Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Debuking the Debunkers

Apparently David Ray Griffin, the high priest of the 9/11 conspiracy movement, is writing a book with the working title of title of Debunking the Debunkers, described rather ironically on Kevin Barrett's website as:

Today, those who attempt to defend the official myth of 9/11, like Galileo’s opponents, argue from authority, base their arguments on name-calling rather than evidence (the ad hominem fallacy)...and continue to make a Nass of themselves. What is the best way to respond to such inane “arguments”? David Griffin, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan are three remarkably lucid thinkers who exemplify the “serious” approach: Just use rigorous thinking and evidence to show that your opponents are wrong. (Griffin’s next book, whose working title is Debunking the Debunkers, promises to be a landmark in that genre.)

Well I certainly hope Dr. Griffin doesn't forget to address his misleading statements about cruise missiles at the Pentagon, or his statement that the buildings had to "come straight down and not make anybody very angry", or his assertion that there are "automated anti-missile batteries at the Pentagon", based on absolutely no evidence. And don't forget the excellent 9/11 Myths article on how he is misrepresenting testimony on the NATO response to hijackings.

I am eagerly waiting a detailed debunking. Maybe he will send me an autographed copy?

10 Comments:

At 20 December, 2006 19:57, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 20 December, 2006 19:57, Blogger shawn said...

argue from authority

It's so cute seeing children misunderstand argumentum ad verecundiam .

base their arguments on name-calling rather than evidence

Incorrect, our arguments aren't based on name-calling. In fact, it has nothing to do with our arguments it all.

 
At 20 December, 2006 22:39, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

David Griffin, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan are three remarkably lucid thinkers who exemplify the “serious” approach: Just use rigorous thinking and evidence to show that your opponents are wrong.

These whackos are neither lucid (lucid means having a brain), or thinkers (which requires a modicum of intelligence, which none of the Troothers have).

Rigorous thinking? To imply that the President of the United States unleashed a plot to kill 3,000 fellow Americans after just nine months in office? Is that "rigorous thinking" - or screwball insanity that is beyond mental disease?

 
At 21 December, 2006 07:23, Blogger PhilBiker said...

I think the troothers often mistake accurate observations like Simon's with name-calling.

 
At 21 December, 2006 13:39, Blogger Democrat said...

You guys really don't have a clue about the Bus family, don't you? Never saw Rummy and Dickie around since the '80s?

 
At 21 December, 2006 14:55, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

If your real lucky James, maybe you'll be one of the Debunkers he attempts to discredit...lol

Then you can autograph a copy for me...lol

TAM:)

 
At 21 December, 2006 15:49, Blogger Triterope said...

You guys really don't have a clue about the Bus family, don't you?

You mean the guy who owns the Los Angeles Lakers is in on it too? Wow. Were his televised poker victories part of the payoff from the NWO?

 
At 21 December, 2006 20:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To understand Loose Change , and MUJCA Griffin-Barrett, follow the money and organizational links to their sponsors at:

http://www.geo-economics.org/jon%20berquist.htm

 
At 21 December, 2006 20:11, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

To understand the wizard of oz...

Follow the .....

TAM:)

 
At 22 December, 2006 04:05, Blogger shawn said...

It's not a fucking psyop, moron.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home