David Ray Griffin Q&A, the Answers

[ref]

Here are the answers provided by David Ray Griffin, from the Q&A session discussed earlier in this board.

http://www.rinf.com/forum/911-truth...erview-drg-answers-your-questions-t431.0.html

I have no time to go through them all, but I noticed he has answered at least Gravy's and Firestone's questions.


Mark Roberts Asks:
Dr. Griffin,

Has information that has been released to the public since the publication of your book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions caused you to alter your views about any of those 115 claims?

Thank you.


Dear Mark:
I would not today change that essay except for adding some clarifications with regard to a few points:
Number 1. What I claim with most certainty about the hijackers is that (a) there were credible reports that some of them were still alive after 9/11 and (b) that the 9/11 Commission failed to address this issue. One of the alleged hijackers said in David Harrison’s article still to be alive (Ahmed al-Nami) turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. It seems less likely that this could be true of some of the others, such as Waleed al-Shehri, who came forward after seeing his photograph in the paper. I wish, however, that someone could do some investigative reporting that could settle this issue.
Number 4: Flight manifests with names of the alleged hijackers have now appeared (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9362). Whether they are authentic, I cannot say. The fact that they are so late makes me suspicious.
Number 18. The question of whether the Pentagon’s “entrance hole” was too small for a 757 turned out to be more complex than it seemed at the time. But the point remains that the hole, as shown in most of the photographs, “appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered,” so it is something that the 9/11 Commission should have discussed.
Number 21. There have been some pictures released, but they certainly have not changed the situation---except to provide more evidence that there are no photos showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon. In any case, the point remains that the Commission failed to discuss this issue.
Number 77. We have now learned---from Michael Bronner’s essay in “Vanity Fair” and Kean and Hamilton’s book “Without Precedent”---that at least some members of the 9/11 Commission accused the military officers of lying (even though, as I point out in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking,” this would have been a completely unmotivated, irrational lie).
Number 105. I have given more evidence about bases with fighters that could have been used in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”


Firestone Asks:
Dr Griffin:

Do you think that any of the 19 hijackers are still alive, and if so, why has no one from the Truth movement tried to contact them?

Dear Firestone:

See my comment under “Number 1” in my response to Mark Roberts. Also, several people in the movement have wanted to go see if they could interview any of them, but members of the movement tend not to be wealthy and so they have had to ask for funding. Thus far no one, to my knowledge, has put up the needed funding. Even one well-known journalist, who has written some well-received books, tried to get funding but, at least the last I heard, had not succeeded.

 

[Firestone]

Thanks ref!

Firestone Asks:
Dr Griffin:

Do you think that any of the 19 hijackers are still alive, and if so, why has no one from the Truth movement tried to contact them?

Dear Firestone:

See my comment under “Number 1” in my response to Mark Roberts. Also, several people in the movement have wanted to go see if they could interview any of them, but members of the movement tend not to be wealthy and so they have had to ask for funding. Thus far no one, to my knowledge, has put up the needed funding. Even one well-known journalist, who has written some well-received books, tried to get funding but, at least the last I heard, had not succeeded.

The "Truth Movement", representing 84% of all Americans, cannot afford a plane-ticket to the Middle-East????

Isn't there some weird millionaire in the "Truth Movement"?

Damn, they get more ridiculous by the day ...

Let alone that the Arab media would really love to interview the "living hijackers". And I guess they can afford it ...

 

[PerryLogan]

Omissions suggest no conspiracy

I find it strange that conspiracy people like Dr. Griffin think that "omissions" in the 9/11 Commission report suggest a conspiracy, when the opposite is the case.

If, as the conspiracy blokes say, the 9/11 Commission report was meant as a "whitewash," it would have fulfilled its mission by carefully covering all possible topics of interest and supplying satisfactory answers to all possible questions.

Rather than avoiding the subject of the "surviving hijackers," the report would have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hijackers are not really alive. It would have taken up the matter of WTC7 and given soothing answers to all of our doubts. That's what a whitewash is supposed to do.

Omissions in the report may suggest haste, incompetence, half-heartedness, or even criminality. But they are not at all consistent with a conspiracy scenario.

 

[Architect]

Well well well...he even answered me. But in a way that politicians would be proud of:

Architect Says:

A major issue for the 911 Truth movement has been the lack of any substantial support from the academic and professional communities best placed to consider the underlying causes of collapse; in particular architects, fire engineers, and structural engineers.

Given the amount of qualified people in these fields, in particular world-wide and hence outwith the US immediate sphere of influence, it seems inconceivable that any serious errors in the NIST/FEMA analysis would not have been highlighted.

In contrast, there are a number of papers by various groups such as Ove Arup, Edinburgh University, and Sheffield University which have confirmed (or largely confirmed) key parts of the "official" analysis.

Why do you consider this situation has arisen, and why has the Truth movement been unable to respond with detailed engineering analyses?

Dear Architect,

Although it may at first glance seem “inconceivable” that errors the analyses by FEMA and NIST would not have been highlighted in the press or academic journals, this becomes less inconceivable after one becomes familiar with various relevant factors.

One factor is that most architects and engineers in countries allied with the USA evidently find it inconceivable that 9/11 could have been an inside job that was then covered up by agencies of the US government. Civilized countries, they believe, simply don’t do such things. And so, since pre-set explosives are ruled out, the buildings “must” have come down through some combination of fire and externally produced damage. So like NIST itself, rather than asking, “Can pigs fly?”, they simply ask: “Granted that these pigs flew, how did they do it?” And once that is the question, then NIST’s answer is about as good as one can do.

A second factor is that architectural and engineering firms can thrive and even survive on the basis of their reputations, and in elite circles---the circles that can pay for their services---any firm that supported a “conspiracy theory” about 9/11 would no longer be considered reliable. Or at least the firms fear that this will be the case.

A third factor is that, even if some individual engineers and architects produced contrary analyses, they would most likely not be published by any scientific journals or mentioned in any mainstream press articles. For example, two engineers at the ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, which is very prestigious, have declared that WTC 7 was with the highest probability brought down by explosives. But you will not find reports of these statements in the mainstream press or academic journals in Europe or (especially) the United States. The moral of this discussion is that we have no idea how many architects and engineers have disputed the conclusions reached by NIST.

Let me also add that architects and engineers are not necessarily, as you suggest, “best placed to consider the underlying causes of the collapse.” They build things; they do not destroy things. Also, to disprove the official theory, we not need a full-blown alternative theory. All we need is sufficient evidence that the official story cannot be true, and if this theory violates fundamental laws of physics, that is sufficient evidence.

Another way to evaluate the official theory is simply by studying the collapses on videos, and among the best placed people to do this are experts in controlled demolition. One expert who spoke out, then evidently realized that this would be hazardous to the health of his lobbying activities, was Van Romero of New Mexico Tech (see my discussion of “The Van Romero Episode,” which is the epilogue to chapter 3 “Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11”). Expert testimony has also been given by a well-known controlled demolition expert in Holland, Danny Jowenko. After seeing the collapse of WTC 7, without knowing what building it was (he had not even known that a third building collapsed on 9/11), he said that it could only have been brought down by explosives. Whether he would have said this if he had known that it was WTC 7, we will never know. (I report on Jowenko’s testimony, as well as that of the two Swiss engineering professors, in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”)

Same old same old. Anyone know anything about these Swiss chaps, btw?

 

[PerryLogan]

From Griffin's reply to Architect:

All we need is sufficient evidence that the official story cannot be true, and if this theory violates fundamental laws of physics, that is sufficient evidence.

Theologians are so silly. Why would the conspirators concoct a cover story that "can't be true," much less one that violates fundamental laws of physics? Were they stoned out of their gourds when they planned this thing?

 

[pagan]

David Ray Griffin, one of the true heroes in the 9-11 truth movement.

And what a splendid fellow he is, even for an atheist like myself. Not all xtians are nutcases, but most are.

He writes beautifully and has a razor sharp intellect. Rational and logic. I didn't expect that from a theologian.

 

[Firestone]

Same old same old. Anyone know anything about these Swiss chaps, btw?

The "Swiss chaps" are Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider.

This is the primary source I know of:

«Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde».

Off-topic, in the same article they translate Silverstein's infamous "pull-it" as "sprengen".

 

[uk_dave]

I wish, however, that someone could do some investigative reporting that could settle this issue.

Perhaps he should get up off his arse and do the damned investigating then!

Jeez. These people are beyond stupid.

 

[eeyore1954]

Firestone Asks:
Dr Griffin:

Do you think that any of the 19 hijackers are still alive, and if so, why has no one from the Truth movement tried to contact them?

Dear Firestone:

See my comment under “Number 1” in my response to Mark Roberts. Also, several people in the movement have wanted to go see if they could interview any of them, but members of the movement tend not to be wealthy and so they have had to ask for funding. Thus far no one, to my knowledge, has put up the needed funding. Even one well-known journalist, who has written some well-received books, tried to get funding but, at least the last I heard, had not succeeded


What a lame excuse

Why doesn't the well known journalist who has written some well recieved books use some of his own money since it is such an important claim. Also the 911 scholars is supposedly made up of plenty of professional people who believe a horrific crime has been commited. why can't some money there be raised.
I guess 9/11 wasn't horrific enough for them to put their money where their mouths are. What about Dr Griffin. He is too busy doing seminars trying to sell more books I guess. Alex jones and Fetzer and the rest apparently its all about making a buck. IF I believed such a heinous crime was being covered up I wouldn't hesitate to pony up the money.

Maybe all the big players on the Loose change board could get second jobs if they already have one and donate the money. This would cut into their posting times.

Why don't they ask Charlie Sheen he probably has a few $$ if he really believes it he wouldn't mind.

And this little rant by me doesn't even address the fact as pointed out earlier that there are plenty on foreign news outlets who would love to bring this information forward if it was credible.

 

[uk_dave]

Maybe, instead of funding some damn silly 'truther' conference they might be able to scrape together enough money for a flight to saudi or egypt, a hotel for a couple of nights, some food money and a bribe....I mean, compensation to the person who they need to interview.

Then it would be game over.

So simple. And yet, of course, that is the problem. They need to prove that someone claimed to be a dead terrorist is actually a live innocent...something which the combined news media of the world has so far failed to do. That they are not even willing to try speaks volumes about the 'truthers' faith in their own beliefs.

 

[~enigma~]

Also, several people in the movement have wanted to go see if they could interview any of them, but members of the movement tend not to be wealthy and so they have had to ask for funding. Thus far no one, to my knowledge, has put up the needed funding. Even one well-known journalist, who has written some well-received books, tried to get funding but, at least the last I heard, had not succeeded.

Guess Griffin never heard of Jimmy Waters. The guy put a full page ad in the NYT and he is a millionaire. Guess he can't afford a ticket to the middle east. Isn't it a sin for a theologian to lie or does he have a special dispensation from god?

 

[JamesB]

He refused to address my question:

Dr. Griffin, Why do you write in your book, a New Pearl Harbor on page 37...


But if what hit the Pentagon had been a Boeing 757, it would be very surprising to have reports of people-especially people with trained eyes and ears--claiming to have seen a missile or small military plane. These reports of having seen a missile or a small military plane must, accordingly, be given more weight. Properly interpreted, then, the eyewitness testimony does not contradict, but instead supports, the missile theory.

despite the fact that you do not actually cite a single person having seen a "missile or small military plane" at the Pentagon? Was this simply an oversight on your part, or were you being intentionally misleading?

Wuss.

 

[Brainster]

He also answered my questions:

Brainster Asks:
Dr Griffin:

1. Do you still believe, as you wrote here (http://www.dwfed.org/pp_objections_world%20govt_considered.htm), “only in a federal system of global government can real political and economic decentralization and autonomy be possible.”

2. Why do you say that the fires in the World Trade Center were oxygen-starved? Isn't it obvious that the holes in the towers could provide plenty of oxygen?

3. Do you believe there were hijackers on the four planes that crashed on 9-11?

Dear Brainster,

First, I have not changed my views about the need for global democracy, as I indicated in my answer to Dachsie.

(Relevant portion of Dachsie answer):

On the question of global government, it’s essential to distinguish between two completely different types. One type, which you evidently have in mind, would be what is sometimes called “globalization from above.” This type of one-world government could be produced by one nation using its military and economic might to establish an all-inclusive empire. It would appear that those who orchestrated 9/11 thought that it would move the USA towards that goal (see the references to “Pax Americana” in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” put out by the Project for the New American Century in September 2000). This kind of top-down globalization could also be produced by the elite class from many countries.
What I have talked about, by contrast, would be global democracy, in which the people of the planet would govern themselves through democratic processes. Legislation could be passed to reverse the growing gap between the rich and the poor, to enforce strict laws against pollution, and so on. Disputes between nations would be handled by going to court rather than going to war---think how barbaric it would be if, when a neighboring state had a dispute with California about water rights, California, being richer and more powerful, could simply send its army to settle the issue. There are, of course, lots of questions to be answered about the possibility and desirability of global government in this sense. I plan to do this in a forthcoming book on Global Democracy (which would have been out long ago if 9/11 had not occurred). In the meantime, you can look at my second chapter in Griffin et al., “The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God.” The main point to see is that global government in this sense would have nothing in common except the name with global government in the top-down sense, and it would be opposed in the strongest possible terms by the rich and powerful of the world---until, at least, they realize that if their own grandchildren are going to have a world, global democracy will need to be instituted.

Second, the reason to say that the fires were oxygen starved is that black smoke was issuing forth, as even Thomas Eagar and NIST admit (see my discussion of NIST’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”).

Third, see my answer to Ningen. (Relevant portion):

I assume that there were not any “hijackers” on the airliners. This question is distinct from the question of whether there was Saudi funding for the operation, and funding was needed whether the alleged hijackers got on the airliners or not. If they were to be blamed, then they probably needed to be paid to play their roles.

On the black smoke issue, NIST does appear to agree with Griffin:

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

Dang, gotta remember not to use that argument again.

 

[CHF]

Also, to disprove the official theory, we not need a full-blown alternative theory. All we need is sufficient evidence that the official story cannot be true, and if this theory violates fundamental laws of physics, that is sufficient evidence.

And how do demolitions violate the laws of physics, Mr. Griffin?

 

[CHF]

David Ray Griffin, one of the true heroes in the 9-11 truth movement.

And what a splendid fellow he is, even for an atheist like myself. Not all xtians are nutcases, but most are.

He writes beautifully and has a razor sharp intellect. Rational and logic. I didn't expect that from a theologian.

Pagan, do you honestly believe that the combined financial might of the Twoof movement cannot afford a plane ticket to the Middle East?

 

[MikeW]

Pagan, do you honestly believe that the combined financial might of the Twoof movement cannot afford a plane ticket to the Middle East?

They don't even have to do that, at least initially: just tracing someone and getting a photo would be a step forward.

Of course there is always the possibility that someone's done this already, contacted one or more of these guys, discovered they're not the hijackers and not bothered mentioning this to anyone else.

 

[CHF]

They don't even have to do that, at least initially: just tracing someone and getting a photo would be a step forward.

Plus I'm pretty sure there are some Twoofers in the Arab world. No need for them to travel very far. Yet no amazing discoveries from them either.

Weird.

 

[JamesB]

They don't even have to do that, at least initially: just tracing someone and getting a photo would be a step forward.

Of course there is always the possibility that someone's done this already, contacted one or more of these guys, discovered they're not the hijackers and not bothered mentioning this to anyone else.

Hell, they have obviously never even heard of Skype...

 

[jaydeehess]

Number 18. The question of whether the Pentagon’s “entrance hole” was too small for a 757 turned out to be more complex than it seemed at the time. But the point remains that the hole, as shown in most of the photographs, “appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered,” so it is something that the 9/11 Commission should have discussed.

90-100 feet of the first floor wall missing in several photos isn't a sufficiently large hole for 'Dr.'Griffin? Any photo showing the interior columns of the Pentagon is showing a missing section of outer wall.
That wall did not explode outward since that would mean that there would have to be a lot of chunks of concrete on the lawn. Such is not the case, therefore no interior high explosives. The round hole that starts at the juncture of the 1st and 2nd floor and extends up to the 2nd floor matches the fuselage dimensions. It is then fairly obvious that the plane hit with most of the wing going just under the ceiling of the 1st floor, the fuselage entering mostly the 2nd floor and the much of outer portion of the right wing impacting the 1st floor ceiling/2nd floor.

Number 21. There have been some pictures released, but they certainly have not changed the situation---except to provide more evidence that there are no photos showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon. In any case, the point remains that the Commission failed to discuss this issue.

There is but ONE video, and no stills that I am aware of, that show the first plane hitting the North tower either. The Pentagon sits in a large expanse of lawns and parking lots surrounded by highways. It is not unexpected to my mind, that there would be no photos of the impact of a plane flying at 500 MPH. It covered the last mile in 7 - 10 seconds. Perhaps 'Dr.' Griffin should try driving along a highway with a camera in his pocket and see how long it takes him to get it out, turn it on(assuming digital camera. advance the film for a conventional camera) frame and shoot a picture. Even walking nearby with the camera in hand it would be some feat if anyone had gotten a picture. Remember that there is an airport nearby and that planes fly very near the Pentagon often on their way into National. An aircraft in the area simply is not an unusual sight. ONLY once it is low and fast would it be remarkable and that would make it noticable to those on the ground closer to its flight path and only as it got fairly close. You would not hear it coming until it was almost on top of you and as I mentioned you have only seconds to see it, get a camera ready and frame and shoot a picture.

The security cameras in various places simply have not ever been shown to have been aimed in the direction of the Pentagon. In fact why would they. A hotel camera is used for hotel security surveilance not the Pentagon's. At best all these cameras could show would be a plane in the background and this would be a small image.

No photo of a plane hitting the pentagon is a prime example of a straw man arguement.

Number 77. We have now learned---from Michael Bronner’s essay in “Vanity Fair” and Kean and Hamilton’s book “Without Precedent”---that at least some members of the 9/11 Commission accused the military officers of lying (even though, as I point out in “Debunking 9/11 Debunking,” this would have been a completely unmotivated, irrational lie).

This would be his opinion since he just cannot, or will not, think of a reason for a military officer to lie. The motivation is clear. If an officer sees that his command 'dropped the ball' he will attempt to put forth the very best case he can that would exonerate himself and his group. It is incongurous that Griffin would claim that engineers and architects would be cowed by the might of the US gov't and mainstream media and not recognize that the very same fear of loss of employment and public humiliation would not motivate military officers who may have let personal perks and political expediency get in the way of operational readiness resulting in them not doing their tasks on 9/11/01.

 

[beachnut]

David Ray Griffin is just another dumb CTer. The hearsay king of making money off of 9/11. How nice to be a total idiot and make money.

Not an attack on his person, a careful statement after reading his first answers to questions. They are first grade junk.

Griffin is just like Dylan and JDX! Either dumb or a fraud. All trying to make money off of 9/11 CT dolts.