Saturday, October 11, 2008

David Ray Griffin in the Crosshairs

Looks like the Troofers are waking up to the Great God Griffin's promotion of "marginal" theories (as compared to legitimate "proof") like the voice-morphed phone calls. Some (deservedly) harsh discussion here:

WHY did DRG BEGIN with voice cloning? He basically walloped T. in the ensuing debate but why mention, let alone BEGIN WITH one of the most exotic and improbable theories in the 911 literature?

David Ray Griffin has made very important contributions to the 9/11 truth movement and I value his work greatly in many respects but his judgment should be questioned for putting cell phone voice morphing in a DEBATE situation. In a venue where we should be making new converts to the truth movement? We should be using this opportunity to grow the movement by presenting the best case that we have. I no longer have faith in DRG to put the "best foot forward" for the 9/11 truth movement, and I say this with great disappointment.

My simple question is this: who else in the 9/11 truth movement starts their debate by creating a story involving the use of voice morphing? In an attempt to make a point about "conspiracy theories" being plausible?

To say I am pissed off by this is an understatement.

And what's more telling is that this is not the FIRST time that voice morphing promoted as a primary idea--for example in radio interviews and elsewhere. It won't be the last I'm afraid to assume.

when and if DRG returns to sanity - i will give him the benefit of the doubt. but - for now - i can neither endorse nor support his advocacy for 9/11 Truth.

Its kinda sad. I feel like we've got the strongest case possible, thanks to the research of people who are now discredited.

What does that say for the research then? Are we back to square one? Literally everyone who brought me slowly into this movement has been discredited in some way.

Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, Mike Ruppert, David Ray Griffin, etc.

It feels like the truth movement is slowly unraveling and that weve hit some sort of wall. How do we demand a new investigation when the loudest voices are kooks?

Good question.

Apparently TruthMove has reacted:

i am very happy to see that has announced a hardline position on this - deciding to pull their endorsements of DRG's work from their website.

Further discussion here:

Unless there are any legitimate objections, I plan to remove general recommendations of David Ray Griffin's books from the TruthMove site...

Of course, this being the Troofers, it's not as if they're being particularly sane themselves:

i agree with Arabesque - so - is it entirely inappropriate to ask if this behavior is intentional?

isn't this the central question associated with all of the weak research and misinformation out there? is this stuff being pushed to the forefront intentionally?

And hilariously:

If the planes were remote drones, then the calls need to be accounted for. It's as simple as that.

Are you so sure they were not remote drones?

Which earns this response:

Completely different issue. I have no problem with the remote guidance theory and indeed think it more probable than not.

Zat guy over zere is a nut! I, Napoleon Bonaparte, can tell he is not really George Washington!


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home