DRG 571 Page Lie - Lets take it point by point

[MikeW]

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, U.S. representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a U.S. proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

There is no evidence that this meeting ever occurred.

The meeting did occur, however not as Griffin (mis)represents.

The meeting was organised by the UN, for instance, not the US. The US representatives were retired diplomats (including a Clinton appointee), and there's no evidence to show they were directly doing the bidding of the Bush government.

The allegation of a threat of war was made by a Pakistani attendee only, Niaz Naik. It wasn't reported by others (and in fact was denied).

And most importantly, even Naik has specifically said that the pipeline was not discussed at the meeting.

Quote:
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the U.S. public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

Central Asia – under any of its many definitions – has very little, if any, oil. The world’s most significant traditional oil reserves are in the Middle East, while non traditional sources in Canada and Venezuela contain more oil than the rest of the world combined. Canada is currently the largest exporter of oil to the United States.

Also, the book specifically says the US cannot control Central Asia, although it does take the view that other countries (mainly Russia) shouldn't be allowed to do so, either. As such it does not view this as an "imperial effort", nor does it link a New Pearl Harbour to achieving this task.

 

[slyjoe]

Great job!

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

Why is this an issue. They did see it. Rowley's issue was that they didn't act as they should have on it.

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

Wright claims that in 1998 the FBI shut down his probe into Palestinian-American youth training camps that were to train and inject these youth into Israel for bombings using bombs similar to OK City. Not sure what this has to do with 9/11.

Again, GREAT JOB!

 

[gumboot]

The meeting did occur, however not as Griffin (mis)represents.

The meeting was organised by the UN, for instance, not the US. The US representatives were retired diplomats (including a Clinton appointee), and there's no evidence to show they were directly doing the bidding of the Bush government.

The allegation of a threat of war was made by a Pakistani attendee only, Niaz Naik. It wasn't reported by others (and in fact was denied).

And most importantly, even Naik has specifically said that the pipeline was not discussed at the meeting.


Also, the book specifically says the US cannot control Central Asia, although it does take the view that other countries (mainly Russia) shouldn't be allowed to do so, either. As such it does not view this as an "imperial effort", nor does it link a New Pearl Harbour to achieving this task.

Thanks Mike! I was hoping someone more knowledgeable than me would weigh in at some point...

Two amendments also...

Regarding 7) (WTC2 collapsed first)
WTC2 also had fireproofing half as thick as WTC1

Regarding 75) (reports that AA77 had crashed taken seriously)
As further illustration that Indianapolis seriously thought AA77 had crashed - a Search and Rescue mission was initially ordered from a local military base to search for the debris from AA77.

-Gumboot

 

[MikeW]

Wright claims that in 1998 the FBI shut down his probe into Palestinian-American youth training camps that were to train and inject these youth into Israel for bombings using bombs similar to OK City. Not sure what this has to do with 9/11.

Griffin attempts to make it seem more relevant by reporting this as occurring in January 2001. Actually I think it was 1999, rather than 1998, although you're right, there's no obvious 9/11 link.

 

[Mancman]

Fantastic post Gumboot.


Minor correction for #6. I think you added an extra 8 to '18,000'.

 

[gumboot]

Fantastic post Gumboot.


Minor correction for #6. I think you added an extra 8 to '18,000'.

My 18,000m² figure is based on a total floor area for the Windsor Tower of 20,000m² divided by 32 floors (= 625m² per floor) multiplied by the 29 above-ground floors destroyed by the fire (= 18,125m²). I then rounded it to 18,000.

My calculations for the area of a single floor of the WTC are more precise - being based on the actual dimensions of the building (63m x 63m).

-Gumboot

 

[Mancman]

My 18,000m² figure is based on a total floor area for the Windsor Tower of 20,000m² divided by 32 floors (= 625m² per floor) multiplied by the 29 above-ground floors destroyed by the fire (= 18,125m²). I then rounded it to 18,000.

My calculations for the area of a single floor of the WTC are more precise - being based on the actual dimensions of the building (63m x 63m).

-Gumboot

Ah, I misread and thought you were comparing single floors. (Thought you meant to say the Windsor had floor areas of 1,000sqm) Silly me. Sorry!

 

[uk_dave]

So, we gonna have this thread printed and bound and dropped on DRG from a moderate height?

 

[jsiv]

Wonder how much money he has made from selling this book.

I seem to remember Fetzer spending half of the Hardfire show bragging about having written 30-40 books, as well as telling people to go buy books written by truther friends of his.


It's totally about finding the Truth, man.

 

[jaydeehess]

Just check the pics of the Bay bridge in Cal. today from just a gasoline fire - should handle the steel melt ignorance

Further, it should be noted that no one died in the Bay bridge collapse either. The implication from that is that the bridege had no one on it at the time of collapse and indeed for some time beforehand. No extra dead load from the mass of vehicles normally on it and no live load from those vehicles moving over it. This structure had the very least amount of load on it that it could possibly have and yet under the thermally induced stresses and damage it collapsed.

Whether or not the news reports have the temperatures reached correct it remains that the steel succumbed to the heat and chemical attack of burning hydrocarbon fuel in open air.

 

[jaydeehess]

Quote:
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
This is entirely true and correct. NORAD’s area of responsibility is the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) which lies over water off the US coastline.

Which makes this neither an error or an ommision in the Commision's report and simply a statement of fact that was in effect since NORAD's inception.

 

[T.A.M.]

I would love to see his references (I assume he lists them in his book which I refuse to buy), as I can only imagine they are from other 9/11 "investigators" etc...

TAM

 

[jaydeehess]

Quote:
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
The initial intercept of N47BA (Stewart’s Learjet35) took 81 minutes. NEADS were only notified of the hijacking of AA11 nine minutes before it crashed.

The plane that finally did investigate Stewart's aircraft was unarmed.

 

[jaydeehess]

Quote:
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
There was no consideration of the military using force against a civilian target, and such an act is potentially illegal. As such the military requested this authorisation from the President.

Here DRG omits the fact that forcing the President of the USA to order the shoot down of a US registered flight with US citizens on board would STILL go into a WIN column for any hijackers. Indeed if this were a 'false flag' event it could still be blamed on terrorists.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well apparently PD hasnt gotten a new sock on here, as he has resorted to making comment on my postings here, but over on the blogs.

Apparently, he thinks I am obsessed with him (funny I didnt mention him once until people started quoting his LCF crap again). He also comments that this 115 point article is 3 years old, so apparently DRG has a new 100 page rebuttal on debunkers (I guess in his new book on debunking the debunkers).

Now my problem with this, is that if PD claims we are debunking tired, old claims, than fine, but I want him and DRG to go on the record that the points made in the article of the OP are all false, proven so, debunked, and then we can move on to his "new stuff". Otherwise, to me, he must still stand by these points, as he has not come out publicly stating they are invalid.

TAM

 

[JamesB]

I would love to see his references (I assume he lists them in his book which I refuse to buy), as I can only imagine they are from other 9/11 "investigators" etc...

TAM

I borrowed New Pearl Harbor and Omissions and Distortions from the library, so I wouldn't have to pay for them. He does use footnotes and references for some claims, although they are often to other truthers like Thierry Meyssan and Eric Hufschmit. Sometimes he just makes claims and pretends the answer is obvious. My favorite is "It is true, is it not that the Pentagon is surrounded by air defenses?'

Uhh, I don't know Dave, you tell me.

 

[kookbreaker]

Well apparently PD hasnt gotten a new sock on here, as he has resorted to making comment on my postings here, but over on the blogs.

Apparently, he thinks I am obsessed with him (funny I didnt mention him once until people started quoting his LCF crap again).

That's fairly typical P'doh behavior:

P'doh: They're afraid of me at JREF!! They won't answer my arguements.
Debunker: Well, I can handle this, what are your arguements?
P'doh: Here's a list!
Debunker: This is just a list you borrowed from someone else. These aren't really your arguements.
P'doh: Hah! You can't debunk it. I win!
Debunker: Wait. Here goes (sound of massive debunking) All done. No what's you answer?
P'doh: Why are you obsessed with me?

e also comments that this 115 point article is 3 years old, so apparently DRG has a new 100 page rebuttal on debunkers (I guess in his new book on debunking the debunkers)

I refuse to put money in Griffin's pocket so I go by what the fawning Amazon reviews say. I can already tell that he's still mixing up the NIST paint temperature tests as if they were an indication of the actual temperatures the columns reached. Griffin should know by now that those were not what those tests were for. He refuses to accept that.

Other things I can see, but cannot disprove are the claims about the tapes. One reviewer claims 'Griffin shows the tapes were a massive black op and proves it with careful footnotes and documentation'. Sometimes just massive numbers of footnotes impress people, especially since they don't look into them closely. The Pearl Harbor CT guys tried that gig and got slammed for misuse of material.

 

[gumboot]

Bumped in the hope that someone else feels the urge to shed some light on some of DRG's claims.

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

Gumboot:

you did such a good job with them, I am not sure what to add, except references where requested or implied...

Anything specific?

TAM

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot:

you did such a good job with them, I am not sure what to add, except references where requested or implied...

Anything specific?

TAM

Well, there's lots of gaps where it's stuff I know nothing about.

But aside from that, I did it off the top of my head and I have no doubt there's plenty of errors in there.

Once I have satisfactory answers for every point I was intending to assemble it together into a single document with sources.

-Gumboot