Debunking 9/11 Debunking
I finally got my hands on an MP3 of Monday's interview with David Ray Griffin on Kevin Barrett's GCN radio show. Sycophantic callers aside, the interview was mostly about his upcoming book, now titled "Debunking 9/11 Debunkers". Griffin explained that his editor hated the title, but that he thought it would get him on the same Amazon page as Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
For purposes of this book Griffin views 9/11 debunking as limited to 4 sources, Michael Bronner's article in Vanity Fair on the NORAD Tapes, Kean and Hamilton's book Without Precedent, the NIST FAQ on the World Trade Center collapse, and the previously mention Popular Mechanics' book. While those are all good sources of information, the PM book is the only one I would describe as a debunking, but I guess since the 9/11 conspiracy movement has not really been critically examined in the media or academics, those are what he is left with attacking.
He seemed to hold the most contempt for Popular Mechanics, arguing that they were not really scientists. This seemed especially ironic coming from someone who may hold a PhD, but is not really a scientist either. Yes, the editors of the magazine are not really scientists, but they talk to real ones. A quick check of the bibliography of their book will show several times more experts than the Scholars for 9/11 Truths, or their multiple offsprings. Not to mention all the Ivy League engineers involved with the NIST engineering reports.
Griffin then goes on to attack their journalistic standards. I also found this ironic coming from someone who just repeats unsourced urban legends in his books, and then after the fact justifies it with third party anonymous sources. But hey, finding the truth is hard work.
When addressing the Vanity Fair article, which is hardly uncritical of the government, his response was simply that the tapes were altered and faked. It is pretty convenient making an argument when you can just always say that anything which contradicts you is fake. You could "prove" just about anything with truther logic.