9/11 Blogger/Erik Larson against David Ray Griffen

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-fake-calls-theory#comments

Here's a comment left by "Loose Nuke":

Thanks everyone for the positive feedback (so far!)

John B: "I know for one I have given up caring about such things, I don't care how small our group is as long as it represents us in a credible and truthful manner."

I also believe it's critical, if the truth movement is to have credibility and be effective, to document and drop misinformation and speculative claims.

As John also said, "Sometimes we need to get tough on our selves before we get slaughtered by our adversaries!" and as CD67 said, "it is important to look back and weed out the definitive from the speculative"

Absolutely; whenever 'debunkers' can use reason, facts and truth against the 9/11 truth and justice movement, they do; hence my citation of JREF and 9/11 Myths in this essay, cuz in this case they've done a legitimate job, and it serves as a powerful example. WE should be doing this, and BEFORE they get a chance to make the truth movement look like fools.
I am interested to see how DRG responds.

Submitted by loose nuke

Are they praising JREF?

Edit: I know I made a typo in the title, that's what makes me human. Just leave it there!

 

[JamesB]

The truther war going on in that comment thread is rather amusing. It is very telling that anytime a truther criticizes the lies of another truther, he always has to preface that he is only doing it because these lies may help the debunkers. Apparently truth itself is not a legitimate enough reason.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The truther war going on in that comment thread is rather amusing. It is very telling that anytime a truther criticizes the lies of another truther, he always has to preface that he is only doing it because these lies may help the debunkers. Apparently truth itself is not a legitimate enough reason.

Funny, aren't they?

I just love it when Truthers argue amongst themselves.

 

[JamesB]

Ooh, Kevin Ryan is downright ticked.

Finally, I would say that some of the comments posted here are disrespectful toward someone who has earned a great deal of respect in the truth movement. Continued conjecture about “intentionality” for example, is uncalled for and those making such suggestions are out of line at the very least.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

More from Kevin Ryan (taken from same comment above):

Comment on Larson critique

Although I do not feel that the question of faked phone calls is worthy of much attention, I can say that this critique is not convincing. For a number of reasons, including Larson’s many speculations and his repeated references to the “911Myths” and the JREF chat room as credible sources, this series of criticisms falls short of its apparent goal.
Larson first claims that Griffin’s statements on the issue constitute a theory. But this is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, and Larson later clarifies that in his conclusions.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Are they praising JREF?

That "critique" reads like Mackey on crack, so maybe.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That "critique" reads like Mackey on crack, so maybe.

Mackey on "crack"? Evidence for that?!

Don't you just love how you truthers fight with yourselves? Kevin "Water Boy" Ryan is even getting into the act.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Looks like they're against the leaders of the Truth Movement as well:

Cut and dry.

The more analysis and research we derive from paper's like Larson's, the more powerful our position becomes. 9/11 truth unfortunately has a sink of dirty dishes that went long neglected. There were many 'leaders' claiming to represent the truth (and profiting from it) who kept distracting us from just doing a little cleaning. Paper's like Larson's are a high grade, all organic dishwashing soap to help get rid of that greasy, dirty misinformation which has been allowed to build up and grime over. The great part is, that with a little soap and elbow grease, our dishes can clean up nice and shiny and are ready to start cookin' again.

Submitted by kdub

 

[Childlike Empress]

Mackey on "crack"? Evidence for that?!

No. It's called simile, Chewy.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No. It's called simile, Chewy.

Don't forget sarcasm!

 

[Childlike Empress]

There were many 'leaders' claiming to represent the truth (and profiting from it) who kept distracting us from just doing a little cleaning.

Charming. The TruthSim Gestapo harassing an old man recovering from a stroke.

 

[RedIbis]

Larson did a good job of presenting analysis which refutes DRG's claims of faked calls. It's the evolution of research and there's not a damn thing wrong with it. I disagree with those posters on the 911blogger thread who accuse DRG of disinfo or whatever. On the whole, that thread is a good deal more productive and civil than what passes around here for discourse.

 

[JamesB]

Charming. The TruthSim Gestapo harassing an old man recovering from a stroke.

Harassment? How is it harassment to criticize someone's supposedly academic work? Does going to the hospital somehow make your writings immune to criticism?

 

[Brainster]

Larson did a good job of presenting analysis which refutes DRG's claims of faked calls. It's the evolution of research and there's not a damn thing wrong with it. I disagree with those posters on the 911blogger thread who accuse DRG of disinfo or whatever. On the whole, that thread is a good deal more productive and civil than what passes around here for discourse.

If by disinfo you mean intentionally presenting evidence that is wrong in order to discredit the Truthers, I agree. What Griffin does is intentionally present evidence that is wrong to make it seem like the Truthers have some semblance of an argument. The Hotard example cited by Larson illustrates this well; it's a classic job of quote-mining.

 

[RedIbis]

If by disinfo you mean intentionally presenting evidence that is wrong in order to discredit the Truthers, I agree. What Griffin does is intentionally present evidence that is wrong to make it seem like the Truthers have some semblance of an argument. The Hotard example cited by Larson illustrates this well; it's a classic job of quote-mining.

One thing that epic thread illustrates ( I don't recall another article receiving this much response) is that those who you habitually refer to as "truthers" are nothing more than a large group of people, upon which some things they agree and others they do not.

In that way, it's not much different from any other group of people. They just happen to be more skeptical.

 

[JamesB]

In that way, it's not much different from any other group of people. They just happen to be more skeptical.

No. If they were more skeptical they would not have blindly accepted such idiotic theories as remote controlled planes, supermagiconanothermite, and faked phone calls for the last 5 years. Believing ridiculous and farfetched theories without evidence is the opposite of skeptical, it is gullible.

 

[RedIbis]

No. If they were more skeptical they would not have blindly accepted such idiotic theories as remote controlled planes, supermagiconanothermite, and faked phone calls for the last 5 years. Believing ridiculous and farfetched theories without evidence is the opposite of skeptical, it is gullible.

If you read through that thread, you can plainly see that that there are various opinions on 9/11, and the most ridiculous have been summarily dismissed.

 

[alienentity]

in that way, it's not much different from any other group of people. They just happen to be more skeptical gullible.

ftfy

 

[Brainster]

If you read through that thread, you can plainly see that that there are various opinions on 9/11, and the most ridiculous have been summarily dismissed.

Leaving only the moderately ridiculous....

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If you read through that thread, you can plainly see that that there are various opinions on 9/11, and the most ridiculous have been summarily dismissed.

Another opinion that's been dismissed is the CD Theory.

I don't think you'd bring that up without evidence, would you?