David Ray Griffin on media resistance to 9-11 issues
shawnehamilton Tue, 06/08/2010 - 6:24pm
I recorded this interview in San Francisco at the Marine's Memorial Club and Hotel on February 19, 2010. The occasion was Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth press conference announcing the group had surpassed 1000 signatures from licensed building professionals calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings. Griffin was a keynote speaker.
Shawn Hamilton (S.H): “How do you account for the apparent psychological resistance even among members of the alternative media—who should know better—to even looking at the evidence?”
David Ray Griffin (DRG): “In one sense it's obviously a big mystery because these are people who've been on the forefront of exposing American complicity—you know, if we talk about Howard Zinn, Chomsky; we're talking a long, long time here, so I never criticize these gentlemen because they're heroes; they've done what they've done; we wouldn’t be here without them and so on.” He said he wasn’t sure about some of the “younger guys.”
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Gage and Griffin.jpg | 21.49 KB |
- shawnehamilton's blog
- Login to post comments
"Uncomfortable Realities"
Some people have a difficult time viewing the prospects of an uncomfortable reality, like the girl in this video ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9DDP3gzFfM#t=40s
Uncomfortable Realities 0:40
Syllogism: (0:40)
Premise: I grew up in the miltary.
Premise: I (actually) knew people who were lost in that event.
Conclusion: Therefore, I like to think there was no conspiracy.
Brilliant!
Another good video...
Great montage with 9/11 and Building 7 !
Thanks.
The focus solely on Building 7 is interesting
I find, because the way the twin towers went down, is, to me, just as obvious, that they could not have ah exploded like that, to within a couple of seconds of absolute free fall, unless explosives were used. In the case of the twin towers, it's their sheer height wihch betrays this reality.
I think that when persuading, we ought to show BOTH Building 7 AND the twin towers destruction since both are equally persuasive.
agreed
I agree with you, Robert. One key difference, however, is that no plane hit Building 7 so it's even more evident.
Show Someone Seven's Implosion on your Laptop
Ask them why they never heard about it.
They will ask for the DVD.
WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition that everyone has seen.
just as obvious! Yes, of course
but the fact that WTC7 was hidden makes a difference
Puncturing unanimity
At one point in this video's presentation of the Asch experiment, the narrator explains, 'When that unanimity is punctured, the group's power is greatly reduced.'
That's where the truth movement comes in--refusing to conform to the enforced group-think and thereby making it easier for others to say what's really on their mind.
WTC 7 First
It has been noted that people already "know" what brought down the TT, It was the impact of the planes and the fires.
They will automatically resist anything to the contrary. They have to first un-learn what they already 'know".
Many, if not most, don't even know about WTC 7. Just that much gets their attention.
The videos of WTC 7 are the mother of all smoking guns and they are by far the best attention getter. Kids download it to their i-pods and show it to friends. This is THE most effective way of getting the unaware to take a second look.
Griffin seems to 'overlook' the obvious
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the 'Alternative' media is controlled opposition? Controlled by the CIA just like the main stream media? They are only allowed to expose the small potato scandals that can be easily fixed by rolling low level heads (Lindy England) but when it comes to the bigger questions,well, those aren't allowed to be asked in the alternative media anymore than they are in the Mainstream media. They give us a false 'choice' to make us think we have freedom of the press. Wouldn't it be too obvious that the media is controlled if there no 'alternate' media?
Control of Alternative Media
I think you're on to something waitew. That would sure explain why supposedly alternative media outlets are acting so weirdly about 9-11 issues. For your interest, check the article at simuvac's blog called "The Paranoid Style at Pacifica." http://911blogger.com/node/21705 Chris Condon, a member of Pacifica's National Governance Committee, put forth a resolution to Pacifica's Board that would require programmers to declare donations over $5000. He said he did it "because there has been a lot of debate about whether or not Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) has received CIA conduit foundation funding from the Ford Foundation and other places."
The article, which appears in The Nation, makes Condon seem ludicrous and "paranoid" because Amy Goodman is an icon and therefore we're supposed to give her a free pass--at least that seems to be the thrust of the article. Still, there could be something to it. Amy Goodman certainly doesn't appear to have an open mind regarding 9-11 issues....
Several articles by Bob Feldman
follow the money.
http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman01.html
Media Control
That Feldman material is good stuff. Thanks for submitting it.
Why do people accept the official story?
This is the best explanation I can find,
"The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations."
Aldous Huxley Foreword to Brave New World