David Ray Griffin Q&A

I reported a few weeks ago about an interactive questions and answers session between David Ray Griffin and RINF members.

David Ray Griffin has now answered the questions and also mentions a forthcoming book as reason for the delay.

The entire interview comes to over 30 pages in MS Word, so well worth the wait in my opinion.

You can check out what DRG was asked and his responses here: http://www.rinf.com/forum/911-truth-forums/the-david-ray-griffin-interview-drg-answers-your-questions-t431.0.html

Mr Griffin

Is AWESOME!.......He is an exceptional speaker,and a true asset towards the truth.
I look foward to reading his new book,and hopefully it will be made into a dvd.

Show "Griffin supports alternative researchers' right to their views" by Hereward

Alternative researchers have their rights BUT

The point is not "you have the right to think what you want". The point is getting an investigation with the most compelling evidence. It's not our job to answer unanswerable questions! The DEW theory can't be tested. Therefore we can't answer if it is true or not!

9/11 Truth is not a democracy. It is the truth. There are multiple interpretations but there are not multiple truths.

I was extremely disappointed in his answer. He should watch Judy Wood's recent interview by Greg Jenkins. He pretty much exposes her as a complete fraud who can't even answer basic questions about her theory.

In my mind there is NO credible evidence to support the space beam theory. Much of it is debunked thoroughly in a letter in the journal of 9/11 studies. The rest of the "evidence" can be explained by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Taking the position that all theories are EQUAL is a position of weakness. They aren't. By definition the scientific method states this.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "You are welcome to debunk 'space beams'" by Hereward

Again, I think you're

Again, I think you're missing the point here. Our job is only to establish the negative. Our job is only to prove that the official theory is false. Griffin says as much. In that context, space beams are completely irrelevant. He's not saying, nor should he say, "let the space beam hypotheses flourish." IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT DESTROYED THE TOWERS; what matters is that jet fuel and gravity were not the culprits.

If it turns out the neocons have harnessed the power of unicorn entrails and interdimensional travel, then good on them. But it's not our job to prove that.

To air disputes about space beams only serves to focus on irrelevant details (like people who are trying to tar us with "Holocaust denial" at the moment). First, prove that the official story is false. Then, bring the liars to justice. Then, establish what really happened, if possible.

Show "Is this a murder investigation or not? (PLEASE READ )" by Hereward

Exhibit A: Thermate

It's all we need.

Now I just wish that you would focus on this smoking gun evidence instead of un-testable speculation.

Show "Which is it?" by Ningen

Molten Steel is the #1 proof of an inside job

Proving that 9/11 was an inside job IS proving that the official story is false. Disproving the official story and proving really what happened are not mutually exclusive.

What IF Jones is wrong? He found thermite. Those who debate this fact should find some samples of their own to explain what caused the molten steel.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


Molten steel may not be enough evidence of thermite

BUT molten steel which remains in that state for 4 to 6 weeks under a constant stream of water is a clear indicator that there is a reaction happening.

Thermite would explain that reaction.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Excellent point

Not only was there molten steel. It was there for more than a month. Thermite is the ONLY reasonable explanation given so far.

“The molten metal pools below both towers and Building 7 after their collapses indicates a very large source of chemical energy, and is consistent with the use of large quantities of explosives. The molten metal contains traces as does the dust [independently analyzed] of unusual trace metals in unusual quantities such as barium [used in explosives], barium manganese and zinc—are the primary trace elements that we observe in large quantities. These are consistent with chemical reactions on a large scale. Molten metal was observed flowing out of the South Tower [before collapse].”

Steven Jones interview with Building designer Leslie Robertson

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Thermite was discussed six months before Jones" by Hereward

"Energy Beams destroying the towers is BS, and proveably so"

"The amount of power required to evaporate the steel in the upper 110 floors in ~10 seconds = 4 times the total power output of the entire globe (including all combustion, all bio-mass burning, electrical, etc.)..."

"Energy Beams destroying the towers is BS, and proveably so" Dr. Greg Jenkins, Physicist

Are you no more "expert" than Dr. Greg Jenkins Andrew?

Show "No. Greg Jenkins doesn't even know how tall the Towers were" by Hereward
Show "No. Greg Jenkins doesn't even know how tall the Towers were" by Hereward
Show "And it's a straw man anyhow" by Hereward
Show "Why have you given - 4 to Wayne Trumpman?" by Hereward
Show "Are you all trying to discredit CD research?" by Hereward
Show "Hoffman and Griffin address the energy deficit. Do you?" by Hereward
Show "If thermate fails, gravity and jet fuel is the default" by Ningen

Actually that's incorrect

Thermate is a tiny piece of the puzzle. 

  • There are 11 features of controlled demolition
  • Molten Metal is just one feature
  • Thermite/thermate does not explode
  • Thermate explains the molten metal feature primarily.
  • Explosives are often used in combination.

Other explosives can also explain the molten metal (but not for weeks after 9/11) and the other 10 features of controlled demolition. Because thermate does not explode it would not account for the “explosive” characteristics of controlled demolition.

You have to disprove all 11 features of controlled demolition not whether or not thermate was used specifically. To argue that disproving thermate disproves controlled demolition is a straw-man fallacy.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


I didn't say the theory was debunked I said the "evidence" was.

The rest of the evidence is what I would call "circumstantial". In other words just because the tower was destroyed doesn't mean that it HAD to be a DEW. That's circumstantial proof. You have to prove

1. The technology exists. Judy Wood admitted she doesn't know the "serial # of the gizmo". She doesn't even admit what type of beam it would be.

2. forensic evidence that supports that it was used. i.e. thermate causes sulfidation and molten steel for more than a month at ground zero. A laser beam presumably does not do these things. A laser beam would leave forensic evidence that would support its use.

3. I’ve analyzed the problems with the theory elsewhere. I just might make a summary of all of the evidence including the material in the Journal of 9/11 studies and Greg Jenkins' interview.

Once this model is provided to us the theory becomes "falsifiable". This means we can test it and see if it is TRUE or FALSE. We can't do that unless we have the technology.

It's not enough to imagine that it exists. You have to PROVE it. I could make a similar claim that aliens destroyed the tower with their laser beam. It's in the government's files. Trust me.

Well i'm not going to trust you. No one in their right mind is. You have to prove it.

Otherwise it's speculation that can't be tested.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

prove the negative

You're still not understanding Griffin's logic. We don't have to prove what really happened. All we have to prove (at first) is what DID NOT happen. I don't know how I (or Griffin) can be any clearer.

What we know is that WTC7 did not collapse symmetrically into its own footprint at near-freefall speed because of some runaway fires. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what you think about space beams, controlled demolition, or the price of tea in China.

The point is, we have proved that the government story is a lie. Don't introduce unnecessary speculation.

Prove the untestable

I understand Griffin’s logic completely.

It’s been shown repeatedly that the space beam proponents are unwilling or unable to engage in logical arguments.

My only problem with Griffin’s statement is that the DEW theorists will not heed his word and focus on the evidence that proves the official story is false. As I have said, these individuals are not prone to a rational approach to 9/11 truth as many are no doubt aware. It is also my opinion that if Griffin looked at the theory carefully, he would see just how little merit it actually has.

As for the DEW theory: it is a waste of time until they can show us how it can be tested. Steven Jones has also concluded that the theory is non-falsifiable.

And just to clarify, I fully support the position that we have already proved that the 9/11 "official story" is false as Griffin has said. But proving that the official story is false is not compelling enough for everyone. It begs the question: What happened then? I am just saying that un-testable speculation will never bring us the truth about 9/11--it is a distraction. If an un-testable theory has any merit at all it will be revealed in an investigation.

Steven Jones has proven with physical evidence that 9/11 was an inside Job. I object to those who try to discredit this evidence with blatant straw-man attacks and who coincidently present equally dubious theories of their own.

As I said elsewhere:

"...if the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis is NOT a falsifiable theory, why is it being pursued in favor of the concrete physical evidence that Steven Jones has accumulated strongly supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis?"

"Steven Jones has said that we don’t need to prove everything that happened on 9/11. In a recent interview he offered his opinion that we should focus on the solid (i.e. non-speculative) evidence that supports an inside job so that we can use it to get the public to support an investigation to finally uncover the entire truth about 9/11"

One more point:

Proving that 9/11 was an inside job IS proving that the official story is false. Disproving the official story and proving really what happened are not mutually exclusive.

David Ray Griffin is one of the strongest voices in our movement. There can be no question about this fact.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

missing the point

This is the part of his answer that matters most:

"We should, therefore, put our emphasis, especially in our public presentations, on the point on which we all agree: that the official story, according to which the buildings were destroyed by the combination of fire and externally caused damage, is false. This is partly, as you say, because of the energy deficiency. But it is also because of all the features of the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that can be explained, and can only be explained, through the use of some sort of technology that could produce explosions sufficient to slice steel and pulverize virtually all of the concrete.
We can show, accordingly, know that official theory is false without knowing what the true theory is. And that is all we need to show in order to demonstrate that the destruction of the WTC was an inside job."

Show ""some sort of technology that could produce explosions ..."" by Hereward

Your act is wearing thin

Thermite is not capable of exploding. In fact Jones never said it was. His theory is that explosives used in COMBINATION. This is typical in controlled demolitions.

Perhaps you should read Griffin's essay detailing the 11 features of controlled demolition. I think this would make clear what he believes. Perhaps it might even make you consider supporting this theory instead of an un-testable one. I'm not crossing my fingers on that one.

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin

I find it very interesting how you refuse to follow Griffin's advice about focusing on the fact that the official 9/11 story is false. Or avoid focusing on the "smoking guns". This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that DEW theorists will refuse to follow this advice.

Don't you get it? Thermite proves 9/11 was an inside job. It doesn't matter if it can't explain everything!

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Ah,but if you highlight these bits it reads differently" by Hereward
Show "you gave -4 to DRG ! Here is the quote again without highlights" by Hereward

Well done

Prof. Griffin, such a clear thinker and speaker. The most balanced view within the 911 truth movement, focusing on exposing the lie, rather than speculating on the modus operandi. We should all follow his lead.


Show "MANY MANY THANKS!! good to" by u2r2h

My thoughts

are that I'm sorry you have so much time on your hands to write ALL of that.

Show "MANY MANY THANKS!! good to" by u2r2h


Is a PDF of the Q&A. Dr. Griffin has been bolded for easy reading.

Click Here

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Arabesque and Simuvac

exude impressive clarity and rationality in their comments. Whatever happened to Imstacke, he is of a similar calibre?

Generally, 9/11 truth is blessed with a wealth brilliant activists, the one just above being no exception.

Thank you BMAC

I also wonder happened to imstacke. I like that guy.


Posted a message a few weeks ago expressing his need to step away from the movement for a moment, because it was affecting his health, and I believe the health of his family. At least that is what he stated.

That's too bad.

Hope he's ok.

Show "He has my sympathy." by Hereward

Straw-men and CIA agents

Calling Jenkins a CIA agent is rather hypocritical when you complain that others call you one Andrew. In any case you continuously reveal that you are only interested in the facts convenient to your argument like many of the straw-men artists on 911 Blogger. You are not interested in having a rational debate of the facts.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "That is a lie, and you know it" by Hereward

My argument is my credibility--not my identity

Maybe you didn’t hide behind a pseudonym (or at least until you lied about not coming back with a different name) because you weren’t afraid of the intelligence agencies... I won't offer speculation here.

Your posts speak for themselves as do mine. I don’t need to comment on the quality of your ‘work’ here.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Are you Ronald Wieck, Arabesque?" by Hereward
Show "This thread is an insult to the intelligence" by Hereward
Show "why would an 'agent' want to throw light on top secret weapons?" by Hereward
Show "why would an 'agent' want to throw light on top secret weapons?" by Hereward

Get an investigation. Then get your answers.

You mean: promoting un-answerable speculation that can’t be tested. 

Disagree?  Show me how your theory is falsifiable.  Show me how we can test it.  Show me how I can prove to you it is wrong.  If it can't do those things it's not a scientific theory by definition

And I want to you respond--not someone else... unless you want to continue forcing me to believe you don't believe in this theory.  

You admitted that I actually looked at the theory in a reasonable manner elsewhere.  When are you going to do the same by answering this question for me?

Get an investigation. Then get your answers.

What exactly is your problem with that idea? 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."