David Ray Griffin Article in the Canadian

New Evidence that the Official Story about 9/11 is Indefensible

by David Ray Griffin

Early in 2007, Interlink Books published my Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. The stimulus for my writing this book was the appearance in August 2006---just before the fifth anniversary of 9/11---of four publications intended to bolster the official account by debunking the alternative view, according to which 9/11 was an inside job. The most explicit and well-known of these publications was a book by Popular Mechanics entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths.

My book’s introduction and conclusion dealt with the irresponsible way the press, including the left-leaning press, has dealt with this issue. One of their failings, I showed, was simply to accept the official reports --- especially The 9/11 Commission Report and the report on the World Trade Center put out by the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) -- as neutral, scientific reports. They thereby ignored the fact that the 9/11 Commission was run by Philip Zelikow, who was virtually a member of the US. Bush administration, and that NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce and hence of the Bush administration (which has distorted science for political purposes to an unprecedented extent).

The book’s four chapters then demonstrated that none of the documents of August 2006 actually served to debunk the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The first two chapters dealt with two documents---including a new book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission -- that tried, by creating a completely new story, to debunk the claim that the U.S. military’s failure to intercept four hijacked airliners could have occurred only if there had been a stand-down order. I argued that this new story was too inherently implausible, as well as too contradictory of previous statements by the military, to be worthy of belief.

Continued HERE.

The Canadian

I had a look at "The Canadian", and found a lot of articles that made some, to my mind, highly suspect claims about a number of things. We already are very susceptible to charges of being lunatic fringe, and I think this was tactically not the best move on Dr. Griffin's part. Good article, suspect venue? I hang around with engineers, and I can see them rolling their eyes at this.

Mike Zimmer

"I had a look at "The

"I had a look at "The Canadian", and found a lot of articles that made some, to my mind, highly suspect claims about a number of things."

^ Can you cite some examples please?

The Doctor.

Anytime Dr. David Ray Griffin gets his viewpoints into the news I think it is a good thing. Can you explain what you are talking about when you say you can "see them rolling their eyes at this"?

Articles on "The Canadian" that I consider odd

Here is the URL of "The Canadian": http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/
Here is an article proposing a thesis that I consider unlikely, at best: http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/08/31/01735.html - Former Extraterrestrial Exposure Law proves Extraterrestrials live among us

Another title: Researcher claims Apollo footage faked to hide UFOs and evidence of Extraterrestrials

And another: Secrecy about UFOs and Extraterrestrials shows the true colours of an aspiring U.S. Global Empire

Perhaps I am wrong, and the authors of these articles are on to something very important. I consider it unlikely; just my current bias.

However, that WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2 did not collapse, but were in some manner exploded, has been demonstrated in a number of papers, some subject to peer review. I have trouble believing that the stuff about UFOs is as solid. I have over the decades read some of it. Tactically, having 9/11 truth findings associated with it leaves us wide-open to ridicule. Even if every claim on the Canadian has some substance, it is still diversionary, in my opinion.

Mike Zimmer

right on

but those articles do not take away from the substance mr griffins words, do they?

Some weird stuff

Mike's links take a while to find. Didn't notice them at first - but when you hit the Exopolitics links - it is pretty weird stuff.

Ray Mcgovern has a good info piece on USS Liberty here for people not familiar with it.


Thanks, point taken. This

Thanks, point taken. This made me laugh so hard;

"Dr. Salla documents discreet testimonies of different contactees and whistleblowers which suggest that extraterrestrial visitors who are virtually indistinguishable from humans are living among us. These extraterrestrial visitors appear to have very attractive physical characteristics, extraterrestrial females being described as among the most beautiful women that male observers have witnessed. The documented extraterrestrials go to great trouble in learning the indigenous language of the culture they are immersed in, learning how to drive and navigate on highways systems, and taking innocuous jobs over several years.


Good job

Thanks mikezimmer!

I noticed the same a long time ago, a classic discrediting by association which Griffin often walks right into. We cannot know what discrediting efforts are real and which are just people who think it's okay to mix UFOs with 9/11, but regardless, we need to expose these when we see them. Griffin has appeared with Shayler on an anniversary, has been featured on Coast to Coast, was called an anti-semite in Ireland for having not noticed that the website of the person hosting him was promoting "Captain Eric May" anti-semitic writings (along with promotions of Morgan Reynolds), etc. And Griffin has often said he thinks disinformation does not exist. Hence, this goes on and on.

But I also see many posters on blogger frantic to call the mixing of hoax and strong evidence to be "good" no matter what as long as it includes someone important. In reality, this is exactly how discrediting works -- mixing our best with stuff that average people find to be nuts will turn them away from our work and turn them off to our best evidence and researchers.

The problem is also that this brings traffic to a site which appears to be a legitimate Canadian news source, but which isn't, and does a good mixing of nuttery and strong research. So average people come to realize they don't want to step in another 9/11 "pothole."

No offense to the editor -- if you don't want these types of critiques floating around, please remove articles including stuff most of us recognize as hoaxes or unfounded claims, noted above. Stick to the strong research and dump the disputable stuff.

It's hard for us to even get to the relevance of Griffin's essay when it is located on such a problematic site.

Better not link to the BBC anymore...



I'm pretty sure you'll find "area 51" etc stories on CNN, ABC etc.

I could understand the criticism if that was "The Canadian's" main story type but it does not look like it.

Just my thoughts...

Best wishes



It's now TOP of the headlines... : http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/headline_news.html

(click to enlarge)

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

I will concede that it does have a few too many E.T. stories, but they are far outweighed by "normal" stories.


why defend mixing of nonsense and strong evidence?

>>I'm pretty sure you'll find "area 51" etc stories on CNN, ABC etc.

Yet in the majority of cases they are making fun of those or debunking them or showing they are "cult" etc. You won't find serious stories about Alfred Webre's beliefs that aliens gave time travel technology to governments in secret on CNN, ABC, etc. Occassionally they will do the "what if" stories because it brings in the UFO crowd.

The fact is, the publication we are talking about does not have the credibility to start with, even of the Nation, much less CBS, CNN, etc (for average people). So the comparison doesn't make sense.

The argument that "it's okay to have UFOs if they aren't the main stories" is another typical one to excuse the mixing. Many people supported Loose Change's inclusion of ideas like plane swapping in Penn and now we have an uphill battle to debunk that.

When you get 9/11 Truth on the front page of CNN, ABC or BBC...

please BLOG it...


"uphill battle to debunk " plane swapping, as far as I'm concerned it has not been debunked, not even nearly and certainly the most likely scenario for the precision attacks required for the planes designated to hit the towers (with rigged buildings nothing would be left to chance).

Nor have the many anomalies at the Pentagon that you too easily dismiss without putting them up for investigation.

You choose to believe what you want, Loose Change (even with it's few errors) has made millions of people aware that there are many unanswered questions with 9/11 and deserves much appreciation.

I appreciate what you do trying to protect the integrity of 9/11 truth with the "beamers" and "tv fakery" kakka but don't go throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Good luck and best wishes