Debunking 911 Debunking

Scientists and scientific explanations

In light of NIST's WTC7 report, it would be good to have a look at DRG's excellent debunking of the widely held misconception that a document by scientists makes it an ipso facto scientific document. From page 23 of "Debunking 911 Debunking:"
___________________________________________________________________________________

Having looked at two ways in which people, as illustrated by journalists, can avoid confronting the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I now look at a third: the assumption that if an explanation is given by scientists, it is a scientific explanation.

Bill Moyers Journal Disqualifies "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" Entries On His Blog

A week ago, it was suggested by PheonixRising that we go to Bill Moyers' Blog and suggest "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by David Ray Griffin for the presidential candidates to read. Before giving airtime to the most popular suggestions, he mentioned that "We detected only one organized campaign behind a certain book and we disqualified it as a result."

Here is the segment:

It appears to me that Bill is more concerned with Dr. Seuss than giving coverage to the book doing the best job of discrediting the 9/11 Commission Report.

Ryan Mackey Offers Answer to Griffin's NIST Chapter

Hi all,

I checked out JREF for the first time in awhile today, and finally their own Ryan Mackey has offered an answer to David Ray Griffin's latest book - at least the NIST chapter. It's an MS Word document totaling 198 pages.

I've read the first several pages where he gives a general overview. I don't have the time or energy to get into it in depth tonight (or for that matter this whole weekend). I would like to read it all, but perhaps some of you can beat me to it. I am open to all sides of an argument and this would indeed be the first lengthy critique to any aspect of Griffin's book. That being said, much of what I've read so far isn't impressive; he basically says, (in a long-winded way designed to fill up space), that "YOU are claiming controlled demolition, so the burden of proof is on YOU, not on NIST."

Anyone out there want to help me out? I'm interested in what people think are the paper's strong points and flaws. I think it's important that Truthers and Debunkers put their strongest stuff out in the open to be examined objectively.

9/11: Here it comes again

Source: http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2007/08/911-here-it-com.html

Thursday, August 30, 2007

9/11: Here it comes again

The last time I checked my stack of screeners, I did not see a single television special being produced to observe the sixth anniversary of the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

That has not stopped another group of highly creative people from generating their own commemoration of the events of 9/11. I refer, of course, to conspiracy theorists.

This morning I found an email in my inbox from one Guy Smoot, who identified himself as a graduate student in classics at Rutgers University, arguing that 9/11 "was an inside job." I think it was the classics part that got me — that was my major in college, too, and I've always thought it helped develop my critical-thinking skills, which seem to be missing, or underutilized, among the 9/11 conspiracy crowd.

After establishing through a web search that Mr. Smoot probably was who he claimed to be, I read his letter more carefully and wrote a response.

Mr. Smoot writes:

Hello,

DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING?

Note: This article could use a few more diggs.

Source: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=48166

DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING?

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

An emeritus professor of theology with no previous interest in conspiracy theories, Griffin has dedicated himself since 2003 to the "9/11 truth" movement, a group committed to "exposing the falsity of the official theory about 9/11," and this book is a thorough, highly detailed attempt to do just that. As Griffin aptly notes, "the assumption that conspiracy theories are inherently irrational" has recently taken root in American culture, making any attack on the official government record instantly dismissible, but Griffin takes to the difficult task with solid reasoning and true zeal. All but the most dogmatic readers will find Griffin's evidence-from the inconsistencies between NORAD tapes and the 9/11 Commission Report to rigorous exploration into the physics of the collapse-detailed and deeply unnerving. -Amazon

Staff&nbspSelections - Links

Recently, a call heard on this morning's Washington Journal, check the video

http://media.putfile.com/Washington-Journal-Debunking-9-11-Debunking-call-8-22-07
Washington-Journal-Debunking-9-11-Debunking-call-8-22-07

or watch it here by going to the Washington Journal Program for 8/22/07 and start watching a bit after the 2:40:00 mark:
http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=205&Rot_WD

After this call, a firestorm of 9-11 truth began to rage until, after multiple callers had proclaimed their doubt about the government's story, a poor Republican woman had to bemoan how she was depressed that there wasn't enough talk about Al-Qaeda and other Islamo-extremists. She then proceeded to talk about how Janet Reno was the worst AG because of Waco and Ruby Ridge. You'll find no Janet Reno apologist here. People are pissed. And they're beginning to understand who at. Let's take it to court.

A Review of David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"

This is a timely, excellent response to the 'debunkers' of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The 'debunkers,' of course, are the ones who are on the 9/11 research scene to say: "Everything the 9/11 Truth Movement says about government complicity is wrong. The official story is indeed correct, so please get back to whatever you were doing in your life before you ever heard of these absurd theories."

This is Griffin's thickest technical volume on 9/11. There are four lengthy chapters, totaling 322 pages of text, after which there are 62 pages of endnotes. The fourth chapter, about 100 pages in length, deals exclusively with rebutting the Popular Mechanics book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." The first three chapters deal with other publications that emerged in 2006, as the 9/11 Truth Movement was gaining ground. These publications include Michael Broenner's Vanity Fair article "9/11 Live: The Norad Tapes," Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's "Without Precedent," and finally the NIST report and its attempt to debunk the controlled demolition hypothesis.

I've been toying for awhile about what kind of review to write. If I give an in-depth review of the content for each chapter of this book, the review will be so long people won't want to read it! Several other in-depth reviews have focused on the problems with the NORAD tapes. So I will focus primarily on the Popular Mechanics chapter, since PM is most often cited as the knockout punch which refutes all the movement's claims.

Continued after the jump.

My Bit of Floor Time @ Amazon.com... "And I yield the remainder to the gentlepatriot from 911Blogger..."

Part 1

Before presenting evidence and theory, it must be said that the fact we are even having this conversation almost 6 years after the biggest official crime in US history is proof that something is wrong, and I dont think it is we da 'troofers' and our wacky conpiracy theories. The administration's eagerness to not investigate this massive crime against Americans and humanity in general as evidenced by the fact that it was well over a year before an investigation commenced is striking. Remember, after the Titanic sank, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, after the murder of JFK (another state-sponsored false-flag op btw) and after the Challenger disaster, we had official investigations within a week and a half. But with the event that "changed everything" we wouldn't have even had an investigation without the passion for Justice (still unfulfilled) of family members.

Lacking Wikipedia entry to refute Debunking 911 Myths...

Wiki has no article on Dr. Griffin's schoarly book Debunking 911 Debunking, yet it has a thorough entry for Debunking 911 Myths. This is a problem. Can someone model an appropriate Wikipedia entry on the insipid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths and provide Dr. Griffin's work the coverage it deserves (i.e. moreso than the Pop Mechs crap!) ??

I tried to create an entry but it did not make it past the copyright sensors perhaps because of my links to amazon.com...

I wanted this link because the Wiki entry for Loose Change FC seemed slanted badly against truth, and after editing it back into shape (done) I wanted to provide a link to a Wiki article on Dr. Griffin's book but there is not yet such an article. I have no further time to complete this project.

Michael Wolsey Guest Hosts Words of Freedom, part 5



In this special broadcast of Visibility 9-11, Michael guest hosts the fifth and final episode of a series of interviews for the radio program Words of Freedom with George Flynn. Words of Freedom is aired on KRFC, 88.9 FM in Fort Collins, Colorado on Monday nights at 5:30 - 6:00 pm mountain time (no commercials).  This opportunity provides a valuable window to introduce 9-11 truth to an audience who rarely hear our message.  Many thanks to George for the honor of sitting in for him while he is away on business.

"Skeptics" or Dupes? - Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical on 9/11 Lies

Skeptic Magazine has come out with a half-assed response to the 9/11 Truth Movement. They cite Popular Mechanics' theories about the attacks, and not much else in their 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, the 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective.

Someone should have told them that Professor David Ray Griffin has demolished the Popular Mechanics diatribe in his Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Let's forego all of that -- pretend it never happened -- and get to the accusations of the article.

Click here to read more.

"Skeptics" or Dupes? - Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical on 9/11 Lies

Source: http://dailyscare.com/1593/skeptics-or-dupes-skeptic-magazine-not-so-skeptical-on-9-11-lies

"Skeptics" or Dupes? - Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical on 9/11 Lies

John Doraemi

Skeptic Magazine has come out with a half-assed response to the 9/11 Truth Movement. They cite Popular Mechanics' theories about the attacks, and not much else in their 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, the 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective.

Someone should have told them that Professor David Ray Griffin has demolished the Popular Mechanics diatribe in his Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Let's forego all of that -- pretend it never happened -- and get to the accusations of the article.

But first, I just have to bring up a little definitional dispute. To the editors of "Skeptic" magazine: I am the skeptic here, not your writer Phil Molé. I am highly skeptical of the government's account of the events of September 11th 2001, and with good reasons.

Lewis Lapham of "Harper's" magazine is reading "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"

On Sunday June 3, Lewis Lapham was featured on a 3-hour program on C-SPAN's "In Depth" program. The program focused on Lapham's intellectual life and times, and took calls from the live C-SPAN viewership. During the course of taking calls, one caller asked about Lapham's views on 9/11 as being something other than the Official Conspiracy Theory. Here is what Lapham had to say;

"As to the question of what happened at 9/11, I am reading at the moment a book by a man named David Griffin, on the debunking of the 9/11 debunking, and he raises a number of sharp questions... which I think deserve further questioning and investigation, but I am not as yet prepared to think that the bringing down of the... trade towers was the work of the Bush administration."

Harper's magazine reflects the current political and social thinking of a segment of America's elite, namely, a segment that reads. It is also a magazine for the reading American public that consider themselves "progressives" generally. Harper's was one of the first publications to print a long critical essay about the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, that still resonates today; Whitewash as public service by Benjamin DeMott.

When a serious thinker, writer, and shaper of the American cultural soul is reading David Ray Griffin, I would have to say that progressives and Leftists who will have no truck with questions about 9/11 need to pause and reflect on this. Knee-jerk time is over. It's time to pick up Griffin's books and become familiar with them, and become familiar with the serious aspects of 9/11 skepticism. Lapham is reading Griffin. After Gore Vidal's endorsement of "The New Pearl Harbor", an open-minded Liberal really has no excuse not to give 9/11 skeptics like Griffin a fair shake anymore. This means actually reading the books, not just snarking at them.

See the stream from the C-SPAN archive - approx. 53 minute mark;
http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=7989&schedID=491

Big tip of the hat to "alexjonesfan" who posted a condensed version of this news item at The Randi Rhodes Message Board. Take a minute to write to Harper's and ask Lapham to review Griffin's book: letters(at)harpers.org

"Debunking 9/11 Debunking" at Barnes & Noble website needs more positive reviews!

A new edition has supposedly been published and the online advertisement page for it at the B&N website is virtually without any reviews (mine is the only one -- and yes, it's positive).

Link to new edition: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781566566865&itm=2

Link to old edition: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781844370696&itm=3

Reviews for the new edition are sorely needed!

Truths and conspiracies

Source: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=5828

EDITOR'S NOTE

Truths and conspiracies

by David Rolland

Peter Holmes had given up on waiting for me to return from a delicious chicken taco lunch last Wednesday and was walking down the hall when I got back. He'd been waiting in CityBeat's office lobby for the better part of an hour. I was about 20 strides from him when he asked, "Are you David Rolland?" When strung together like that, those have become four of the scariest words in the English language. And I've become so terrified of unannounced visitors that I probably formed my answer more like a question than a firm declaration: "Yes?"