ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
Griffin has written yet another piece of 9/11 trutherism, called "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press". In this book he writes about contradicting statements and contradicting "evidence" regarding the events of 9/11.
Well, I thought we could use his method to examine his own statements. Let's see what we can find.
1.
Let's start with his "Destruction of the World Trade Center" paper, in which he offers his evidence of WTC controlled demolition. First there is this:
"The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings."
But a couple of paragraphs later he offers this as controlled demolition evidence:
"In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that '[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers' (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7)."
So which one is it? Confusing.
2.
Then there is this very recent article by him. It's about the Cheney interview with Tim Russert in 2001, the already thoroughly explained/debunked Cheney arrival time at PEOC, and the 9/11 Commission timeline. Let's take a closer look.
"As we have seen, it would appear that the 9/11 Commission’s timeline, which rules out the possibility that Cheney could have been responsible for the attack on the Pentagon or the downing of United 93, came from Cheney himself, via the account that he himself---along with Lynne Cheney and Condoleezza Rice---gave to Newsweek.
Arguably the strongest evidence against this timeline is the account that Cheney gave to Tim Russert on the September 16, 2001, edition of Meet the Press."
So the 9/11 commission timeline came from Cheney himself, but that can't be correct because the strongest evidence against it comes from... Cheney himself? He suggests that the evil mastermind of this clever plot made a stupid rookie mistake in a nationally televised interview, then tried to cover it up in the 9/11 commision report. Who writes this stuff? Griffin.
3.
See this quote from the same article:
"Cheney has thus far gotten away with the contradiction between what he told Russert and what he apparently told Newsweek, which became the position of The 9/11 Commission Report. But perhaps that will not continue to be the case, especially now that Cheney has drawn the world’s attention to his Camp David interview with Tim Russert."
So Cheney made a stupid mistake and blurted too much information with Russert. Then he tried to correct that enormous mistake in the 9/11 Commission Report. But after that, he once again himself draws the world's attention to the earlier interview, in which he made the gigantic mistake that he already tried to cover up in the 9/11 Commission Report. Amazing logic. I'm further confused.
4.
This one is my favorite. Having trouble counting or what is going on here?
"the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used"
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
"such collapses have been caused by explosives and these collapses have at least 10 characteristics of the particular kind of controlled demolition known as controlled implosion"
http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html
"And then, when you add that to the other 15 features that can only be explained in light of the hypothesis that powerful explosives were used"
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
How many did he say? I'm really confused now.
5.
This is interesting. In September 2006 Griffin issued this challenge:
"And I would issue a challenge to anybody who just wants to dismiss it a priori : Read my three books, write enough back to me to show me that you’ve read them and understood them, and then tell me you don’t have any doubts about the official theory." I’ve thus far not run into anybody who’s done that."
http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html
And what happened, when Ryan Mackey produced his paper a year after Griffin voiced his challenge? Nothing. Not a word from Griffin, and he knows about Mackey's work. Is the challenge suddenly off? Was it a "challenge me in the next 6 months, after that I will not respond" type of challenge? Or is the challenge valid only for his old books, not the new ones? Either dishonest, or his words contradict his actions.
.............................................................................................
6.
Okay, there would be many more. Let's end this with some interesting quotes from Griffin:
6.1
About his book "The New Pearl Harbor":
"there's nothing original in the book in terms of facts, as all I have done is really pull together, synthesize, and organize the evidence that other researchers before me had pulled out from the various sources"
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/PerfectCircle_Griffin.cfm
Nothing original by a conspiracy theorist? How come this doesn't surprise me at all.
And who were those "other researchers" he is talking about? Eric Hufschmid, Jeff King, Peter Meyer, Jim Hoffman and Thierry Meyssan to name a few. Hufschmid is a holocaust denier. Peter Meyer is an Alex Jones -like conspiracy theorist who supports every single wacky theory. He wrote an article about controlled demolition only 2 days after 9/11. Jim Hoffman is a software engineer, who was convinced 9/11 was an inside job after reading a controlled demolition article by Jim McMichael written a month after the attacks. Jeff King cites Eric Hufschmid and thinks black technology was possibly used to bring the towers down. Thierry Meyssan is a French author, who invented the Pentagon missile theories and became a best selling author for a short while in France. He didn't visit the U.S. while writing his book.
Then there are these statements, which contradict reason.
6.2
When asked, if he has any personal theory of what happened on 9/11:
"I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this"
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/conspiracy_theologian/5834/
6.3
This is just amazing.
"Well, you can always get scientists to say anything if they're paid sufficiently."
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
6.4
About WTC, contradicting every video available:
"when you look at the things coming down, you can see that the materials that are falling outside the building’s profile, is falling the same speed as the stuff inside the building's profile"
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
6.5
Yet another one from the same interview:
"the World Trade Center collapses, scientific proof – I mean, it is at that stage now – scientific proof that the official story is false"
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
They have scientific proof? Where is it?
..........................................................................................
This was written just to show, that while he claims to have found striking contradictions, he actually manages to contradict himself.
Well, I thought we could use his method to examine his own statements. Let's see what we can find.
1.
Let's start with his "Destruction of the World Trade Center" paper, in which he offers his evidence of WTC controlled demolition. First there is this:
"The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings."
But a couple of paragraphs later he offers this as controlled demolition evidence:
"In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that '[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers' (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7)."
So which one is it? Confusing.
2.
Then there is this very recent article by him. It's about the Cheney interview with Tim Russert in 2001, the already thoroughly explained/debunked Cheney arrival time at PEOC, and the 9/11 Commission timeline. Let's take a closer look.
"As we have seen, it would appear that the 9/11 Commission’s timeline, which rules out the possibility that Cheney could have been responsible for the attack on the Pentagon or the downing of United 93, came from Cheney himself, via the account that he himself---along with Lynne Cheney and Condoleezza Rice---gave to Newsweek.
Arguably the strongest evidence against this timeline is the account that Cheney gave to Tim Russert on the September 16, 2001, edition of Meet the Press."
So the 9/11 commission timeline came from Cheney himself, but that can't be correct because the strongest evidence against it comes from... Cheney himself? He suggests that the evil mastermind of this clever plot made a stupid rookie mistake in a nationally televised interview, then tried to cover it up in the 9/11 commision report. Who writes this stuff? Griffin.
3.
See this quote from the same article:
"Cheney has thus far gotten away with the contradiction between what he told Russert and what he apparently told Newsweek, which became the position of The 9/11 Commission Report. But perhaps that will not continue to be the case, especially now that Cheney has drawn the world’s attention to his Camp David interview with Tim Russert."
So Cheney made a stupid mistake and blurted too much information with Russert. Then he tried to correct that enormous mistake in the 9/11 Commission Report. But after that, he once again himself draws the world's attention to the earlier interview, in which he made the gigantic mistake that he already tried to cover up in the 9/11 Commission Report. Amazing logic. I'm further confused.
4.
This one is my favorite. Having trouble counting or what is going on here?
"the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used"
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
"such collapses have been caused by explosives and these collapses have at least 10 characteristics of the particular kind of controlled demolition known as controlled implosion"
http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html
"And then, when you add that to the other 15 features that can only be explained in light of the hypothesis that powerful explosives were used"
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
How many did he say? I'm really confused now.
5.
This is interesting. In September 2006 Griffin issued this challenge:
"And I would issue a challenge to anybody who just wants to dismiss it a priori : Read my three books, write enough back to me to show me that you’ve read them and understood them, and then tell me you don’t have any doubts about the official theory." I’ve thus far not run into anybody who’s done that."
http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html
And what happened, when Ryan Mackey produced his paper a year after Griffin voiced his challenge? Nothing. Not a word from Griffin, and he knows about Mackey's work. Is the challenge suddenly off? Was it a "challenge me in the next 6 months, after that I will not respond" type of challenge? Or is the challenge valid only for his old books, not the new ones? Either dishonest, or his words contradict his actions.
.............................................................................................
6.
Okay, there would be many more. Let's end this with some interesting quotes from Griffin:
6.1
About his book "The New Pearl Harbor":
"there's nothing original in the book in terms of facts, as all I have done is really pull together, synthesize, and organize the evidence that other researchers before me had pulled out from the various sources"
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/PerfectCircle_Griffin.cfm
Nothing original by a conspiracy theorist? How come this doesn't surprise me at all.
And who were those "other researchers" he is talking about? Eric Hufschmid, Jeff King, Peter Meyer, Jim Hoffman and Thierry Meyssan to name a few. Hufschmid is a holocaust denier. Peter Meyer is an Alex Jones -like conspiracy theorist who supports every single wacky theory. He wrote an article about controlled demolition only 2 days after 9/11. Jim Hoffman is a software engineer, who was convinced 9/11 was an inside job after reading a controlled demolition article by Jim McMichael written a month after the attacks. Jeff King cites Eric Hufschmid and thinks black technology was possibly used to bring the towers down. Thierry Meyssan is a French author, who invented the Pentagon missile theories and became a best selling author for a short while in France. He didn't visit the U.S. while writing his book.
Then there are these statements, which contradict reason.
6.2
When asked, if he has any personal theory of what happened on 9/11:
"I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this"
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/conspiracy_theologian/5834/
6.3
This is just amazing.
"Well, you can always get scientists to say anything if they're paid sufficiently."
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
6.4
About WTC, contradicting every video available:
"when you look at the things coming down, you can see that the materials that are falling outside the building’s profile, is falling the same speed as the stuff inside the building's profile"
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
6.5
Yet another one from the same interview:
"the World Trade Center collapses, scientific proof – I mean, it is at that stage now – scientific proof that the official story is false"
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html
They have scientific proof? Where is it?
..........................................................................................
This was written just to show, that while he claims to have found striking contradictions, he actually manages to contradict himself.
