Saturday, November 18, 2006

Publisher Admits Griffin's Book Is "Spurious"

Well, this is refreshing honesty from a book publisher:

In an unusual criticism of its own product, the board of the Louisville-based Presbyterian Publishing Corp. says a book fell short of its editing standards with its "spurious" claim that the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 terror attacks.

Griffin is "a distinguished theologian" who has published a number of books with the corporation, said a statement by Kenneth Godshall, chairman of its board of directors. "This particular volume is not up to (Westminster John Knox) editorial standards and not representative of the publishing program."

The statement said "the conspiracy theory is spurious and based on questionable research."


At 18 November, 2006 17:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, this was a huge suprise. (Not)

At 18 November, 2006 17:05, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 18 November, 2006 17:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...


What you call "refreshing honesty" is about as unexpected as the head of UCLA saying he see no police abuse in the UCLA taser video.

At 18 November, 2006 17:08, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...


So you say their was police abuse yet you were not there?

Please dont tell me that you saw the whole thing based on those shitty cell phone camers which didnt even catch the whole incident.

You will accept anything that fits your hate america agenda.

At 18 November, 2006 17:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Who has ever said that 9/11 Truth was being suppressed by pay offs? Is that what you are saying? I've not seen that alleged anywhere.

At 18 November, 2006 17:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Have you reviewed the number of times that the manufacturer of the Taser devices recommend using them on a suspect in stun mode?

Do you deny the video and the eyewitness reports about how many times it was used and how?

At 18 November, 2006 17:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lying Dylan deleted his comment that I was replying to with mine that starts

Who has ever......

LD's comment was something along the lines of the people at the Pres. Seminary not getting their check....

At 18 November, 2006 17:19, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Actually what I meant to type was,

"Wow looks like someone get a fat check"

because you douchebags go on and on about many people got "paid off" to remain silent about 9-11.

So following your douchebag logic it would seem that the publisher got paid off to call Griffin's book, "spurious"

At 18 November, 2006 17:23, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Who is the manufacturer?'
How many modes do they have?

At 18 November, 2006 17:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

About Tasers:

I believe that there is only one manufacturer (Taser Inc.). I support the responsible use of the product to save lives (versus gun fire) and as an additional tool to protect law enforcement from injury.

I'm not expert, but my research has uncovered two modes:

1. The firing mode where the wires are shot at a distance to subdue a suspect.

2. The stun mode, which is less lethal, but still carries a risk to some, especially if they have heath complications.

I believe that the UCLA suspect was in some ways "asking for it". However the standards for responsible use of Tasers don't have any exceptions that you get to go beyond authorized tolerances for those who are "asking for it".

At 18 November, 2006 17:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Are you confusing the money sent to Atta with hush money.

I've never heard of hush money in relation to 9/11.

Darn, if they would pay me enough, I guess I could shut up too.

At 18 November, 2006 17:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah so now there is no hush money, so i guess the people from NIST were actually speaking the truth.

What a shocker!

At 18 November, 2006 17:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I don't think NIST corruption has anything to do with hush money.

At 18 November, 2006 17:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...


U should try out for stand up comedian dude, you are hilarious :D

At 18 November, 2006 17:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Do you know your IQ?

At 18 November, 2006 17:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeh, and im guessing yours is around 70 at the most.

At 18 November, 2006 17:57, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

a pissing IQ contest, let the kiddie games begin...JHC.

I feel Griffin is a complete CTer. His questions, most of them, have been long debunked here and elsewhere.

What is interesting, is that he hasnt moved forward, as the truth movement has. He sticks to his same, silly, long debunked conjecture. he doesnt address any of the issues brought about from the "Goal Post Movers".

I suspect he will soon fade out.


At 18 November, 2006 18:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...


What contentions of DRG have been debunked?

At 18 November, 2006 19:28, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

Good question bg.

Coward TAM will not answer you im afraid.

These punks have been running from me for months

At 18 November, 2006 19:32, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Would you like me to start with this article:

At 18 November, 2006 19:34, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Wow now we have 2 of the biggest douchebags posting on the same thread.

At 18 November, 2006 19:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).

All of the alleged "still alive" hijackers were cases of mistaken identity, people with the same names. Der Spiegel Followed up on this list, and interviewed the Arab reporter who had the only interview with any of these alleged "still alive hijackers. the Arab Reporter told them that the man he interviewed was not the same man the FBi was looking for. I could leave details of each, and show how they were in err, but just go to

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

one word...Takfiri...look it up.

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

Oh poor baby, they never addressed this issue for was not in their mandate to do so, but I will.

He was a below average pilot, but his own istructor said that once a plane was ariborne, Hanjour was capableof flying it into the pentagon.

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

Moron is speaking of the CNN "VICTIM" List. The actual passenger manifests, or the closest that was available was presented at the Moussaoui Trial, and contained the names of all 19 hijackers. CNN even states on the site that the list they gave was of the victims, and was a composite, an not neccesarily complete list.

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

What relevence is this to the 9/11 commission. It is relevent to NIST, and they mentioned it. Beyond that, he is incorrect. A more correct version would be;

"There is no RECORDED/DOCUMENTED history of a steel framed SKYSCRAPER having COMPLETELY COLLAPSED solely from fire."

I could go on, there are alot of points he has to debunk, but if you know where to look, almost all of his stuff is crap.


At 18 November, 2006 21:01, Blogger pomeroo said...

I point out all the time that the fantasists are liars and fools. Why am I still not receiving my checks? TAM, who do I complain to?

At 18 November, 2006 21:19, Blogger James B. said...

Did you fill out your TPS report?

At 18 November, 2006 21:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...


With your DRG debunking, you establish a firm body of evidence that .... you can't taken seriously.

At 18 November, 2006 23:04, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Good, that means it should be classified as fiction.

At 19 November, 2006 01:05, Blogger apathoid said...

Why am I still not receiving my checks?

Did you fill out your TPS report?

Pomeroo, we're putting new coversheets on the TPS reports before they go out now. Did you see the memo about this? If not I'll make sure you get a copy...

At 19 November, 2006 06:05, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


With your DRG debunking, you establish a firm body of evidence that .... you can't taken seriously.

Where have I been shown to be incorrect?

It is easy to simply say "I can't be taken seriously", but prove it. Show me where I have gone wrong in correcting the first five of DRGs points? Please, we can only "learn" from your analysis and subsequent revealing of "the truth".


At 19 November, 2006 07:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Let just start with one instance that demonstrated your argument (or the argument of whoever composed) these ridiculous "rebuttals":

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

one word...Takfiri...look it up.

Explain to me, even with a tiny tabloid reference, where Atta and Takfiri are connected in any shape or form.

At 19 November, 2006 07:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...


If I could delete the previous comment that I made, I would.

Please consider it as retracted, because I found references that support the claim you cited.

At 19 November, 2006 07:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Here's one quote I found that seems to state the heart of the argument about why Atta's behavior was not unexpected:

Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies. Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies.

There's a huge amount of discusison that has taken place in other forums and books about Atta that raises concerns and questions.

You do have the problem still, you know, that Atta's Father said he talked with him on 9/12/2001.

How many Atta's do you think there were? Did another imposter Atta die on 9/11?

At 19 November, 2006 08:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There seems to be rollicking discussion of Atta and Trafiki Here

At 19 November, 2006 09:50, Blogger James B. said...

Wow BG, you are doing a great job of debunking... yourself.

TAM, I have been waiting months for BG to point out specific examples of us lying, which he always claims we do, he always manages to avoid the subject.

At 19 November, 2006 10:34, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

The reference you make to Atta's father I have read. His testimony to Atta being alive after 9/11 cannot be trusted, here is why:

In an interview on September 18th, his father said his son was most likely murdered, and that he hadnt heard from him. Then later he said that he had spoken to him on September 12th. A little over a year ago he praised the matyrdom of his son in the 9/11 attacks, and praised the london which is it gonna be...dead matyr, or alive patsy?

If you read all the interviews with his father, 2 things are apparent.

(1) he is inconsistent
(2) he praises the work of al-qaeda.


At 19 November, 2006 11:07, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

More from griffins list:

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

NIST, as well as photographic and video evidence reveal that the fires extended from 8-10 floors, and NIST states the temperatures , in places, exceeded 1000 Celsius.

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

The second tower was struck at a lower level, hence more force acting upon the impact zones. As well, it struck to one side, putting assymetrical levels of stress on various columns, compared to the more evenly distribution from the central impact of the first tower.

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

Ommitted, because it did not fall within the mandate of the commission. As to the validity, or lack there of, of his assertion...

10-20 storey high chunk taken out of south face of WTC7. Major fires through out, that went unchecked for hours (firefighter testimony and photographic evidence support this).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

List them please, and you may only list the ones seen in all three towers, as this is the claim he makes.

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

#1, I think this was a generality. Obviously the are not saying it was a completely hollow shaft, as any dimwit with a computer could look it up, and find out different. They were merely expressing, how compared to other buildings, the unique designs of the WTCs exhibited an essentially hollow core.

#2 As for the core being standing several hundred feet in the air after the pancake collapse...that is exactly what happened. There are several videos, and still photos that show several hundred feet of central core columns standing for 10-20 seconds after the outer shell of the WTC has fallen.

I may be back with more of them.


At 19 November, 2006 11:20, Blogger shawn said...

What you call "refreshing honesty" is about as unexpected as the head of UCLA saying he see no police abuse in the UCLA taser video.

So honesty isn't honesty?

He refused to show ID in a place where he had to show it. He was itching for trouble and got it.

You're fucking dumb as a box of rock.

At 19 November, 2006 12:20, Blogger Alex said...

Speaking from the perspective of someone who's had to apprehend and subdue suspects, I can safely state that the cops in the UCLA incident WERE acting unreasonably. Not because of any "manufacturer recommended usage" (wow, BG wrong again? no way!), but because they were using force on a suspect who had already been subdued.

If the guy had remained standing and was actively resisting arrest, they could zap him all day long if they wanted to. However, you don't use weapons on non-violent (and especially handcuffed) suspects, EVER. If they wanted to move him, a quick application of the fingers to one of several nerve points would have gotten him on his feet nice and quick.

Not to say the moron didn't deserve it. He absolutely did. But those cops need to be held accountable for their mistakes as well.

As for BG's other arguments, TAM, I wouldn't bother. The guy doesn't even understand (or won't acknowledge) that building design plays a role in how they collapse.

At 19 November, 2006 12:30, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


Thanks. If I felt my goal was to convince BG, I would have given up long ago. This blog is a heavily travelled one. for those who are searching for 9/11 answers, I hope they read my posts, acknowledge the logic in them, and hence avoid the tempting, but false notions of the CT movement and its ill founded "points".


At 19 November, 2006 12:48, Blogger pomeroo said...

Apathoid, I was asking Lee Harvey Oswald about this last weekend. He thinks that somehow I must have screwed up. It is becoming increasingly clear that my money is going to a Mexican wrestler. Pretty damn frustrating considering the time I've put in and the number of bodies I've piled up.

At 19 November, 2006 14:57, Blogger shawn said...

I would've zapped the kid for trying to be a tough guy.

At 19 November, 2006 15:06, Blogger Alex said...

Gotcha, TAM. My motivations are similar to that, most of the time.

At 19 November, 2006 17:45, Blogger R.Lange said...

Heh... Out of TAM's refutation of 10 of Griffin's points, BG only attempted to question one of them... and quickly realized himself that he was wrong.

That leaves all 10 refutations unchallenged by BG, who has yet to retract his claim that TAM "can't taken seriously [sic]".

Amazing. But not surprising...

At 19 November, 2006 18:16, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I was a little bored, so here are the next 5 of Griffins lies/speculations:

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

For starters, This fact was not within the confines of their mandate (911 commission).

That said, here is the scoop...

Larry did not say this. In the actual interview in question he does not specify what he is referring to when he said "pull it". When asked later, Silverstein said he was referring to the contingent of firefighters that were set up in a perimeter near the building.

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

All of the debris from the WTC attacks was there for weeks. When it was removed, it was relocated to landfills. At a later date, after the investigators stated they had what they needed, much of the steel was shipped elsewhere. According to Protech, who worked with many of the clean up teams for the WTC site, noone they interviewed felt there was any kind of RUSH to remove the debris of the site, compared to any other clean up of such a collapse.

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel — that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel — made no sense in this case (30).

I would like to see a quoted reference for this claim that "The official reason for rapid removal of the steel was that some people might still be trapped under." Until I see such a reference, and determine it to be reliable, from an "official" authority on that matter, I will consider this false.

If this is proven true, then what I would say, is even when a building has had an "evacuation" call given out, one can not assume that noone was still within the building.

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

Once again, the relevence of this to the mandate of the 9/11 commission is nil.

That said, what Giulliani was told, was from fire department officials, that...

"The building looks like it might collapse." To take this and twist it into some form of intentional foreknowledge is simply insane.

kind of like looking up at the top of a volcano, with steam blowing out of it, and telling someone...

"looks like shes gonna blow.", and from that speculating that the person who said this was somehow connected to a preplanned eruption of said volcano.

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

They also didnt mention all of the other "principals", or name all of the part owners, or name all of the janitors, etc...

Once again, relevence to mandate of commission...nil. The CTers have their own mandate, you see, and feel the commission's should fall in line with theirs, but it doesnt work that way.

As for the BUSH link itself, Marvin left this role many months before 9/11, and he was only on the board of directors, he was not directly supervising. Also, the company he was a part of, was only one of many to provide security aspects to WTC, not the "Chief" or "only" firm.

Weak....all very weak...and debunked, by many people, on many occasions.


At 19 November, 2006 20:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I sincerely appreciate your thoughts on the UCLA incident.

At 19 November, 2006 20:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...


With respect to DRG, I respect the comments and points that you have made.

I'm not avoiding taking on each point, just didn't see fit spending my weekend on that.

I don't see a strong reason to follow through only to safe face or to spend the time to state a strong case for one particular point which, in the scheme of things, is a pyrrhic victory in that it really doesn't "move the ball" in terms of helping those of you see the light who haven't so far.

My main appeal to reason is related to DRG is his book on the 9/11 Commission Report. When I have time, I'll summarize a response that includes a yes / no vote on whether I accept your points, one by one, against Griffin. I'll also attempt to list point by point the DRG arguments about the 9/11 Commission and try to reconcile my list here with your list provided.

At 19 November, 2006 20:13, Blogger James B. said...

Other than sharing similar names, Wirt Walker and George W. Bush are not known to be related.

That doesn't keep CTs from repeating this though.

At 19 November, 2006 20:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Just reading point #15 rebutting DRG.

I imagine that any ability for us to come to terms with each other about what wins the debate ultimately rests on:

whether one believes that the facts of the case (of 9/11) demanded an explanation for the explosives or "inside job" demolition forces in each of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7.

If one thinks there are huge holes in the govt. story, as DRG does, and I do, one is going to have a completely different take on many aspects, and it seems like it's a waste of time to talk about specific, sometimes esoteric points, when our disagreement has it's core about how the Towers suffered the massive failures, which in the case of Tower 1 and 2, led to most of the deaths of 9/11.

If you really don't see a problem with the Commission Report, or the NIST reports in explaining what happened, it a complete exercise in futility for us to debate the finer points.

At 19 November, 2006 20:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moving away from debating old points, and trying to get more lively discussion (and possibly posts from James and Pat), let me offer a web page that links to Fintan Dunne's, and discussion of Bush '41.

I'm got some problems with Fintan myself, so I might actually enjoy seeing some ad hominem arguments against him.

At 19 November, 2006 20:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...

Other than sharing similar names, Wirt Walker and George W. Bush are not known to be related.

That doesn't keep CTs from repeating this though.


At 19 November, 2006 20:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even with no relation between Walker and the Bushes, only those of you who have an interest in not seeing the truth could not see something smelly here

At 20 November, 2006 07:22, Blogger PhilBiker said...

I feel Griffin is a complete CTer. His questions, most of them, have been long debunked here and elsewhere.

What is interesting, is that he hasnt moved forward, as the truth movement has. He sticks to his same, silly, long debunked conjecture. he doesnt address any of the issues brought about from the "Goal Post Movers".

Yeah, he's not keeping up with the star wars beam weapons and keebler elves theories. Passe.

At 20 November, 2006 10:29, Blogger Alex said...

BG, you're not just moving the goalposts, you've picked 'em up and started sprinting.

At 20 November, 2006 12:01, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


You are making sense, and your view on convincing one another is one I share. As I said, earlier, my goal is not to win you over, but to display for those who read here, but do not post, that there is ample, logical argument and evidence to refute much of what the majority of the "truth" movement consider their ammunition for an "inside job". I will not likely ever convince a CTer of different, nor they convince me, but the fence sitters, now they are the prize...



Post a Comment

<< Home