PDA

View Full Version : Publisher's Weekly web pick of the week: Griffin's NPH Revisited.


greyleonard
26th November 2008, 12:09 AM
Oh, brother.
Is it just because he's prolific?

"Author and professor Griffin (9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press) knows his work is referred to by officials and the media as conspiracy theory, and he has a rebuttal: “the official theory is itself a conspiracy theory.” In this companion volume to 2004's The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, Griffin provides corrections, raises new issues and discusses “the two most important official reports about 9/11,” the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the Twin Towers, both “prepared by people highly responsive to the wishes of the White House” and riddled with “omission and distortion from beginning to end.” Griffin addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers’ collapse to the Commission's failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST’s contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims. Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, Griffin's detailed analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call for a new investigation more convincing than ever."
www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6617001.html?industryid=47159 (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6617001.html?industryid=47159)

UNLoVedRebel
26th November 2008, 12:58 AM
Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, Griffin's detailed analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call for a new investigation more convincing than ever.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/youdumbcat/EpicFail02.jpg

MikeW
26th November 2008, 02:49 AM
His books have lots of footnotes. This confuses some people into thinking they're well-researched. I think if they knew exactly how he twists and distorts the evidence it might be a different story.

Foolmewunz
26th November 2008, 02:51 AM
PW is an intra-industry rag. People cite it in adverts for books, but they basically never met a book they don't like. They are telling booksellers how to market the books, essentially.

ETA: Well, that's my experience with them from the period I spent working bookstores, 'lo those many years ago.

JamesB
26th November 2008, 09:52 AM
LOL, compare works such as the Looming Tower and Ghost Wars with David Ray Griffin's. The Looming Tower has 7, count them, 7 pages of names of sources that the author interviewed. Griffin on the other hand has written 7 books, and I only know of one witness that he has interviewed, and that was April Gallop whose sole contribution to our knowledge of the history of 9/11 was to say that she didn't see anything.

ETA: Actually let's let Dave describe his research technique for himself:

My point, I thought I made clear, was that although I had not been "intentionally misleading," I had been careless. (I had quoted those statements from secondary sources---three of them from Thierry Meyssan's "Pentagate"---without looking them up for myself to read them in context. Also, when I wrote the passage 12 pages later about people "claiming to have seen a missile or small military plane," I failed to realize that the people I had quoted did not specifically claim to have "seen" such a thing but had merely said they thought---as I then falsely believed---that it was either a missile or a small plane.

bje
26th November 2008, 10:42 AM
PW is an intra-industry rag. People cite it in adverts for books, but they basically never met a book they don't like. They are telling booksellers how to market the books, essentially.

ETA: Well, that's my experience with them from the period I spent working bookstores, 'lo those many years ago.

I took care of that. Feel free to flood the comments section on the PW page.

Arus808
26th November 2008, 01:19 PM
haha, there are six posts from shills for DRG, and four that debunk...and the last post saying "look at teh JREFERS!" ...

MikeW
26th November 2008, 01:52 PM
Ah yes, this comment:

The JREFers have swooped in with their hateful comments. Unfortunately for them, they have never once been able to prove anything Griffin, Gage, Jones, etc. says is wrong.

The self-delusion is astonishing. What an idiot. Even Griffin admits he's said things that are wrong. And what he hasn't admitted would fill a book.

SDC
26th November 2008, 02:16 PM
PW is an intra-industry rag. People cite it in adverts for books, but they basically never met a book they don't like. They are telling booksellers how to market the books, essentially.

ETA: Well, that's my experience with them from the period I spent working bookstores, 'lo those many years ago.

Speaking as a librarian, yes, exactly.