Air America Debate Proposal

A few minutes ago I e-mailed the following to Kevin Barrett and radio host Richard Greene. We will see if we ever get a response.

An Open Challenge to David Ray Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement

Dear Sirs:

I do not have the E-mail address of David Ray Griffin, but I am sure you both know how to contact him, so I will address this to you. There have been many ongoing discussions in connection to Air America Radio’s Richard Greene and his “Month of Truth” in regards to having “debunkers” on to provide the opposing viewpoint to the “9/11 Truth Movement”. Many debunkers, including Mark Roberts and my blogging partner Pat Curley, openly refused to come on last week’s show, for various reasons, but mostly revolving around the fact that Kevin Barrett and the guys from CIT were so controversial within their own movement, that engaging them would be pointless, and your time would be much better spent interviewing witnesses, and possibly even others within the truth movement who opposed them.

We were surprised however to see, not Kevin Barrett, but David Ray Griffin appearing on the show. As opposed to being a member of a faction within the movement Dr. Griffin is in fact widely considered the most prominent spokesman of the movement, and has authored 5 books and spoken widely on the subject. Even Mr. Greene praised him, calling him “The guru of the 9/11 truth movement “ and his work The New Pearl Harbor a “classic”.

Despite his prominence in the movement though, Griffin has largely avoided his critics. While such figures as Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer may be controversial, even among other truthers, they at least have had the courage to advance and defend their own hypotheses, and engage critics, something which is normally done by academics in controversial areas. Dr. Griffin, however, has openly opposed advancing any but the vaguest theories, and has carefully avoided any situation where he would have to address any criticism, despite giving a plethora of speeches and radio interviews. As mentioned on last week’s show, NASA engineer Ryan Mackey prepared a detailed 200 page criticism of Dr. Griffin’s work, which to the best of my knowledge he has avoided even acknowledging, much less answering.

Therefore after his appearance on last week’s show, in which he once again dropped off the air before any questions could be asked of him by critics, we began discussing the fact that Dr. Griffin has avoided defending his arguments, despite the fact that the truth movement is constantly calling for an open and vigorous discussion of these events. Why then, does Dr. Griffin constantly refuse to engage in a discussion with anyone who disagrees with him? Does he believe that his work is beyond reproach? We believe that if he is so confident in his years of research, which have allowed him to sell many tens of thousands of books, that he should have no problem discussing it with an intellectual opponent.

So in this spirit we would like to propose a debate between David Ray Griffin and Mark Roberts on a subsequent episode of Richard Greene’s radio show, with Pat Curley and myself as possible co-guests if desired by the host. We understand that the host is biased, and accept that, but we just call on him to be fair, and fully expect that he would be so, and propose the following ground rules:

1) Roughly equal time for each participant to speak.

2) Discuss one – and only one – claim at a time. No long lists of claims (from either side) followed by, "In our limited time, which of those would you like to respond to?"

3) Be able to speak directly to each other with the host moving things along if the discussion bogs down.

4) Focus on discussing what Griffin thinks is the very strongest evidence in each area, so as not to get bogged down in minutiae. Griffin and Greene may pick the topics if they wish.

Given the open taunts by members of the movements when debunkers refused to come on the show earlier, I do not see how Dr. Griffin can in good spirit refuse to engage in this very debate you all have been calling for. Such an acclaimed academic, who is widely regarded as the foremost scholar of your movement should have no problem wiping the floor with any opponent, especially with the advantage of a friendly host and being able to choose the subjects, and I call upon the truth movement to encourage him and Mr. Greene to participate.

You both have my e-mail along with Mark Robert’s, please contact either Mark or I with any questions. We are open to any reasonable accommodations in scheduling and format to ensure that this event goes off.

Sincerely,

James
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com

David Ray Griffin Changes Minds In Japan

Although perhaps not in the way he intended. Here's a report from our JREF buddy, Adversity1, who confronted Grifter in Osaka back in November:

Hi JREF,

You may remember from threads such as 'David Ray Griffin in Japan (appearing with anti-semites and UFO believers)' and the ScrewLooseChange post about David Ray Griffin's appearance at the '9/11 Truth Forum in Osaka'. It was at this forum where I, and others skeptical of the truth movements claims, had the chance to confront David Ray Griffin about the lies and deliberate misinterpretations that he has peddled for years with hardly any criticism.

Here's a summary of the day:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...-in-osaka.html

I had not made it down to the "People's Newspaper (Jinmin Shinbun)" afterwards to find out what the aftershocks were to this event, but it was already clear by the end when the Editor of the paper gave a closing address that quoted Chomsky's debunking of conspiracy theories that the "People's Newspaper" was not convinced on 9/11 conspiracy. This despite the fact that they had peddled this line for over three years.

Last weekend I went to pick up some video of the event at their offices and got a copy of the paper they put out directly after the event. The title of the issue reads: "9/11 truth: a Precarious Stack of Hypotheses, and we Cannot Discern the Truth". The issue features my letter to the editor where I spell out the four main points I raised against Griffin: that AA77 did in fact hit the Pentagon, that the inventor 'voice-morphing technology' supposedly used to fake the voices of victims on the plane has specifically rejected that this is even possible, that the vast majority of the families do not support the truth movement and Michael Hess' statement that what he heard was not explosions while escaping WTC7, concluding that the 9/11 truth movement is instead a movement that uses distortions and lies when it feels it needs to. Not only that, the "People's Newspaper" weighs in with a step by step debunking of Griffin's claims which points out the errors and logical fallacies of the so-called "truth movement" and ends with the lead editor concluding that "after putting on this event, I want to make it clear that I can no longer advocate for the truth movement with any confidence".

One section reads:

"Griffin continued: "those who doubt the truth movement don't realize that the government's claims themselves are a conspiracy." However, if the truth movement is suspected of manipulating people's impressions based on incorrect information, then it is unavoidable that people start to see the movement itself as a "conspiracy".

Griffin's claims are not enough at the moment to convince that 9/11 was an inside job. At first glance, these claims look like they have some persuasive power, but in fact aren't they merely claims assembled in a haphazard and patchwork way into a predetermined framework? The overall image reflects an impossible hypothesis, which instantly loses all persuasiveness when confronted with material facts."

The editorial continues, claiming that despite these defects in Griffin's theory, we should not forget that 9/11 was used as a political impetus for war. They go on to suggest some LIHOP scenarios that they consider feasible, and claim that there should still be a push for truth because of the effects 9/11 has had in terms of war. It is unfortunate that the paper here is not able to discern what really has happened: that they have been had by small-time fraudsters. That said, shifting towards LIHOP while dropping Griffin and the MIHOP theories certainly helps the People's Newspaper save face, given that they have been promoting these theories for over three years.

At multiple points the People's Newspaper notes that Griffin supports conspiracy theories about the events of Pearl Harbor, and that this rhetoric is only a reactionary explanation of why the war happened (I know from a personal account that the newspaper editor went to a 'truth conference' in Tokyo and was shocked to find himself surrounded by Japanese fascists).

Despite their concessions to LIHOP theories, the People's Newspaper has effectively given up on the whole mess. If you visit the paper's site here: http://www.jimmin.com/index.html you will find that they are no longer pushing 9/11 truth books or positions. The topic is no longer featured in their articles. It seems they want to wash their hands of the ugly movement that they found themselves a part of. Here, the truth movement has not only lost a community of potential believers; one of the biggest left newspapers in Osaka has partially restored its name by seeing through the lies of Griffin and others like him.

Here is the issue in JPG form:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2py70b7.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2z8xcfn.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2j1km0n.jpg

I'm not sure exactly how much my own intervention added to the "People's Newspaper" and conference attendee's rejection of conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. Watching the video, I think I came off a bit arrogant, and I could have been a bit more cordial. I think it is likely that the earlier portion of the conference, in which a member of the 'People's Newspaper' questioned Griffin about obvious evidence of a plane at the Pentagon did a lot more damage, in a more methodical way. This was a powerpoint presentation full of pictures of parts from American Airlines 77. Griffin's absolutely pathetic attempts to refute this evidence was the clincher.

So let's sum up:

What should have been the impetus for "energizing" the "truth movement" in Osaka has instead severed this movement from one of the few left organizations in the country that supported them. Besides another left publication called "Shuukan Kinyoubi", the only ones left are the UFO crackpots like Yumi Kikuchi and obvious anti-semites like Richard Koizumi.

Now hopefully the process of reflection:

Why were we duped?
Why were we so eager to believe that the US government/Israel is omnipotent?
Why did we ignore the existence and intent of fundamentalist and extremist Al Queda?

can begin.

Lessons for skeptics:

Even people that are hardcore into the conspiracy theory, and yet still retain a social understanding of the world, can probably be reasoned with. In this case, my participation was only an opportunity the People's Newspaper needed to free themselves.

It is worth confronting deniers where they appear. Like they do, we must play to the audience and answer THEIR questions, not get distracted by the double talk of paid liars whose only interest is in keeping the game shucking and jiving.

Closing comment by Pat: Great job by Adversity1!

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 TruthMove.org 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!

Richard Falk: Still A Crackpot

And still a Princeton professor and a UN appointee. He's just published a new article on his 9-11 nuttery:

From this perspective, and given the dark cloud of doubt that lingers over the official 9/11 narrative, why was the issue not even discussed during the many months of presidential campaigning? As far as I know it was never mentioned. And the explanation is not the urgency associated with the widening economic crisis or the tactical interest of the Democrats to avoid offending Republicans in their search for support across party lines. The truth is deeper, and far more disturbing.

As far as I can tell, the real explanation is a widely shared fear of what sinister forces might lay beneath the unturned stones of a full and honest investigation of 9/11. Ever since the assassinations in the 1960s of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X there has been waged a powerful campaign against “conspiracy theory” that has made anyone who dares question the official story to be branded as a kook or some kind of unhinged troublemaker. In this climate of opinion, any political candidate for high office who dared raise doubts about the official version of 9/11 would immediately be branded as unfit, and would lose all political credibility. It is impossible to compete in any public arena in the United States if a person comes across as a “9/11 doubter.”

Actually it did come up during the campaign on several occasions, Richard. Remember, Ron Paul being asked about the Truthers during a Republican debate?



It also came up indirectly when Bill Clinton was campaigning for his wife and got interrupted by the fruitcakes. Remember that one, Richard?



I am not Bill Clinton's biggest fan, but that was a moment that I stood up and cheered for him.

As for Falk, if the UN were capable of being embarrassed by their endorsement of idiots like him, they'd thank him for his service, give him a gold watch, and hustle him off the stage. But it is the UN, after all.

Update: I thought I'd take another couple whacks at the Falk pinata, and by extension, David Ray Griffin. Falk notes in his introduction that:

David Ray Griffin and others have analyzed and assessed these discrepancies in such an objective and compelling fashion that only wilful ignorance can maintain that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book, and that the public should move on to address the problems of the day.

But he also claims:

What has not been established by the “9/11 Truth Movement” is a convincing counter-narrative – that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction, and outright complicity.

Ah, but here Falk is not up to date. Griffin has assembled a counter-narrative (convincing or not). Griffin clearly believes in outright complicity, not deliberate inaction. For example, consider his continued insistence that the phone calls from the planes were faked. If Griffin believed in LIHOP (deliberate inaction), he would not deny the phone calls, because the phone calls do not disprove LIHOP. LIHOP assumes that the hijackers were Arab terrorists, but that the government knew about their planned attacks ahead of time and allowed them to go forward. It is only MIHOP proponents who have trouble with the phone calls.

Griffin also believes in the vast conspiracy; this is not some small operation. As James pointed out last week, he apparently believes that the bodies of the passengers of Flight 77 "could have been transferred to that middle building from somewhere else and to the people at the pathology institute they would assume they all came from the Pentagon."

I'm starting to think we should assemble a list of all the wacky things that David Ray Griffin believes. He's such a slippery customer that it's easy to forget that he endorses some of the nuttiest stuff in 9-11 Denial.

In Defense of David Ray Griffin

An interesting little troofer war is going on at 911 Blogger, where Jon Gold is criticizing David Ray Griffin for citing Christopher Bollyn, known anti-Semitic kook, in his writings. Now in this case I have to agree with Gold, and point out that he is one of the few people in the movement who is actually concerned with the fruits and nutcases in it. I just disagree with Gold in that if you remove the fruits and nutcases, you don't have much left.

In one case where I actually have to defend Griffin, in a sort of way, is where Gold states this:

Do you think David Ray Griffin honestly doesn't know what Christopher Bollyn is about? Focusing entirely on Israel and the nasty Zionists, etc...? Do you think DRG honestly doesn't know? I think he's even been approached about sourcing Bollyn before by other people.

Knowing as much as I do about Griffin's writings, and how poorly researched and sourced they are, I think it is entirely possible that Griffin honestly does not know who most of his sources are. This after all is the guy after all who insisted for years that there were multiple people who saw and heard a missile hit the Pentagon, based on sources that he had never actually checked.

Is David Ray Griffin a Neo-Con Agent?

(Note: Be sure to read the clarification at the end of this post)

At one time or another everyone in the 9/11 denial movement will get accused of being a "disinfo" agent by one fellow paranoid or another. Now it is David Ray Griffin's turn.

Some guy named Progressivephoenix writes:

Dr. David Ray Griffin, the author of several books that claim to debunk the official 911 theory, is in fact a charter member of the neocon movement. He is a member of the Disciples of Christ, a far right-wing christian group that focuses on unity among Christians and "restoration" of Christian dominion. The sect is associated with the Reverend Jim Jones, who massacred over 900 people in 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciples_of_Christ

He attended a little known school called The Claremont Colleges in Claremont, CA. The Claremont Colleges are is the current intellectual center of the neocon movement. Neocon mouthpiece, The Wall Street Journal called Claremont, "the intellectual capital of the western world." Dr. Harry Jaffa, professor emeritus at Claremont, is the world 's foremost interpertor of neocon founding father Leo Strauss, and a former student of Strauss.

Griffin indignantly defends himself:

This little hit piece by “progressivephoenix” (which I will abbreviate “PP”) is too ignorant and silly to deserve a reply. I have, however, been asked to respond, so here goes.

PP obviously has a far different standard for “incontrovertible proof” than I do. The remainder of my response will explain why.

Now I actually agree with Griffin that the attacks are baseless ad hominem attacks. But I have to ask, how is this different than claiming that the Popular Mechanics book is "semi-official" propaganda based on the speculation that Benjamin Chertoff and Michael Chertoff might possibly be distantly related, or attacking most of the US science and engineering community based on the fact that some of them rely on government funding?

(Note: We have received an email from the person who apparently wrote the original post claiming that Griffin was a neo-con, stating that the post was intended as satire. Of course this reveals the problem with satirizing the 9-11 Deniers; satire requires taking a position to an extreme, but you cannot get more extreme than the kooks.)

Confronting David Ray Griffin in Osaka

Note: This is a guest post from a JREF debunker who attended a DRG event in Osaka, Japan. As most of you probably know, Griffin generally does not allow himself to get in settings where he will be challenged by people who understand and can debunk the minutiae that the Troofers use to make their flimsy case. I think Mark (Gravy) Roberts, James B, and I would love to get a chance to debunk Griffin in person, but he's smart enough not to get into that situation. So big kudos to Adversity1, who lived the dream. Here's his report, verbatim:

Hey folks.

Went to the David Ray Griffin tour in Osaka today. Something like 50-60 people there. What was interesting here was that the event in Osaka was hosted by the 'people's newspaper', a new left newspaper that has been around since the 1960s. Because of this, the plain anti-semitism of the Tokyo conference could not be so easily put on display. In fact in the book sale area, there was typical anti-war literature and 'vanilla' 9/11 truth literature.

So yeah, I was invited to speak on stage after Griffin made his speech and critique him. Griffin was also critiqued by a left activist previously, which was rather brutal. He was repeatedly shown pictures of airplane parts in the Pentagon, to which he could only double down and claim that 'well if you're going to commit false flag terrorism, you would leave some evidence behind'. So yeah, that's his answer to the Pentagon stuff, that the government planted it. People in the audience were looking at each other like 'whaaaat?' It was awful. So I started yelling out 'what about the body parts??' To which Griffin said that he would get to later. Eventually he did, after skipping over it in one of his uselessly long monologues. His reasoning about all the body parts the coroner found? Well those appeared at the pathology center and there were [U]never any bodies from the plane found in the wreckage[/U]. To which I laughed out loud, quickly opened up my copy of Firefight, found the page where it mentioned BODIES STRAPPED TO SEATS and interrupted again. 'Um, just a brief correction to what you're saying there.' But no, Griffin wouldn't have it. He claimed he had to move on because there was no time. 'Yeah you want to move on because you're lying. SCUMBAG.' To which he had no reply and the whole auditorium got really quiet lol.

So the left activist had already pretty much torn the dude up when he got his chance to speak. He spent his time mostly on the 9/11 comission report, the chairman, Norman Mineta, timeline contradictions etc. I didn't think he was going to get into any real woo, but yeah he did. Claimed again no plane at the Pentagon, then brought up the voice synthesizers. I loled. I think he'd really lost people at this point.

Oh by the way he made his debut at the end of this speech as a Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorist, stating something like the President knew the attack was coming or something. Very political to do in a nationalist Japan where this sort of conspiracy theory is used by the right to imagine away their war of aggression. But this is David Ray Griffin, the most disgusting apologist I've ever personally witnessed.

After his presentation, which was quite accurately translated by Kikuchi Yumi, the so-called 'peace activist' who had invited Griffin to Japan. By the time that I was called up to stage to critique his arguments, however, she suddenly [B]refused to interpret[/B] for Griffin and I. She claimed that she had heard I spoke really good Japanese, so it shouldn't be a problem, and dashed off to the bathroom. Um, well yes I am a professional translator. But there is a huge difference in the field that I translate for (electronics) and the specialist terms that I would need to translate anything about the WTC collapses. Nevertheless, these were the circumstances given to me and I went ahead with my critique, in Japanese.

I opened with the statement that I do believe that there was something called the 9/11 truth movement, and that this included the 9/11 families who helped initiate the 9/11 commission report, writers like Lynn Spencer, Patrick Creed, Rick Newman and others. However, what we are dealing with here in Osaka today is not a truth movement. It does not seek out objective truth. Next, I decided to follow up on the question that Griffin had avoided earlier, pulling out my copy of Firefight and reading the passage on page 373 about not only airplane parts being found, but [B]bodies strapped to seats[/B]. After I read my question in Japanese, I said it to Griffin and he looked at me dumbfounded for like 10 seconds. There was laughter in the audience. It was a really odd moment. Um, so then he responded and said something about how well these are only the accounts of two people and how can you trust that, and if you were going to commit false flag terrorism then you would have to plant some evidence to make it look realistic. I think most people in the audience got the point that he was just ********ting. I was then asked to make all my criticisms and then Griffin would address them later. So I moved onto his point about the 'faked' calls to victims, and quoted from George Papcun, the creator of voice-morphing technology who states emphatically that what Griffin claims is simply not technically possible. Then I talked about how Michael Hess, one of the two witnesses to 'explosions' in WTC7, about whom Griffin had earlier claimed that along with Barry Jennings, 'these two men witnessed the event, and therefore there is no way that they can be lying', had clarified in the new version of the BBC's 'the Third Tower' that what he thought was an explosion was in fact the impact of the WTC tower on the south side of the building. Then I brought up the final statement of the 9/11 Family Steering Commitee which accepted the findings of the 9/11 commission, and then the Jersey Girl's acceptance of the building 7 NIST report (thanks JihadJane!). I believe these were the only points I was able to make in such a short amount of time due to the limits of my Japanese and the need to interpret everything back to Griffin. In response to all of my points, Griffin essentially waffled. He spent something like 5 minutes of his reply on completely random subject matter including claiming that the conspiracy that the truthers allege is equivocal to the 'government's allegations' of an Al Queda conspiracy (even though he refuses to put together a hypothesis of his own!). At least some people in the audience were annoyed by this obvious ********ting and one guy started cat-calling "HEY, you're repeating yourself!" in Japanese, which led to Griffin eventually trying to address my points. Re: Hess, well he's a friend of Giuliani's. Re: the Jersey Girls and the 9/11 Family Steering Committee documents, well one of the Jersey Girls endorsed my book. LOL

So that was about it...it was obvious by this point that even the activists with the 'people's newspaper' who had put the event on, just wanted to put an end to this event and move on. I could tell that at least some of them were by the end extremely critical of what they heard. A few came up to me shaking their heads and laughing afterwards, and those who were already critical felt clearly vindicated.

But before I left the stage, I had a present for Dr. Griffin. I had printed out all 300 pages of Ryan Mackey's critique of his work, gave a brief description of the paper plus an introduction to Ryan Mackey to all assembled before handing it over to a disgruntled Griffin.

With that, the 'people's newspaper' folks ended with a Chomsky quote against the conspiracy theory and closed the event. As people were walking out, I handed attendees copies of a review that a socialist newspaper had done of Hideji Okina's 'The Trap of Conspiracy Theories' which is a pretty concise statement of how these theories are linked to anti-semitism and irrational fear of authority (I should state for the record that I am on the radical left and as such completely opposed to anti-semitism/anti-Zionism). The reception of the article was awesome, people came up and thanked me directly, told me I had done a great job despite being forced to speak in Japanese and I had several longer conversations with people. One person even asked where to download the Mackey paper lol. I think the truth movement suffered a defeat here in Osaka and it's thanks to the (belated) critical inquiry of some of the 'people's newspaper' staff, Griffin and Kikuchi's own complete incompetence, and my limited contribution.

So after this disastrous performance, I went onto stage to confront Griffin one more time. I asked him about his personal correspondence with Hufschmid and Bollyn and other holocaust deniers. He claimed that he had taken Hufschmid's references out of the new edition of his book, but that Bollyn 'is different' and does not deny the holocaust. This is either willful ignorance or a blatant lie. He also mentioned that Hufschmid lives about a mile from him, and that he had been over to his house several times!! 'And he didn't mention anything to you about holocaust denial at those times??' 'No, no he didn't.' Wow. So they are closer than perhaps people here knew.

Anyways over the next week I'm going to try to get video of the event for people to see. I would also like to turn this into a post on Screw Loose Change if possible and call out Kikuchi Yumi for what she is, a smiling face knowingly making excuses for some of the worst reactionaries both abroad and at home.

Endnote from Pat: Great job, Adversity1!

Update from Pat: Jon Gold claims that the Jersey Girls (presumably minus Breitweiser), issued a cleverly worded endorsement of the NIST report on WTC-7 that really was them mocking the report, but unfortunately I cannot confirm this because the Zionist New World Order has blocked my access to 9-11 Flogger. This is important because Patty Casazza and Mindy Kleinberg are clearly the foremost experts in structural engineering in the world and if they're not on board with the NIST report, then it is clear that 9-11 was an inside job.

Debunking David Ray Griffin

As a professor of mine once explained, the difference between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory is the ability to make good predictions. Last week I made a post on David Ray Griffin's statement that AA77 did not have airfones, and reasoned that this was most likely explained by the fact that American Airlines removed their airfones from their 757s in March 2002, and the "researchers" cited by Griffin did not properly clarify whether the phones were there in September 2001, as opposed to the 2004-2005 time period when they wrote their book.

So it was not really that much of a surprise to read this admission by David Ray Griffin on 911 Blogger today:

My mistake, like that of Henshall and Rowland before me, was to assume that the AA spokesperson and this website were talking about AA 757s as they had always been, not simply about 757s at the time of the query, in 2004.

But the latter was evidently the meaning. Elias Davidsson, an Icelandic member of the 9/11 truth movement, sent me a story from February 6, 2002, which said: “American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday.” (5) Davidsson also reported a 1998 photograph of the inside of an AA 757 showing that it did have seat-back phones. (6)

Of course, with their ever moving goalposts, Griffin goes on to argue that this doesn't make any difference since the calls never happened for other reasons.

As I said, the difference between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory, is the ability to make good predictions. I can almost always predict the logical fallacies that conspiracy theorists will make. This is not some special gift of mine, it is simply a matter of applying consistent logic to proper research. For them, predictions are meaningless, because they will always draw the same conclusions no matter what evidence they base it on. If the evidence points one way, it was a US government conspiracy, if the evidence points the exact opposite way, it still was a US government conspiracy. That is the essence of conspiracy theories.

David Ray is Coming to Town...

I was surprised to find out that David Ray Griffin is not only still vertical, but visiting Seattle this weekend.

David Ray Griffin and 9/11

Saturday, May 28 7:00p

at Town Hall Seattle, Seattle, WA

Dr. David Ray Griffin, author, professor, theologian and author of thirty books will address the reasons for questioning the official account of 9/11 and will respond to Bill Moyers and other critics of the 9/11 truth movement.

I would go and say hello again, but they actually want $15 to attend. Hell, I got into Thor 3D for $11.50. Well that and it is a three day weekend and I will probably out of town.

Debunking David Ray Griffin (Again)

I am going to have to stop listening to these David Ray Griffin interviews. I could only make it about 16 minutes into this interview before wanting to smash my head against the monitor.

George Kenney: David’s analysis is an important litmus test for intellectual honesty. I am not saying he is right about everything or that one must agree with him, but intellectual rigor and neutral methodology are clearly on his side.

You have got to be kidding me. This is the guy who wrote "These reports of having seen a missile or a small military plane [at the Pentagon] must, accordingly, be given more weight."in his book, when he didn't even list a single report that fit that description. Intellectual rigor indeed.

Here Griffin explains why he writes such crap:

Griffin: Process theology and philosophy is inclusive, and deals with the interconnection of various disciplines that have been kept apart by too many forms of thought. One of those is science and religion. So a lot of my work has been, not in theology proper but in philosophy and religion with a heavy emphasis on philosophy of science. In fact several of my books are on science and religion, and the philosophy of science.

Kenney: So you are following Alfred North Whitehead I guess?

Griffin: Yes, his philosophy made the interconnection of science and religion the most important issue. And so that was uh, and important part of my background. And secondly, this form of thought stresses the interconnection of religion and politic. So I had also done quite a bit of thinking about political matters….

I would have to agree completely, this guy applies religious-like beliefs in his cause to science in ways that would make the most fervent televangelist jealous.

Now this part I couldn’t believe. Keep in mind, this is not just some guy I found on the Internet who only watched his first Youtube video yesterday. This is supposedly the most learned mind the 9/11 deniers can come up with. The guy has written 5 books on 9/11 for God’s sake, and yet he will still say crap like this:

Griffin: Likewise, when they finally confront the evidence that there was molten metal under the towers and building 7.

Kenney:For a considerable period of time after the event.

Griffin: Oh, weeks if not months. And it was still in a molten state when people were… crane operators were pulling out the beams and said it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel.

What? Did he really just say that? Let me rewind this and play that again…
"it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel. "

You have got to be kidding me. Explosives don’t melt steel, least of all not months after they are used. They do their work through pressure, not intense lasting heat. Whenever they blow up a hotel in Vegas do you see the fire department spending weeks hosing down the red hot debris afterwards before they can clean it up? No, once the dust settles you can go pick it up if you want.

And this is the best they got?

Update: Griffin later argues that the steel in the towers could not have weakened unless they were exposed to fires for several hours, because steel is a good conducter of heat, and the heat would be conducted away from the source of the fires almost instantly. He does not explain, however, how this works with his previous theory, that once steel is molten, it dissipates heat so poorly that it manages to stay in this molten state for weeks after that.

Don't Interfere with the Profits... er... Prophets

Over the weekend I posted a review of David Ray Griffin's Contradictions book on Amazon. Why not? I know more about Griffin than just about anyone this side of Ryan Mackey. Anyway, truthers, like all religious zealots don't like it when you criticize their prophets, so I soon earned this invective in the comments demanding I recant. Yes, recant! There has got to be a good Monty Python quote in here somewhere. Or I would be reported to the Amazon powers-that-be and my review would be summarily banished to wherever it is that they banish reviews that people do not like.

Dear Mr. James B:

Your comments about David Ray Griffin's supposed dishonesty are completely unwarranted and if you come to realize this through my own comment below, it would morally oblige you to remove, or rewrite, this review. If your review containing words such as lying and dishonesty is still up by Friday morning, I will report it to amazon as abusive.

As a tribute to David Ray Griffin's exceptional honesty, yes, he did post an article concerning seat-back phones in AA 757's in which he thought he had made an earlier error, and wrote a retraction. However, this article led to subsequent new evidence
from three different sources, in which it emerged that the AA 757's did not have seat-back phones in 2001. Then he and pilot Rob Balsamo wrote a second article, which you evidently missed, referenced below:

And here I thought they were into this whole no-censorship free exchange of ideas thing. And why does that name Balsamo ring a bell? I seem to remember reading about him once...

Ryan's Rant

A journalist named Robert Parry recently described the Troofer obsession as a "parlor game"; an apt description indeed. Predictably, Waterboy Kevin Ryan goes off on a rant about how for Parry and others in the media, the Troof Movement is a parlor game. All of that is very much pro forma and not terribly interesting.

But then Ryan, warming to his topic, veers into cloud-cuckoo land about Uncle Fetzer. Now, to us debunkers, Jim Fetzer is just a typical idiot Troofer, spouting off the usual BS just like Richard Gage, Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin. Yes, Fetzer's a crank, but the difference is only in degree, not in type. Ah, but to the Waterboy, he's much more:

Fetzer suddenly appeared on the 9/11 truth scene in late 2005, immediately after the publication of a paper by physicist Steven Jones. At that time, Fetzer wrote to many prominent truth advocates, saying – “Steve Jones and I would like to invite you to join us as members of a new society.” Having been known for some dubious contributions to the JFK assassination research community, Fetzer used this new association with Jones to thrust himself into a position of superficial leadership in the truth movement.

Less than one year later, just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks when mainstream media attention was at its peak, Fetzer began speaking publicly about space beams destroying the WTC and other such nonsense. He continued with grandiose claims about theories which had no evidentiary support, as this excerpt from one of his radio shows indicates.

See, to Ryan, Fetzer suddenly started acting like a crazy person when he endorsed Judy Woods' beam weapons from space. And this proves that Fetzer was not crazy, he was deliberately sabotaging the Troof Movement.

Of course, to the rest of us, Fetzer didn't suddenly start acting like a crazy person around the fifth anniversary. He was a crazy person right from the moment he joined the Troofers (and probably well before).

But what I love is the next bit:

What would cause a PhD to say that an unsubstantiated claim of space beams destroying the WTC was “the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11” and that it was “huge?” Why was this claim more fascinating or huge than all the research previously published by the likes of Michael Ruppert, Daniel Hopsicker, David Ray Griffin, Steve Jones, Nafeez Ahmed, Don Paul and Michel Chossudovsky?

Now, you know how it is; on the crazy scale, Fetzer and Wood have pinned the meter. But the rest of those guys are certainly in the red zone. And Hopsicker and Griffin? Hopsicker is the one who got Amanda Keller on tape talking endlessly about "Mohamed" without quite ever getting her to admit that her Mohamed was not surnamed Atta. And Grifter... even the Troofers have caught onto the fact that he's a goofball. Note in particular that Ryan gripes about two claims that Parry highlights as central to 9-11 Troof:

* “Operatives working for President Bush wired 100-plus floors of the WTC towers” with explosives
* “Truthers insist that no plane hit the Pentagon; that Bush’s team attacked it with a missile.”

But on the first one Ryan can only quibble that he and Jones and others don't necessarily believe Bush was behind it. He ignores the second claim, but his respected researcher David Ray Griffin was still pushing that theory as late as 2007 (and will probably start pushing it again, the way he keeps recycling his debunked nonsense from years ago).

Just What the World Needs, Another David Ray Griffin Book

David Ray Griffin continues his 9/11 conspiracy cottage industry, with a book called, rather ponderously, Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, described on Amazon as:

Former Chicago and Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, who in 2009 was appointed by President Barack Obama to direct an important executive branch office, had in 2008 co-authored an article containing a plan for the government to prevent the spread of anti-government "conspiracy theories." Arguing that such theories are believed only by groups suffering from "informational isolation," he advocated the use of anonymous government agents to engage in "cognitive infiltration" of these groups in order to introduce "cognitive diversity," with the aim of breaking them up.

Noting that Sunstein's proposal has evoked condemnations from across the political spectrum--not least because it, being similar to the FBI's COINTELPRO of the 1960s, would be illegal--David Ray Griffin focuses on the fact that Sunstein's primary target is the conspiracy theory advocated by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Examining Sunstein's charge that this theory is both "harmful" and "demonstrably false," Griffin uses both satire and overwhelming evidence to show that this twofold charge applies instead to what Sunstein calls "the true conspiracy theory" about 9/11-namely, the "theory that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11."

Although I must say it is rather impressive that he so quickly managed to produce a 288 page book on a little noticed 29 page paper.

David Ray Griffin: High Priest

In case any of you are wondering why we refer to David Ray Griffin as the "high priest" of the 9/11 conspiracy movement, read this e-mail I got on a list I belong to, promoting an interview with him:

So you implement one of the most stupendous black-ops of all time. Considering the multitude of variables, you've put together a fairly convincing cover story that fixes blame on Islamic terrorists. Using the full weight of the political establishment you bulldoze away public discussion of the truth. A complaisant [sic] press repeats your lies in a ciclo infinito forte. Though a few malcontents won't buy it, they're marginalized. Then along comes your worst nightmare: a distinguished theologian whose cross-disciplinary specialization involves highly sophisticated reasoning that requires familiarity with logic, science, and the scientific method — a man with no personal vested interest whatsoever (and no way to falsely hang one on him), who digs in tenaciously to ask the right questions, and who becomes a true patriotic hero to many. In short order, despite the media blackout, a very large percentage of the public becomes skeptical. Such is the story of Dr. David Ray Griffin (PDF), a leader of the 911 Truth movement and author most recently of Debunking 9/11 Debunking. We all owe David an enormous debt of gratitude for his insights, energy, and determination. It was a real privilege to talk with him, and I'm sure his balanced views will continue to gain public support. Total runtime here of an hour and thirteen minutes. Listen carefully and please redistribute widely.

I think they are ready to beatify him, before they inevitably throw him under the bus.

David Ray Griffin, Paul Krugman and Screw Loose Change

Economist Paul Krugman, who won a Nobel Prize today, and our humble blog have more of a connection than just the fact that he was prominently cited in the preface to David Ray Griffin's new book (as well as last week's debate with Matt Taibbi). A Krugman article on the 2000 and 2004 election was how Pat and I first worked together in the blogging sense when I posted on it on my Chief Brief blog, and then Pat followed soon afterward with another part of the story on his Brainster blog. The story ended up actually requiring Krugman to run not one, but three different corrections, and got the both of us a mention in a book on blogging called Watching the Watchdog by Marshall University professor of Communications Stephen Cooper.

So congrats to Krugman, at least as far as his work on trade theory in the 80's goes, I will leave the subject of his columns in the New York Times to my other blog, and congrats to us for having succesfully debunked a Nobel Prize winner, and no, sorry troofers, I am not talking about David Ray Griffin.

Scratch a Truther....

David Ray Griffin is in Japan to promote his 9-11 kookery. Who's he appearing with?

David Ray Griffin
Yukihisa Fujita（Member of the Japanese Upper House）(Website is Japanese)
Akira Dojimaru（Author and Translator）(Websites are Japanese)
Benjamin Fulford（Journalist）
Muneo Narusawa（Weekly Friday Magazine Journalist）(Website is Japanese)

Benjamin Fulford's website is here, where you can learn a great deal. For example did you know that Anti-Semitism is anti-Satanism?

For millennia the ancient Babylonian secret slave driving cults have used the Jews like a matadors’ cape, to distract people from the real source of their anger. When the Jews are attacked, they are forced to huddle around the slave drivers for protection. Later, the cultists appeal to good heart of the people by making them feel guilty about their attacks on the Jews. In Europe and North America, humanity’s natural kindness has been used to brainwash us into a knee-jerk reaction against anything that is labeled Anti-Semitism. The way to remove this brainwash is to compile a database of everything that is called Anti-Semitic and remove from that database anything that is anti-Jew. The remaining body of knowledge can be renamed anti-Satanism. It will be useful in identifying the real villains and the things they are trying to hide.

What about Akira Dojimaru? According to a poster at JREF (I have not yet been able to confirm this independently):

At the Tokyo stop, he will be speaking alongside Dojimaru Akira (an anti-semite who describes Jews as parasitic elements of the ruling class)....

Backup here:

But who is Akira Dojimaru anyways? Did John Spiri bother to check? Maybe if he took a look at the man's Web site he would have found out that Akira is a plainly obvious anti-Semite. For example, see his article "Parasitism and Intellectual Conspiracies are Dangerous Elements among International Financiers and Traders" here: www.asyura2.com/2003/dispute8/msg/737.html where he states: "And if I may add to that, we can nearly describe these kinds of dangerous elements as the Jewish ruling class (moneyed class) from a racial values standpoint."

There is plenty of that on his site! In fact there is a whole section of the site devoted to Holocaust denial, one of the most disgusting efforts of the hard right to reverse the history of the Second World War. I'm guessing that Mr. Spiri does not care about researching who he is talking to, or what their motivations are. I also know by now that he is not a person who looks critically at what is placed in front of him. John Spiri, why are you quoting a person like this approvingly? Do you share these views? If so, I ask The Japan Times, why are you allowing a writer to Trojan-horse these reactionary views into your pages?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that David Ray Griffin is sharing a podium with anti-Semites and holocaust deniers.

Update: I should have mentioned that this information was uncovered by Adversity1, a poster at JREF. Great job!

Zinn's Endorsement of Griffin Quackery Comes Under Fire

Howard Zinn, whose People's History of the United States is probably one of the ten best-selling textbooks of the last 30 years, discovers that endorsing David Ray Griffin's latest batch of nuttery gives his critics a stick to use against him.

“I believe that David Ray Griffin’s provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed,” Zinn writes on the back of Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. (Members of the “truth movement” helpfully keep me stocked with their latest salvos in case my resistance to paranoid fables happens to dissolve.)

In case you couldn’t guess, the “official conspiracy theory” mocked in Griffin’s book is the idea that hijacked planes brought down the towers, smashed into the Pentagon and crashed in a Pennsylvania field. The “truth movement” thinks it knows better than to accept this straightforward version of history. “The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming,” Griffin declares.

Your government pulled off the equivalent of a Pearl Harbor attack on its own people, you see, and has been engaged in a cover-up ever since, abetted by a compliant and corrupt press.

Will this theory someday worm its way into the best-selling People’s History, too? The 2003 hardback edition still accepts the hijackers as 9/11’s culprits. But since Zinn seems to blame the United States for most of the world’s maladies anyway, he might as well point the finger at it for 9/11, too.

Richard Falk: I Was Just Asking Questions

Or as we fondly refer to it, JAQing off.

For anyone who read the blog post in its entirely it should be plain that the reference to the 9/11 issues is both restrained and tangential. What is stressed in the blog is the importance of carefully examining evidence before drawing conclusions about political and legal responsibility for highly sensitive public acts, and the importance for the serenity of the society of achieving closure in a responsible manner. I never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has objectively examined the controversy knows– that there remain certain gaps in the official explanation that give rise to an array of conspiratorial explanations, and that the 9/11 Commission unfortunately did not put these concerns to rest. My plea was intended to encourage addressing these gaps in a credible manner, nothing more, nothing less. I certainly meant no disrespect toward the collective memory of 9/11 in the country and elsewhere. On the contrary, my intention was to encourage an investigation that might finally achieve closure with respect to doubts that remain prevalent among important sectors of the public, including among some 9/11 families.

No, of course he never endorsed doubts about the "official version of 9/11"; he just endorsed "devoted scholars of high integrity" like, heh, David Ray Griffin.

David Ray Griffin, who believes "9-11 was an inside job by the US government"? Here's Grifter in 2006:

Specifically, Griffin believes that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks.... When asked what the most compelling facts are to make the case that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, Griffin names three things. The behavior of Bush at the schoolhouse in Florida ("Secret Service should have whisked him out immediately if we're under attack but he stayed over 30 minutes. ... It's pretty clear evidence that they knew they wouldn't be attacked"), the strange pyrotechnics that brought down the World Trade Center ("fire has never brought down a steel high-rise building") and the poorly planned targeting of the West Wing of the Pentagon ("all the important people are in the East Wing -- it doesn't make any sense").

Griffin believes in all the nuttiest stuff in the 9-11 Troof Movement: that the cellphone/Airfone calls were faked via voice-morphing, that the hijackers are alive, that a missile hit the Pentagon, etc.

Just How Stupid is David Ray Griffin?

David Ray Griffin continues to show that he will stick with any myth, no matter how stupid. Yesterday he appeared on a radio show on KGNU (available here starting about 17 minutes in) doing his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" bit. Amazingly, he still tries his air defenses at the Pentagon story, despite still having no evidence beyond his argument from personal incredulity. Incredibly he now even adds the claim that "many buildings" have air defenses. Oh really? Can I get some for my garage?

Well, many buildings have missiles on them, anti-aircraft missiles. And the airspace that is over this triangle, that connects the White House and the Pentagon, is prohibited airspace. That means it is not only restricted, it is absolutely prohibited to any commercial aircraft. And so, you would know, and many people have said, that there are anti-aircraft missiles on the Pentagon, which are sensitive to any unfriendly transponders, and that would mean, only military planes are allowed to fly over there. And so if you had a commercial aircraft, it would automatically be shot down. So those would have had to have been turned off.

Yeah, whatever you say Dave...

About 35 minutes in "Harry from Toronto" (Cannuck in the comments) calls in and recommends people check out http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ (thanks for the mention). Griffin, of course, dismisses this blog as "absolutely ridiculous nonsense" (considering the source, probably best endorsement we have ever received) and suggests people check out the Architects and Engineers site. The whole exchange is excellent, but too long to transcribe, so I highly suggest you download the MP3 and listen to that part at least.

Later on Griffin makes an admission as to how crappy the first 2 (3 really) versions of Loose Change were:

There were some problems in the first two versions of Loose Change. Loose Change: Final Cut will be coming out pretty soon, I happen to be the script consultant for it and you won’t find the kinds of problems in it that can be picked apart and used to discredit the whole thing, the way you could in Loose Change 2.

Kind of like people who support really bad football teams. Yeah, you just wait until next year!

And finally Griffin makes another admission, that even after 5 books on the subject, and a 6th on the way, he still doesn't even bother to figure out what actually happened.

I don’t get into these questions as to what really happened and develop a theory about it. My own focus is on the evidence that the official story is false.

Yeah, we know that Dave. If you actually had to say what happened and defend your hypothesis, well, you know how ugly that would get.

David Ray Griffin Hosted in Sweden by Anti-Semites

This is a bit old, but I have been so busy I haven't had a chance to get around to going through all of it. Plus much of it is in Swedish as it was sent to me by a Swedish reader who was kind enough to translate parts for me, so I have been trying to figure out how to write about it effectively.

On May 11th of this year, David Ray Griffin, the retired theologian and infamous corruptor of history spoke in Stockholm, Sweden at a speech hosted by his Swedish publisher Alhambra. In fact Hesham Bahari, from Alhambra introduced him. You can find various videos of the actual speech, but it is pretty much Griffin's stock speech which he has given dozens of times already. What is more interesting is who his friends at Alhambra are.

Well, from Bahari himself:

"Judarna genom sitt enorma inflytande över USA:s inrikes- och utrikespolitik måste betecknas som den stora segraren efter Andra världskriget."

Which translates as:

"The Jews, with their enormous influence over US domestic and forign policy, must be regarded as the big winner of the second world war."

Ahh, but apparently Mr. Bahari is willing to give the Jews another chance.

"Men judarna har fortfarande en chans: att ta avstånd från Israels politik och från sionismen är räddningen."

"But the Jews still have a chance: Dissociation from the politics of Israel and Zionism is their only way out."

What he proposes for them as an option, I don't really want to know.

Lasse Wilhelmson, who is listed as one of the contacts for Griffin's speech, has some even more offensive statements here and here.

“Judefientlighet har det funnits genom historien. Men ofta är det så att det är judarna själva som genom sitt eget beteende har framkallat den.”

"There has been hostility towards Jews throughout history, But often it is the Jews who have brought on themselves through their actions."

"Historiska fakta är att den så kallade världsjudendomen förklarade krig mot Tyskland redan 1933 [...] Denna krigsförklaring innebar ju att judarna i Tyskland på goda grunder blev betraktade som presumtiva landsförrädare av Hitler.

"It is a historical fact that world Jewry declared war on Germany already in 1933 [...] This declaration of war led to the Jews being rightfully regarded by Hitler as potential traitors."

“Allting med Förintelsen är heligt. Det får inte ifrågasättas. Siffran 6 miljoner är helig. Redan på 20-talet pratade sionister på Wall Street om 6 miljoner judar som skulle dö. Siffran kommer därifrån.”

"Everything regarding the Holocaust is Holy. It must not be questioned. The number 6 million is holy. Already in the 20's Zionists on Wall Street spoke of 6 million Jews who would die. The number comes from there."

I could go on, but it is apparent what type of characters Mr. Griffin was hanging out with.

Update: Incidentally, all the credit for this work goes to Jonathan Leman, who has spent quite a bit of time researching all this. He runs a Swedish language blog, focusing mainly on the topic of anti-Semitism at http://jonathanleman.blogspot.com/.