Support 911Blogger


The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi

Alternet | October 6, 2008

The two writers lock horns over the accuracy of Griffin's recent book, 9/11 Contradictions.

A poll of 17 countries that came out September of this year revealed that majorities in only nine of them "believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States." A Zogby poll from 2006 found that in America, 42% of respondents believed the US government and 9/11 Commission "covered up" the events of 9/11. It's safe to say that at least tens of millions of Americans don't believe anything close to the official account offered by the 9/11 Commission, and that much of the outside world remains skeptical.

Over the years, AlterNet has run dozens of stories, mostly critical, of the 9/11 Movement. Matt Taibbi has taken on the 9/11 Truth Movement head on in a series of articles, and most recently in his new book, The Great Derangement.

In April, I asked Taibbi if he would be interested in interviewing David Ray Griffin, a leading member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University and author of seven of books on 9/11, about his recent book, 9/11 Contradictions. After months of back and forths between them and some editorial delays, I'm pleased to share their written exchange -- all 24,000 words of it. What we have here are the preeminent writers on both sides of the 9/11 Truth argument; a one-of-a-kind debate. Because the questions and responses are quite long, I've woven them together in order. Enjoy. -- Jan Frel, AlterNet Senior Editor.

Continue Reading >

Additional David Ray Griffin Media

Front page stuff

Please go on over to Alternate and post comments - needs registration. This is a major article.

I agree

front page it.

this is really good. maybe

this is really good. maybe matt has been enlightened a little bit.

Lots of great comments @Alternet. I liked this one:

Matt Taibbi - the Sarah Palin of "Journalism"

Posted by: gary_7vn on Oct 6, 2008 2:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Taibbi is there to appeal to the shitheads out there who are either incapable of, or never learned how, to formulate or understand a rational argument. Just as Palin is there to appeal to millions of Americans who mispronounce the names of countries they are destroying or are about to destroy (there is no eye in Iraq or Iran) with her faux folksiness and appeals to fear, bigotry and stupidity.

There is no rational defense of the official story, so instead we have junkyard dogs like him barking and snarling in defense of the indefensible.

"Yeah, I read it, Matt sure tore that asshole traitor egghead a new asshole!"

The comments clearly

The comments clearly indicate that Griffin came out on top. I mean, once you get through one or two asinine comments, the majority of the highly rated comments which define the contours of the discussion are pro-Truth.

I cannot be as charitable as Dr. Griffin

Griffin gently, rationally helps Taibbi demonstrate that he cannot think his way out of a wet paper bag, no matter how many libelous vulgarities he strings together. If so much were not at stake, one might afford amusement and pity for Taibbi. This is no "showdown"; Taibbi is defensless. But not as defensless as the countless souls victimized by this fascistic outrage and the voiceless millions who trust progressive "intellectuals" like Taibbi to "speak truth to power". Btw, Taibbi is no Hunter Thompson. Thompson knew evil when he saw it and was not afraid to call it out.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Taibbi so desperately wants

to be Hunter Thompson.

As Thompson once said, "Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."

the powers that be

seem to want us to believe he is the "new" Hunter (I've seen him touted as such in reviews), which is ridiculous because Hunter knew, before many of us did, that 9/11 was a scam. I think Taibbi missed his true calling, writing for Saturday Night Live. His stabs at political humor are equally unfunny and pathetic. Anyone see his appearances on last season of Real Time, where he played silly little movies of himself running around the debates (which didn't generate much laughs), and then it would cut back to him looking slightly red-faced and possibly ashamed? How the hipsters could embrace this guy, as we are led to believe, is a hilarious sign o the times for me. His interview with Griffin gave me a friggin' headache, but kudos to Griffin for at least trying to guide a moron to water.

Matt Taibbi

Matt Taibbi appears to have no problem apologizing for the Bush administration. His smear attacks and low-brow language are classless--certainly not an example of Journalism. He relies on long strings of ridicule to make his "points". Unfortunately, David Ray Griffin gives him several open opportunities for ridicule. Ridicule is the only good weapon that Taibbi has, and even these attempts are pathetic to those who know a damn about 9/11.

"Secondly: what the fuck? What kind of lunatic comes up with this as his "illustrative example"? Your simplifying parable is more fantastic and complicated than the actual story! At first I thought you were kidding, then I had to go back and read it to believe it -- astounding! It should tell the readers of this debate quite a bit that this is your idea of a good way to start an argument: "Say for example that your best friend is killed in broad daylight with a crossbow, and the government frames you for the crime using advanced morphing technology"

David Ray Griffin should understand by now the straw-man attack method of defenders of the official story which is: attacking the weakest evidence and speculation and ignoring the rest of the credible evidence. To his credit, DRG pointed out that this was in fact Taibbi's strategy. However, it is clear that speculation about mass fakery of eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon and Cell phone voice morphing should never be presented as representing the 9/11 truth movement--especially in a debate with someone who is OBVIOUSLY going to ridicule these claims. By focusing on the strongest evidence, the 9/11 truth movement is largely immune from the ridicule tactics of people like Taibbi who are only more than happy to ridicule any "theory" or controversial point. It was like watching a debate between a professor and some guy who resorts to using words like "fuck" to make his "points". However, I think DRG could have done better and he could have stuck to the best evidence--especially in a debate situation where he should have known his weaker points would have been mercifully attacked.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

David Ray Griffin crushed Matt Taibbi

Yes David Ray Griffin's answers were comprehensive and he did not give Matt Taibbi any free passes.

David Ray Griffin provided an overwhelming weight of evidence. Matt Taibbi was also not given any undefended ground to stand on.

I score the debate 99.99 for DRG and -20 for Matt Taibbi.

voice morphing

voice morphing really is a stretch. i don't believe the truth movement should defend this - moreover, i would think that for the average person, it's on par with fashioning a hat out of aluminum oil.

we should back off this piece of speculation because it cannot be proven one way or another without the perpetrators confessing to it, which is not going to happen.

and let me also point out Arabesque...

...that your comment is somewhat disengenuos.

"However, it is clear that speculation about mass fakery of eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon and Cell phone voice morphing should never be presented as representing the 9/11 truth movement"

You chose to use the analogy that DRG uses to support your position that we shouldn't approach certain subjects as that they will be ridiculed. You go so far as to call it "speculation".

However, perhaps you didn't read DRG's complete interview.

This story was just a set-up to expose how silly Tabbi's claims about presenting a full hypothisis about the complete 'conspiracy theory" was.

When discussing the Pentagon eyewitnesses that Tabbi claimed numbered in the "thousands", DRG simply pointed out 1. that even Popular Mechanics didn't inflate the numbers that high, they claimed only hundreds... 2. that according to the actual witness statements, there were only 123 actually given and only a certain percentage mentioned the "plane" as being a commercial airliner... 3. and of those, only a small percentage don't directly contradict the "official conspiracy theory" (like wings folding back into the jet or people seeing faces in windows at 500mph+ (not easy to do)...

and as far as the voice morphing technology goes, DRG worked in the article about how that was being used, written in 1999, so as to show it already existed...

But the big part of that discussion, was where DRG pointed out that the guy who created the whole "Let's Roll" hero story was not even talking to his wife, but rather a AirPhone employee and Tabbi had gotton that part of the story wrong when he said the guy was talking to his wife.

Why would that guy want to talk to his wife before they attempted something that may result in his death.

So, Arabesque, the part of the interview you chose to quote does make those kinds of evidence seem weak; however had you continued to read on, you would find that DRG did in fact address key parts of the official story with strong evidence on both topics.

Strong evidence rooted in fact and Tabbi had no answer for either of them.

This too you is weak evidence?

A couple of points

"When discussing the Pentagon eyewitnesses that Tabbi claimed numbered in the "thousands", DRG simply pointed out 1. that even Popular Mechanics didn't inflate the numbers that high, they claimed only hundreds."

Willyoman. For every "100 documented accounts" how many undocumented accounts are there? Well, the answer is obviously, a lot more. And David Ray Griffin should understand this too. DRG seems to pretend that only recorded accounts "count" when in fact there were many more witnesses who saw what happened. This is significant because it means a very high chance of someone speaking out if they witnessed something other than what the other 100 or so witnesses claimed happened.

"However, perhaps you didn't read DRG's complete interview."

Yes, I did.

"So, Arabesque, the part of the interview you chose to quote does make those kinds of evidence seem weak; however had you continued to read on, you would find that DRG did in fact address key parts of the official story with strong evidence on both topics."

I'm not sure I understand how this in any way validates a serious proposal of "voice morphing". In a DEBATE of all places. DRG is NOT dumb, so I am bewildered to encounter such claims in a debate situation where they will be predictably ridiculed. And they were. So my point is not that he makes no good points, it is that he discredits his strong arguments by association.

"...and all you Arabesque fans do is point out one little flaw in his 10 page dissection of Taibbi?"

The basic strategy (and even DRG pointed this out in the debate) was for Taibbi to ridicule his weaker points and ignore the rest. So why not give him these openings? Seems like fair criticism to me. If you want to win a debate and impress people, why not talk about things like insider trading, war games, promotions, 30% of family member questions answered out of hundreds and other un-debatable issues? Isn't it worth pointing out that the U.S. military had war game scenarios involving "hijacked" aircraft? Apparently, cell phone "voice morphing" is higher on the list? Of course, you can't seriously say this with a straight face, which makes my criticism all the more valid.

DRG has probably done more 9/11 research than I have (he has written more books than I certainly), but I can easily give you about a list of 50+ things more incriminating than the idea that phone calls were "voice morphed".

As someone who has written several books on 9/11, why is this so difficult to figure out? Focus on the best evidence, ESPECIALLY in a debate situation. This should be a no-brainer. Why isn't it? Is this even necessary to explain to you?

Fortunately, I don't have to explain this to DRG who says:

"I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this... ...No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false."
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/conspiracy_theologian/5834/
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

I agree...

The Facts Speak For Themselves. Dr. Griffin could have destroyed Taibbi with information that doesn't involve theory.

I made the point to someone the other day that it is more effective to point out that someone is lying, rather than theorizing about why they are lying.

As Patty Casazza said in 9/11: Press For Truth (not verbatim), "They lied. They all lied. Now we need to find out why they were lying..."

I have a great amount of respect for Dr. Griffin, however, I don't agree with him as often as I used to.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

He didn't "use theroy" Griffin answered ...

... Taibbi's quesions with facts as I pointed out. What "theory" are you talking about? And why would you, Gold and Arabesque continue to undermine Griffin?

Voice Morphing...

Stand Down... those are theories... I'm not undermining Dr. Griffin. I said I have a lot of respect for him. I just don't agree with him as often as I used to. It is ok to critique someone in a respectful way.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Fair enough

You aren't the one suggesting a link between Griffin and "white supremisisits and Nazis" so, I will give you that much. Yes, it's fair to criticize his use of the 'voce morphing" tchnology, but that wasn't what he got into during the interview. In fact he only mentioned it in passing. As I mentioned above, he focused on Taibbi's misunderstanding of the "official story" and the evidence at hand.

"And why would you, Gold and

"And why would you, Gold and Arabesque continue to undermine Griffin?"

What do you mean by "continue"?

______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

i agree with Arabesque

Taibbi sounds idiotic and juvenile in his defense of the OCT and his attacks on 9/11 theories, whether they're credible or not.

Griffin made a lot of good points, presented some good evidence and raised some good questions. Why then, does he also choose to promote highly controversial and weak claims like voice morphing and "no 757" at the Pentagon? Someone who looks into and realizes these claims are weak and speculative, if not completely bogus, may assume that the rest of Griffin's evidence and arguments are also bogus, even if they sound eloquent. Some may also be inclined to dismiss all 9/11 questions and skeptics out of hand, others (including policy and decision makers in media and Congress) will be inclined to steer clear of Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement because of his high profile and habit of mixing bad info and sources with good evidence and arguments.

Griffin's quotes about the 123 witness is apparently taken from this article by Jerry Russell which provides no links or evidence to support the following claims, although it does provide links for other claims he makes about the witnesses:
"Possibly the most important subset of witnesses consists of those who provide explicit, realistic and detailed claims that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon after executing a high velocity, low altitude approach. In these statements, I found a high level of disagreement among the eyewitnesses, about the detailed physical description of the actual collision, as well as disagreements with the "official story" of the 757 impact as determined by the ASCE report. Out of 31 witness accounts which were classified as "explicit", I was able to identify substantial errors or contradictions in 21 accounts, or 68%. There would naturally be some discrepancies and variability expected in the witness accounts, and I have no way of judging whether the Pentagon testimony is within acceptable bounds. However, it is natural for skeptics to ask if these witnesses could be so wrong about so many things, and yet be trusted to correctly report the difference between a true aircraft impact, and a "magic show" or overflight.

Operating within the hypothesis that there might have been a conspiracy within the Pentagon and the renovation staff, I created a category of "elite insiders" who were either highly placed military officers, government officials, media officials, or employees of the Pentagon renovation team and security staff. This is admittedly a circularly defined category, since if there is no conspiracy, then these witnesses would be no different than any other witnesses. I found a very high prevalence of elite insider connections among the witnesses who claimed to see the 757 hit the Pentagon, compared to other witnesses whose perceptions were more indeterminate. Out of the 31 explicit witnesses, 13 had what I would consider "deep" insider connections, while 24 of 31 worked for either the Federal Government or the mainstream media. It is possible that the high incidence of insiders among the highly explicit witnesses, is simply a result of the location of the incident."
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:aJTUAFI028EJ:www.911-strike.com/Pla...

In his books Griffin quotes Jim Hoffman extensively on controlled demolition at the WTC, but ignores his evidence and arguments that what hit the Pentagon was a 757.
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

See this analysis of the eyewitness accounts by Arabesque:
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony (source links)
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html

The Pentagon Honeypot
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-honey-pot.html

Griffin also quotes holocaust deniers like Hufschmid, Rense, Serendipity.li, APFN, Bollyn, etc. as sources.
http://www.oilempire.us/griffin.html

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

You guys are the same ones who

said for the longest time that we also shouldn't talk about Building 7. Till that silly NIST report came out.

And didn't you guys also say we shouldn't even talk about controled demo there for awhile?

And now you are insinuating that Griffin is in league with Holocaust Deniers?

What kind of site is this anyway?

And i have already explained that Griffin just mentioned the morphing stuff, but he actually used hard evidence to attack Taibbi's claim that someone called his wife and laid out the entire "Let's Roll" story.

And this "morphing thing" is what you guys chose to talk about here?

Kinda leaves people with the wrong impression of DRG's interview, now doesn't it?

i have been calling

i have been calling people's attention to the evidence of controlled demo and the holes in official WTC explanations since 2005.

I've never said people shouldn't discuss stuff; i have maintained that people should verify claims and evidence, and if they're gonna speculate, be clear with yourself and your audience that's what you're doing.

Misinformation distracts and discredits, and will not help the case for a new investigation, or be useful in a new investigation.

Griffin quotes and references people holocaust deniers/neonazi/white supremacist like the ones i named, who've been exposed for making errors, in addition to endorsing offensive/discredited viewpoints- you think those are OK sources, willyloman?

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

I think Griffin did a great job...

...on a site that we have ALL been wanting to see cover 9/11 Truth issues...

...and all you Arabesque fans do is point out one little flaw in his 10 page dissection of Taibbi?

I don't know who you are talking about when you say he quotes discredited white supremisists.... I don't know what you are talking about.

However, that isn't what you are getting at, now is it?

What you are asking me is if I support that kind of rhetoric. What you are doing is attempting to find some reason to get me kicked off this site, aren't you? One more dissenting view point silenced?

I don't know what Holocaust deniers you are talking about and I have NEVER heard Griffin say ANYTHING like that and you shouldn't try to link his good name with people like that.

willy- "I don't know who you

willy- "I don't know who you are talking about when you say he quotes discredited white supremisists.... I don't know what you are talking about."

loose- "Griffin also quotes holocaust deniers like Hufschmid, Rense, Serendipity.li, APFN, Bollyn, etc. as sources."

Eric Hufschmid
Rense.com
Serendipity.li
apfn.net
Christopher Bollyn

and other weird/offensive sources have been referenced/quoted in all of Griffin's books. Anyone, including you, can verify this by checking the references section in the back of DRG's books, and then google the names and visit these sites to check out the kind of material they promote. Many people are, and many have already; you can be sure anyone with a reputation and career in media/Congress is going to do this before considering Griffin "credible"; how likely are they to conclude that he is, considering some of these sources? In addition to the bogus evidence/arguments he sometimes make, i.e. "no 757" and voice morphing? Regardless of the fact that he sounds intelligent and eloquent?

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Let me get this striaght...

you try to discredit David Ray Griffin because this MSM and this Congress might not take him seriously? This Congress that refuses to impeach? This Congress that helped create the 9/11 Commission Report? This Congress that gets paid by the MIC and helped sell the Iraq war? This Congress?

I don't really need to say anything about the MSm except that, after all this time, we get a shot on AlterNet, and Griffin does a great job, and the ONLY ones ridiculing him... are you three...

...now what does that mean? AlterNet is "media" and they seem to be taking him very seriously.

Now, when I write I quote all kinds of people; Rove, Cheney, Zelikow, Rockefeller... and of course I have to provide links to those quotes as proof.

Now does that mean I am in league with them? Does that mean my work supports their efforts? Hardly.

But that would give someone the oportunity to come along and use that as a dishonest way to try to discredit my work.

Instead of talking about a bibliography page, why don't you provide links to the places where Prof. Griffin supports the efforts of these sites and these people like you are implying?

Again, you might not think that there is sufficiant evidence to support the events at the pentagon that day, but I and MANY others do.

Of course we all know what your opinion was on talking about Building 7, before the NIST report came out... we remember that that too wasn't "our strongest evidence". And we see how long that lasted and how well that worked out.

In the end, if you have evidence of some association between DRG and these "groups"... spill it. If not...

...then this fabricated stretch of guilt by association is starting to sound like Sarah Palin and that 60's radical guy Obama bumped into once.

and of course, again that begs the question... "why"?

why?

W- “you try to discredit David Ray Griffin because this MSM and this Congress might not take him seriously? This Congress that refuses to impeach? This Congress that helped create the 9/11 Commission Report? This Congress that gets paid by the MIC and helped sell the Iraq war? This Congress?”

L- A patriotic Congress and honest media will have normal standards for evidence and witnesses, such as credibility; that this corrupt Congress and media has used the things i'm pointing out as an excuse to dismiss Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't mean’t it’s not important to rely on good evidence.

W- “I don't really need to say anything about the MSm except that, after all this time, we get a shot on AlterNet, and Griffin does a great job, and the ONLY ones ridiculing him... are you three...

...now what does that mean? AlterNet is "media" and they seem to be taking him very seriously.”

L- Coverage is good, using it to promote misinformation, speculation, weak evidence and controversial theories isn’t.

W- “Now, when I write I quote all kinds of people; Rove, Cheney, Zelikow, Rockefeller... and of course I have to provide links to those quotes as proof. Now does that mean I am in league with them? Does that mean my work supports their efforts? Hardly. But that would give someone the oportunity to come along and use that as a dishonest way to try to discredit my work.”

L- That depends on the reason you’re quoting them and the context.

W- “Instead of talking about a bibliography page, why don't you provide links to the places where Prof. Griffin supports the efforts of these sites and these people like you are implying?”

L- Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Introduction, pg 14:
"Furthermore, if everyone who believes the alternative conspiracy theory, rather than the official conspiracy theory, is by definition a nut, then Cockburn would have to sling that label at [list of names]”

note 47 Eric May http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-is-captain-may.html
Also included in this list as people who Griffin implies are not “nuts”, are Phil Berg, bogus lawsuit filer, and Morgan Reynolds, of “no planes” and Judy Wood fame. Yeah, maybe they’re not nuts; maybe they’re provocateurs.

I stopped looking when I got to May’s name in the notes for the introduction; flipping to this I noticed Fetzer’s name for Note 31 (edit- Griffin is making the point that believing 9/11 was an inside job is not a reassuring paradigm, so that can't be the reason people believe it- i agree with Griffin's argument). Would you reference Fetzer, Reynolds, Berg or May (as credible people, or to prove a point like note 31), Willyloman? If your desire is to add credibility to your work, and not give detractors an easy excuse to discredit you by association?

W- “Again, you might not think that there is sufficiant evidence to support the events at the pentagon that day, but I and MANY others do.”

L- You’re entitled to your opinion and to debate freely in public. However, there isn’t hard evidence for the “no 757” claim- do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon? What if you’re wrong? Are you willing to express your doubts, but qualify them by saying you may be wrong about what hit the Pentagon, but in any case it’s clear that NOTHING should’ve hit the Pentagon, and you support full disclosure, including the release of the 85 videos, hundreds of photos and all other withheld documentation?

W- “Of course we all know what your opinion was on talking about Building 7, before the NIST report came out... we remember that that too wasn't "our strongest evidence". And we see how long that lasted and how well that worked out.”

L- “[my] opinion was on talking about Building 7”; again; I’ve never said people shouldn’t talk about 7 or anything else; I think people shouldn’t go beyond what the facts reveal as far as claims we make, and to make it clear when we’re speculating and theorizing. (Edit- To me, it's always seemed obvious the WTC was controlled demolition; but would a jury of 12 unanimously conclude it beyond a reasonable doubt? (edit2- possibly; but who did it?). A grand jury would probably consider it reason to investigate, but with the steel destroyed, can it be proven? (edit2- A full honest criminal or Congressional investigation might be able to discover and prove who did it in a court of law. Plus there's all the other evidence of negligence/malfeasance/complicity that needs to be investigated- even in the statements of Bush Admin principals http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project ) Documentation in the FEMA report does support the thermate theory, as does video. With the 2 published papers and the upcoming red chips paper and the debate being brought into that level in the scientific community, that introduces a new level, though. Sometimes science does inform decisions makers and public policy.)

W- "In the end, if you have evidence of some association between DRG and these "groups"... spill it. If not..."

L- Griffin referenced them, not me; I’m just pointing out that he did. He chose to reference them; that means they’re in his books for people to reference, and consider what he says based on the true facts and these opinions.

W- "...then this fabricated stretch of guilt by association is starting to sound like Sarah Palin and that 60's radical guy Obama bumped into once. and of course, again that begs the question... "why"?"

L- Right, why are you twisting my words and avoiding the issues I’m raising? Anyone else want to weigh in? How do you like these sources?

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

You know, your "evidence" there that Griffin

is associated with "white supremisists and Nazis" is beyond stupid. You say yourself that he is just mentioning these assholes.

Griffin does NOT believe nor does he support "No Planes hit the Towers", "Ray beams from Space" type theories, and you damn well know it.

And yes I distictly remember you talking about people not bringing up Building 7 because, as you said, people weren't "qualified" to explain the problems with the collapse.

You know, you and Arabesque and Gold might THINK you are the smartest people around here, and you might THINK you are saving this movement by getting people to vote down any comments that disagree with your little hold on this site... and you may have the numbers of little minions to do just that...

... but at some point, the people that run this site are going to see through your little game here. And on that day, this site will become 10 times better than it is right now.

Now matter how you color it or no matter how much lipstick you put on this bullshit, David Ray griffin did a GREAT job, and for you guys to try and systematicly run him down on THIS site afterward should tell people EXACTLY what you are and what you are about here.

Thank you SO MUCH for telling all of us ignorant SHEEP what the BEST evidence is that we SHOULD talk about.

Oh yes, and I forgot Jon, thank you for also going over to OpEd News and telling everyone THERE what they should or should not be talking about when it comes to 9/11.

I mean hell, if you can't research and you haven't any real insightful original ideas, you might as well control the conversation as your means to contribute, huh?

Thank you thank you thank you.

(now go email your little minions on Arabesques site and get them to come over here and vote this comment down before too many people see it.)

dude

i've been emailing and posting comments with links to controlled demolition videos and articles since summer 2005, my blog 911reports.com and arabesque911.blogspot.com both have numerous articles laying out evidence for controlled demolition. You should link my quote, i don't recall what your problem is; good videos and articles make a strong case, but it still needs a full criminal/congressional investigation to determine the guilty parties and hold them accountable, or what?

Misinformation doesn't help 9/11 truth and justice. DRG is brilliant, it's disappointing and strange he incorporates these theories and sources into his work. Griffin is associating himself with these people and these ideas by the context in which he references them. As Arabesque notes above, there is much better evidence of complicity. This includes things that tie specific people to acts and events; Cheney being contradicted by Mineta, Bohrer and himself about when he was in the PEOC and the "orders still stand" that the Commission obfuscated, distorted and left out. Rumsfeld; authorization for use of deadly force in air defense intercepts changed to include the Sec of Def June 01 during the summer of threat which includes planes being hijacked as missiles which the Pentagon drilled for and Rumsfeld is out of the loop the morning of 9/11 cuz he had to "make a few phone calls". Why push the weak and weird stuff?

(edited to correct typos)

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

since when has congresss become credible?

You cant have read Gulllivers Travels. Congress has all the credibility of Swifts Yahoos. The same Congress has been all to ready to endorse Bush'sWar of (sorry: ON) Terror. Has ignored many of the problems with the official conspiracy theory, and are well known for bowing to the likes of the Israel lobby.

Why assume Congress is comprised of upright and credible people? Griffins credibiliy has nothing to do with his quoting Hufschmid et al. YOURS tho is in jeopardy, given your lame efforts to smear Griffin.

What has 'Holocaust denial' have to do with 9-11?

What does it matter what 'many people' think?Or are you afraid of other people?

'addition to the bogus evidence/arguments he sometimes make, i.e. "no 757" and voice morphing?'

sorry but no 757 hit pentagon is based on the available evidence.Prove that flight 757 DID hit the pentagon.You will have to show photo evidence of it striking the pentagon, not just piece of flotssam on the front lawn. Evidence will need to show it did NOT plow up the lawn, which is what would happened if it struck the first floor.
etc

dude

the fake public servants in Congress suck; however, Congress, under the Constitution, has authority to subpoena documents, witnesses and other evidence and hold public hearings which will be on CSpan and highly publicized all over the web. I support a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, personally, and for it to have teeth, it's gonna have to be established by law or Amendment http://www.foavc.org .

With the economy imploding and the Bullshit administration enabled by the Republocrat Congress continuing to threaten Iran and make moves indicative of planning for martial law; bailout threats to Congress, Northcom stationing combat troops in the US, 2007 Defense Authorization, things may get really bad. However, when things get bad is when the People get organized; i guess that's why Bush has a 100K ranch in Paraguay (no extradition treaty). How long will the People tolerate martial law and lies about terror and finance, if we can't go shopping? (Edit- forgot my point; during the Great Depression, more incumbents got turned out of office than any other period of US history)

Misinformation and referencing anti-semitic/racist/white supremacist/holocaust denial etc. doesn't add to credibility it detracts from it, so why do it? It's not like there aren't less inflammatory sources, even for bogus theories.

If you have evidence that anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, post it so we can see

I can understanding someone thinking it's inconclusive, but to date no hard evidence has been presented that anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, and there's a lot of evidence that one did, as i've replied to you with links in 2 comments.

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

no 'dude'

That dude word tells me agreat deal about you,'dude'.

'If you have evidence that anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, post it so we can see'

Your call for evidence is risible. Im waiting for you or anyone to show me evidence the pentagon was hit by flight77. You can ask your buddies at the FBI to make public the CITGO video.Meanwhile, a huge 757 could not fit that little hole!

'Dude'.

"incredible"

Did you look at the link to frustratingfraud? The Citgo vid has already been made public; what are you saying?

That "little hole!" is fuselage sized and in the middle of a 90' gash at the base; with remote control technology you can say you know 100% for sure that a 757 couldn't have caused the damage?

You should check the links i posted; you think all these people including Alex Jones are nuts?

There's much better evidence of complicity anyway, like the Cheney and Rumsfeld points i listed on the 1st pg

Besides, NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon; even a 757 hitting the Pentagon means treason happened.

if you can find actual evidence that it was a missile or war plane, let's have it.

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

no flight 77 hit pentagon is NOT controversial

Wrong Loosenuke: the evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon, is very tenuous, baased on 'eyewitnesses' whose testimonies were thoroughly analysed by Gerard Holmgren ages ago. he was able to show that many of the testomonies were made well after the story had been in the public sphere,many were by dubious defence and media persons.
The physical evidence was almost nonexistent: a piece of very clean metal on the pentagon with no evidence it came from the plane or any plane that hd been in a fireball.
Inorder to enter the first floor of the pentagon, the planes engines would have been digging trenches in the lawn....guess what: no trenches.
Hole too small, no wings or tail section...
Plane struck a largely untenated part of the pentagon...why didnt terrorists hit the other side? Bad info?

etc
etc
Those who believe the official story do so because the alternative leaves unanswered questions. This is a tact the US govt is keen on: thats why theyve always rejected any sort of real independent investigation.

MY view: so far th evidence supports towers 1 and 2 being hit by jets...but not the pentagon. Videos that could have settled the matter were confiscated by the FBI,which had the amazing presence of mind to be at the CITGO gas station in minutes....a video that was never shown for years afterwards: confirming that the US may like to call itself a free society, but in practice is a national security dictatorship.

Griffins side of the debate is immaculate. Ive not read anything by him with which i can disagree. With Arabesque, Jon Gold, and Taibbi, the situation looks very different

Gerard Holmgren, friend of

Gerard Holmgren, no planer and "ex"friend of the web fairy and Nico Haupt?
http://www.911researchers.com/node/658

Sure- check out Holgren's work:

Did F77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined
http://bogusstory.com/conflictingwitnesses.html

for additional reference:

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony (source links)

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html

There's a 90' gash with a fuselage sized hole in the center, numerous pieces of wreckage matching an AA 757, downed lightpoles, clipped tree, damaged generator and concrete, an overhead shot shows torn up ground near the pentagon and the spools weren't close to the building. http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/NEI...

Edit- (Personally, i understand skepticism, i'm not asking you to believe that a 757 hit; i am asking you to consider if you can say for sure that a 757 didn't? Why not express your doubts, but maintain a full investigation is needed?)

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

"Plane struck a largely untenated part of the pentagon...why didnt terrorists hit the other side? Bad info?"

Now that's a great question; documentation needs to be subpoenaed, principals need to testify under oath in public

" Videos that could have settled the matter were confiscated by the FBI,which had the amazing presence of mind to be at the CITGO gas station in minutes....a video that was never shown for years afterwards: confirming that the US may like to call itself a free society, but in practice is a national security dictatorship."

The confiscation implies foreknowledge; those agents need to be subpoenaed. The Citgo video has been released, for what it's worth-

HOW THE CITGO VIDEO CONTRADICTS THE NORTH SIDE CLAIM: AN ANALYSIS OF... FLIGHT 77'S SHADOW? Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-citgo-video-contradicts...

- you're right, there are too many unanswered question, and the govt is withholding evidence and witnesses; what are they hiding? The Pentagon should not have been hit- where was the air defense nearly an hour and a half after the first sign of hijacking after a summer of threat? What about the war games, insider trading, VISA violations, CIA hiding terrorists from the FBI, etc. etc.?

The Pentagon Honeypot
(9/11 skeptics who won't endorse the "no 757" claim, including Alex Jones)
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-honey-pot.html

Is the 9/11 “Pentagon Hole” a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/is-the-911-“pentagon-hole”-a-psyop-to-distract-from-real-questions/

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

i hope you read it

http://bogusstory.com/conflictingwitnesses.html

Because it annihilates many of the 'eyewitnesses'

this is what they do, Brian

any talk that they disagree with, they contact there little cliq and get them to come over to down vote the comment. Kinda like taking books off shelves and burning them.

I have yet to read ANYTHING that Gold, Arabesque and Loose Nuke have written that has been RIGHT. Remember how strongly they opposed talking about Building 7 before the NIST report came out because it wasn't our "strongest evidence".

Some even said the same thing about demolition charges in the Towers.

I wonder if there was an election here on this site that made them the "Strongest Evidence Police".

I will tell you what. Let me see all three stack up their reseach against just one book of Griffin's. Just one. And let's see who presents the strongest evidence, and who just parrots what they have been told.

Now, let's see how long it takes the 9/11BloggerThoughtPolice to get this one off the board.

Willy, relax man. Im sure a

Willy, relax man. Im sure a lot of people agree with some points you make like i do, but remember that were all on the same team. Although Im sure that many of us cant wait for the truth to come out so we no longer have to associate with certain folk, keep in mind that we are united on a specific front.

To get a new investigation.

are we zombie?

'that were all on the same team'

are we?

i guess that depends. are

i guess that depends. are you more intent on proving exactly what happened or demanding a new investigation?

And if you're not gonna relax at least stop lying

To say that Arabesque ever opposed talking about WTC 7 or demolitions is a flat out LIE. It looks like YOU are the one that is trying to shut down opinions that differ from yours while unleashing a high pitched whine of victimization and ad hominem attacks. You should check the mirror if you're looking for "thought police".

foolish

'opposed talking about WTC 7 '

what arabesques opposes is the idea that anything but flight 77 the pentagon....not that he can prove it did.

"they"

right, P2OG- Arabesque911.blogspot.com has lots of articles presenting evidence of controlled demolition and documenting flaws in the official reports.

People are welcome to talk about whatever they want to talk about, here, in their homes and workplaces and on the street. I love the open public debate, and thats what's happening here. You're presenting you're point of view, we're presenting ours, people are reading the comments and some are voting. Everyone is drawing their own conclusions based on the evidence and arguments presented.

I own 4 Griffin books and have given away several. His research and analysis has given me many useful insights and turned me onto a lot of good sources. I didn't claim he's intentionally spreading disinfo; all i've done here is point out that he's been repeatedly pushing a couple bizarre and likely bogus theories- "no 757" and voice morphing- , and in his books and online articles links to some bizarre and offensive sources- and this bothers me.

Nafeez Ahmed's War on Truth has about a thousand endnotes, almost entirely "mainstream" sources, none of them weird/discredited sources like these, it completely shreds the OCT and the Bush Administration and their backers are the obvious place to start investigating. If mainstream media and the government's own statements and documents are disproving their story and implicating them in wrongdoing, why go to the weird sources and speculative claims?

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

your meaning, arabesque

is rhat Prof Griffin uses the pentagon story in he debate. You believe Flight 77 hit it and there is sufficient evidence to prove it...Griffin, and i for that matter, do not.

I agree with Griffin and Brianct

Clearly there is sufficiant evidence to question the fact that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11th. You should also know that Arabesque, for a time, also suggested not using demolitions evidence or even discussions about Building 7 for, as he said, they didn't represent our "strongest evidence".

David Ray Griffin did a stellar job with this interview. He was polite yet firm, and very informative. Having read the entire interview, I can see no flaws to either DRG approach or his subject matter or his evidence.

If you read Tabbi's Part Two of this where he addresses DRG's responces, you can clearly see that he is completely unraveled by all of this. He even says so in his opening statement. He eventually comes to the conclusion that he has to "ignore" DRG's logic and evidence in order to continue with his skepitism.

In effect saying he is putting his hands over his ears and singing "I Can't Hear You!" as loud as he can.

DRG shook him. And that is far better than any of us could have done, Arabesque. Wouldn't you agree?

Where is part two.

Willy Loman,

I am confused by your comments. What did you mean by "Part Two"? Is it another article?

Sorry if I am being dense.

Regards
Mike Zimmer

Here you go Mike...

Part Two was seperated from the first 11 page article by the editor who published this in the first place (It wasn't Taibbi who published it nor edited it, which is one reason it came out so good).

Part Two was Taibbi's response to Griffin's answers. Taibbi himself admits to start off that Griffin threw him off balance. Then he says the most amazing thing: that he had to ignore Griffin's evidence in order to continue with his point of view. Ignore the evidence!

“Then it hit me, and probably far too late: the correct play here is to ignore you and your arguments entirely.” Matt Taibbi

The link to Part Two is at the end of the first interview on page 11.

http://www.alternet.org/story//101703

But you wont be able to get very far in it.. he starts to just ramble and use strawman and personal attacks. it's quite embarassing for Taibbi if you ask me.

PART 2

http://www.alternet.org/story//101703

Great comments!!!

North Texans for 911 Truth
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site
http://9-11.meetup.com/249/

Wow.

I don't think I've ever seen such a thourough intellectual depantsing -- all in black and white, archived for the ages!

Taibbi started out way, way over his head and continued to dig from there. Frankly, I was embarrassed for him. My goodness! Why Taibbi would ever agree to do something like this in the first place is beyond me. Why he didn't quit after the first exchange is even more mind boggling.

Calm logic and truth vs. emotional, insulting bluster. Taibbi never had a chance in this kind of forum.

Cudos to Dr. Griffin.

vote

VOTE IN THE POLL


70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Jon Gold: what is your disagreement with Prof Griffin?

Jon, you mention that altho you respect Prof Griffin, you disagree with him. You dont say what these disagreements are? Can you please elaborate,or must i like with Arabesque, make inferences?
Prof Griffin has proven the strength of the 9-11 Truth ideas that he represents: Taibbi has shown the emptiness of the Official Conspiracy theory viewpoint. Your position and arabesques is curious.

Who starts a 9/11 DEBATE with "voice morphing"?

"In defending you, your attorney, having pointed out that the water bottle could have been planted, then argues that, since you did not make that call and never went into that building, the police must have fabricated evidence by using digital (voice and video) morphing technology. When the prosecutor rolls his eyes, your attorney cites William Arkin's 1999 Washington Post article, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing," which points out that voice morphing, like photo and video manipulation, is now good enough to fool anyone. With regard to why the police would have tried to frame you, your attorney suggests that the FBI may have asked the local police to put you away because of critical things you had written about the White House."
http://www.alternet.org/story/100688?page=2

This is from DRG's FIRST response to Taibbi. It's not even the last time he mentions voice morphing in the debate.

My simple question is this: who else in the 9/11 truth movement starts their debate by creating a story involving the use of voice morphing? In an attempt to make a point about "conspiracy theories" being plausible?

The answer should be nobody does this, but unfortunately this is apparently not the case.

It's not even the first time DRG promotes phone "morphing" as one of the first claims in radio interviews and presentations. This has happened before, and everyone who takes the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement seriously should be challenging him for doing this. Isn't it obvious that such an approach discredits his work?

When we should be building the 9/11 truth movement?
When we should be presenting our best case?
On a website where the 9/11 truth movement is consistently attacked?
In a DEBATE with someone like Taibbi whose only "weapon" is ridicule?

Is this hard to figure out?

Of course, for pointing something like this out, it is usually people like me who get attacked on internet forums and elsewhere. I always find this "interesting". Very.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

And there we have it: the insinuation...

... of something sinister behind Professor David Ray Griffin's outstanding work on Alternet.

(and of course any and all of us who question why Arabesque would do this).

"Is it hard to figure out?" He askes about the one thing DRG mentions that MAY or MAY NOT be valid.... Arabesque insinuates something about DRG so he can deny it later.

God. What has happened here?

11 beautiful pages of 9/11Truth on a site that we want to get on, and Arabesque is hinting at DRG being, what?

What is that you are hinting at Arabesque? Over one stupid little point when Griffin blew Taibbi out of the water? And a million people read that on Alternet?

Attention.

This thread is temporarily locked.

I'm asking the following users to chill out, and refrain from responding to each other's posts at 911blogger.com;

Arabesque
willyloman
Jon Gold
loose nuke
brianct

Check the Rules page;

http://911blogger.com/rules
"911blogger.com is not a message board. This site is not structured for long marathon debates about the veracity of specific claims or hypotheses."

You have all made your points. If you want to continue battling, do it by email, not on the comments board here, thanks.

It's 6:32pm Central Time.