about the fact that any planes hitting the towers would have fuel that would start big fires. They quote Leslie Robertson, called "(John] Skilling's chief colleague in the WTC project," as saying: "We... designed for the impact of [a Boeing 707]. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but... I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause." [138] However, perhaps Robertson, instead of simply searching his brain, should have searched to see what Skilling said. At least the PM authors should have done this, because, although they present Robertson as "Skilling's chief colleague in the WTC project," Skilling was the one in charge. Robertson was at the time a junior member of the firm (Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson). And Skilling, as I pointed out in Chapter 3, had thought about the fire damage, saying that if one of the towers were to be hit by a plane loaded with jet-fuel, "there would be a horrendous fire" and "a lot of people would be killed," but "the building structure would still be there." [139] [138] D9/11M 31, quoting Robertson's statement as provided in the New Yorker, 19 November 2001. [139] John Skilling's statement is quoted in Eric Nalder, "Twin Towers Engineered to Withstand Jet Collision," Seattle Times 27 February 1993. It is partially quoted in James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books,/Henry Holt, 2003) 138. And what would you be doing? Laughing at the other insane rants of BAC, such as the repeated invocation of Dave Gaubatz as a credible source on Iraq WMD.
Had it not been for an insane, disgruntled worker named Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone and armed with magic bullets, JFK would be an elder statesman.
But they aren't letting you fly commercial jets, are they?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You have access to FAA records? Wouldn't that mean that somebody has violated the Privacy Act?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
but smashing a Coke can does not reduce its weight. So why has no one reported finding a 100,000-pound piece of steel and aluminum in the wreckage?”
#2. To: richard9151 (#1)
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
#3. To: Kamala (#0)
#4. To: Kamala, Jethro Tull, nolu_chan, Minerva, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#0)
#5. To: SKYDRIFTER (#4)
(Yeah, I'm prejudiced!)
#6. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
David Ray Griffin debunks the official 9/11 story
David Ray Griffin is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology
Along with Griffin, hundreds of scholars, pilots, veterans, first responders and CIA, government and military officials, had, by May 2006, convinced a polled 42 percent of Americans that a new independent 9/11 investigation was needed.
Griffin details how NIST “tweaked the data” for its computer simulation model until it matched its hypothesis that fire had melted the steel, causing the “progressive collapse” of the Twin Towers.
A congressional science committee complained that the “… lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence.”
#7. To: BeAChooser, Kamala (#6)
I see he is still a theologian and philosopher. Guess he's been too busy to get that degree in structures, material science, macro-world physics
#8. To: nolu_chan, Kamala, ALL (#7)
As was Leslie Robertson who obtained a Bachelor of Science degree but never obtained any but an honorary engineering degree.
#9. To: BeAChooser (#8)
Leslie Robertson did and is still doing something CONSTRUCTIVE with his life.
#10. To: Christine, Critter, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#6)
#11. To: BeAChooser (#8)
Who's afraid of the big, bad buildings? Everyone, because there are so many things agout gigantism that we just don't know. The gamble of triumph or tragedy at this scale -- and ultimately it is a gamble -- demands an extraordinary payoff. The tradecenter towers could be the start of a new skyscraper age or the biggest tombstones in the world.
Robertson's monument? "Debunking 9/11 Debunking, An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory," David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2007, ISBN: 978-1-56656-686-5 p.
#12. To: BeAChooser (#8)
Had it not been for the act of insane arab terrorists, the towers he was instrumental in designing would still be standing.
#13. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#10)
I didn't get my license revoked, BAC
#14. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER (#13)
But they aren't letting you fly commercial jets, are they?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest