A proven lie by DR Griffin

[McHrozni]

Hello all

A twoofie demands that I show a lie by DR Griffin. I have pointed Mackeys' paper to it, but it refuses to discuss the paper. It keeps demanding that I point to a lie by it's idol.

I'm quite sure several of these lies are known, and I'd appreciate the help in locating them, for entertainments' sake. Unfortunately, only a lie will do - intellectual dishonesty, unreasonable incredulity and his other trademarks will not satisfy the twoofie.

Anyone? Thanks in advance :)

McHrozni

[RedIbis]

Why haven't you found one on your own?

[defaultdotxbe]

its very difficult to prove a lie (as opposed to an honest mistake, misstatement, stupidity, etc) especially when faced with professional charlatans like griffin

[McHrozni]

Why haven't you found one on your own?

For the same reason I looked up Wikipedia earlier today as to how the First Punic war progressed, as opposed to picking up a shovel and started digging for artifacts from the period and other basic archeology.

McHrozni

[R.Mackey]

My whitepaper has literally dozens of them.

My personal favorite is how he claimed the fires in the WTC were not hot enough to break windows. They broke hundreds of windows.

A better question would be, what claim did he make that isn't a lie? I've asked that of various Truthers here before, and they've come up empty. Yes, it is really that bad.

[McHrozni]

its very difficult to prove a lie (as opposed to an honest mistake, misstatement, stupidity, etc) especially when faced with professional charlatans like griffin

Yeah, I know. I did show how dishonest the man is, but it demands a lie.
I'm rather sure someone, Mackey for example, knows of one or two.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

My whitepaper has literally dozens of them.

My personal favorite is how he claimed the fires in the WTC were not hot enough to break windows. They broke hundreds of windows.

A better question would be, what claim did he make that isn't a lie? I've asked that of various Truthers here before, and they've come up empty. Yes, it is really that bad.

Excellent, thanks :)
Do you know maybe where he made that claim? Only one instance will do, I'm sure he made several ...

I tried searching through your paper, but unfortunately "lie" is just too common set of three letters in English to be useful, and combing the paper for a youtube debate is a bit much.

McHrozni

[R.Mackey]

If you search for "window," it takes you to pp.24-25. Pg. 25 has the quote, takes you to note [45], which reveals the quote is from Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 157.

It's all there, but you still have to read it...

[McHrozni]

If you search for "window," it takes you to pp.24-25. Pg. 25 has the quote, takes you to note [45], which reveals the quote is from Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 157.

It's all there, but you still have to read it...

I will, thanks :)

McHrozni

[A W Smith]

here is a couple documented blatant lies by griffin to get you started.

http://forthardknox.com/2008/04/04/david-ray-griffin-lies-about-airline-cell-phone-usage/

[16.5]

For the same reason I looked up Wikipedia earlier today as to how the First Punic war progressed, as opposed to picking up a shovel and started digging for artifacts from the period and other basic archeology.

McHrozni

lulz! Red, you just got served.

[nicepants]

Hello all

A twoofie demands that I show a lie by DR Griffin. I have pointed Mackeys' paper to it, but it refuses to discuss the paper. It keeps demanding that I point to a lie by it's idol.

I was just listening to one of his audio debates where he claimed that the Pentagon was protected by missile batteries that would fire upon any approaching aircraft that didn't carry a military transponder.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156181 - DRG VS Chip Berlet

That claim is 100% made up. I don't know whether DRG made it up himself or if he based it on claims that someone else made up but IMHO it doesn't make much difference. He's repeating a lie which either makes him a liar or a horribly-incompetent researcher.

[McHrozni]

He's repeating a lie which either makes him a liar or a horribly-incompetent researcher.

Yeah, that's actually a problem. Apparently, this twoofie is only interested in what I can prove is a lie. It sheds off evidence of fraudulent research. It is still an entertaining subject however, and I will study and be entertained by it a bit longer still.

McHrozni

[R.Mackey]

This is a good point. The only potential defense of Dr. Griffin is that he's repeating other people's lies... It is difficult to find anything that he came up with or "researched," however poorly, himself. Virtually everything is an uncritical fusion of remarks made by other crazies in the Truth Movement.

This is another reason why I pick on the broken windows claim. This claim originates from Eric Hufschmid, and you all know who he is. Beside the fact that the claim itself is totally stupid, a flat out rejection of reality made up out of thin air, and it's clear that nobody ever even attempted to verify it, it also comes from someone so scurrilous that even other Truthers have tried to distance themselves from him. But not Dr. Griffin...

[GlennB]

This is a good point. The only potential defense of Dr. Griffin is that he's repeating other people's lies... It is difficult to find anything that he came up with or "researched," however poorly, himself. Virtually everything is an uncritical fusion of remarks made by other crazies in the Truth Movement.

This is another reason why I pick on the broken windows claim. This claim originates from Eric Hufschmid, and you all know who he is. Beside the fact that the claim itself is totally stupid, a flat out rejection of reality made up out of thin air, and it's clear that nobody ever even attempted to verify it, it also comes from someone so scurrilous that even other Truthers have tried to distance themselves from him. But not Dr. Griffin...

Yeah. Adopting stupid isn't quite the same as giving birth to stupid. At a pinch, you can claim it's not your DNA in the stupid.

[W.D.Clinger]

here is a couple documented blatant lies by griffin to get you started.

http://forthardknox.com/2008/04/04/david-ray-griffin-lies-about-airline-cell-phone-usage/

It takes some knowledge of radio and cell phone technology to understand the issues with airborne cell phones, and what is wrong with A K Dewdney's experiments, so Griffin's claims about cell phones might fall into the categories of incompetence and trusting fellow truthers (e.g. Dewdney) more than real experts.

Griffin was lying when he said that, apart from Olson's calls, "there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington." To appreciate the magnitude of that lie, however, your friend would have to know about the other evidence.

Ryan Mackey's example sounds like a good one.

Will

[MikeW]

Griffin gets an enormous amount wrong, but proving any of this is a lie is extremely difficult. And also unimportant: who cares, really? What matters is his accuracy, not his intentions.

Still, as you asked, there's only one clear example that I know of. Unfortunately it's not neat or easy to explain, but I'll give it a try.

Griffin has told us that the FBI's exhibit at the Moussaoui trial shows they believe Barbara Olson didn't contact Ted Olson from Flight 77, thus contradicting his story.

Griffin bases this on the exhibit showing the four connected calls as from an "unknown" caller rather than attributing them directly to Olson.

Background at http://911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls#Contradicted_by_ the_FBI

Problem #1: listing a call as from an "unknown" caller is not the same as saying it's not from a particular person. Even if you knew nothing about the case, you would not draw the conclusion Griffin has done: the most you could say is you don't have the information to decide whether the FBI supported Ted Olson's claim or not.

Problem #2: the 9/11 Commission said that the airphone records can't identify the number or caller for those four calls, but the FBI assumed they were Olson based on talking to other passenger's families. If the Moussaoui trial exhibit were based on the airphone records then you would expect it to show precisely what it did - four unknown calls to an unknown number - but this isn't an FBI change of story, it just repeats what they've said all along.

Griffin knows about the 9/11 Commission's findings, and he's also pointed out that the Moussaui trial exhibit looks like it's based on the airphone records, so ignorance is no defence here. Yet he still continues to pretend that listing the calls as from an "unknown" caller means they're not from Barbara Olson.

Could there be another defence? In this forum truthers have tried to say that, well, the FBI must have investigated the source and destination of the calls, for example through Olson's office phone records. So if they haven't explicitly confirmed it in this exhibit then that's the same as a denial.

Of course this is all based on speculation. Perhaps the FBI didn't investigate the call details; perhaps they tried and there was some technical reason why they couldn't; perhaps they did confirm it and the results just aren't in this exhibit (which everyone agrees looks like it was based on the airphone records anyway, so wouldn't contain the results of any later investigation).

But the real problem is Griffin doesn't make this argument. Are we to believe he'd accidentally leave out the justification for what he's saying? No, that makes no sense at all. Griffin's a theologian and author, he's not somehow going to leave out half his train of thought: that's not a reasonable defence.

So: Griffin knows the facts, yet draws a misleading conclusion from them, particularly when he's presented this in online articles (the book at least includes more detail and you can see what he's doing). On the balance of probabilities, he's not confused, not ignorant or incompetent: he's lying.

[nicepants]

Yeah, that's actually a problem. Apparently, this twoofie is only interested in what I can prove is a lie. It sheds off evidence of fraudulent research. It is still an entertaining subject however, and I will study and be entertained by it a bit longer still.

McHrozni

Repeating the demonstrably false claims that DRG continues to repeat either makes him a liar, a complete idiot, or a worthless researcher (or some combination thereof). None of the 3 are good things to be, so being unable to prove that incorrect statements he made are lies doesn't garner him any additional credibility.

The question I would pose to the truther would be:
Drg makes claim X, which is demonstrably false. If he's not lying, why is he making false statements?

[McHrozni]

This is another reason why I pick on the broken windows claim. This claim originates from Eric Hufschmid, and you all know who he is. Beside the fact that the claim itself is totally stupid, a flat out rejection of reality made up out of thin air, and it's clear that nobody ever even attempted to verify it, it also comes from someone so scurrilous that even other Truthers have tried to distance themselves from him. But not Dr. Griffin...

Technically, that is untrue. I don't have the faintest idea who Eric Hufschmid is, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. His statement appears to be the source of the claim, and the statement should be evaluated for merit. As you pointed out, among others, there is abundant evidence that his statement is wrong.

At this point it doesn't matter if he's Erich Honnecker or Mother Theresa, a mental asylum inmate or a NASA scientist. His statement is wrong, and any theory built upon it is likewise wrong.

There is a slight possibility, however, that Griffin doesn't know the statement is wrong, but is just parroting it. If the twoofie uses this to defend him I'll have a good endorphin rush.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

The question I would pose to the truther would be:
Drg makes claim X, which is demonstrably false. If he's not lying, why is he making false statements?

I tried (essentially) that.
This is what I got in response:
He is being extremely honest and up front, as opposed to you who is deliberately trying to mislead anyone into thinking he is "lying" when he is clearly not. So, you still have to point a single lie.

McHrozni

[fourtoe]

I was just listening to one of his audio debates where he claimed that the Pentagon was protected by missile batteries that would fire upon any approaching aircraft that didn't carry a military transponder.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156181 - DRG VS Chip Berlet

That claim is 100% made up. I don't know whether DRG made it up himself or if he based it on claims that someone else made up but IMHO it doesn't make much difference. He's repeating a lie which either makes him a liar or a horribly-incompetent researcher.

This is a great example of how hard it is to prove something is a lie because to be fair this debate took place in 2004. Unless DRG hasn't dropped the claim by now or outwardly said that he/that claim was/is incorrect I think using this as a lie could still be written off by a Truther as really dated. I think I'm even letting him get away with it cause the debate is so old.

HOWEVER, though it won't help in giving you a DRG lie, this still shows that DRG is a terrible researcher and lazy with his fact checking.


PS still check out the debate and the debate thread nicepants plugged!;)

[Careyp74]

This is a good point. The only potential defense of Dr. Griffin is that he's repeating other people's lies... It is difficult to find anything that he came up with or "researched," however poorly, himself. Virtually everything is an uncritical fusion of remarks made by other crazies in the Truth Movement.

This is another reason why I pick on the broken windows claim. This claim originates from Eric Hufschmid, and you all know who he is. Beside the fact that the claim itself is totally stupid, a flat out rejection of reality made up out of thin air, and it's clear that nobody ever even attempted to verify it, it also comes from someone so scurrilous that even other Truthers have tried to distance themselves from him. But not Dr. Griffin...

Before we go further on the point though, you have to ask yourself this: Was his statement about the windows in support of an alternate theory of why they broke? In other words, Saying that the temps were not high enough to break windows (what temp is required anyway? was it that hot?) might have been to argue that perhaps it was shock from an explosion instead?

[911kongen]

Hello all

A twoofie demands that I show a lie by DR Griffin. I have pointed Mackeys' paper to it, but it refuses to discuss the paper. It keeps demanding that I point to a lie by it's idol.

I'm quite sure several of these lies are known, and I'd appreciate the help in locating them, for entertainments' sake. Unfortunately, only a lie will do - intellectual dishonesty, unreasonable incredulity and his other trademarks will not satisfy the twoofie.

Anyone? Thanks in advance :)

McHrozni

Dont believe you! Have screencap of this? :D

[McHrozni]

Dont believe you! Have screencap of this? :D

If you mean if it literary said that, then you're right, it didn't say that. It just keeps ignoring the evidence Griffin is an extremely poor researcher and keeps repeating it wants me to point out a lie. As I said, other Griffins' trademarks will not satisfy this advanced subject, therefore I need to serve it an actual, proven lie as best to occupy it's proto-brain for a few weeks.

McHrozni

[defaultdotxbe]

is it really necessary to refer to a truther as "it"?

[R.Mackey]

Technically, that is untrue. I don't have the faintest idea who Eric Hufschmid is, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. His statement appears to be the source of the claim, and the statement should be evaluated for merit. As you pointed out, among others, there is abundant evidence that his statement is wrong.

Oh, no, it matters. Since Dr. Griffin clearly never evaluated this claim for accuracy, yet repeated it all the same, our next question is to work out why he found it compelling in the first place.

There is no doubt that Dr. Griffin's approach is not the least bit reliable or scientific. As you know I spent over 150 pages documenting this. If his goal isn't legitimate research, what is it? In answering this question, the motivations of his sources and associations is indeed quite relevant.

[nicepants]

I tried (essentially) that.
This is what I got in response:
He is being extremely honest and up front, as opposed to you who is deliberately trying to mislead anyone into thinking he is "lying" when he is clearly not. So, you still have to point a single lie.

McHrozni

I would consider this a stalemate.

The truther is using an argument from ignorance to claim that these statements are "extremely honest" simply because you haven't proven that they are deliberate lies crafted by DRG.

While you can prove that his statements are false, there is almost no way to determine with 100% certainty whether DRG is intentionally being deceitful. You can't prove that drg is lying and the truther you're debating cannot prove that "he is clearly not".

Most of DRG's statements are wrong. Conceding that you can't prove that they are lies doesn't change this fact, nor does it mean that they weren't lies. (OJ was acquitted....it doesn't mean he didn't do it...it just means there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE that he did it)

[R.Mackey]

Before we go further on the point though, you have to ask yourself this: Was his statement about the windows in support of an alternate theory of why they broke? In other words, Saying that the temps were not high enough to break windows (what temp is required anyway? was it that hot?) might have been to argue that perhaps it was shock from an explosion instead?


This was in support of his claim that the fires were too cool to be of any consequence. It's in his book, it's in my whitepaper, you even have the page numbers.

[Careyp74]

This was in support of his claim that the fires were too cool to be of any consequence. It's in his book, it's in my whitepaper, you even have the page numbers.

right, well were the fires too cool to break windows? What were the temps in the building? I don't know, that is why I am asking.

[R.Mackey]

I give up. There are thousands of pages of work answering these questions. If that's too much to read, I already summarized the counterargument in my whitepaper, fully referenced. You have the page numbers. Avail yourself of them.

[Careyp74]

I give up. There are thousands of pages of work answering these questions. If that's too much to read, I already summarized the counterargument in my whitepaper, fully referenced. You have the page numbers. Avail yourself of them.

I'm sorry, did you actually post these white papers somewhere here, or give a link to them? I missed that.

[McHrozni]

Oh, no, it matters. Since Dr. Griffin clearly never evaluated this claim for accuracy, yet repeated it all the same, our next question is to work out why he found it compelling in the first place.

There is no doubt that Dr. Griffin's approach is not the least bit reliable or scientific. As you know I spent over 150 pages documenting this. If his goal isn't legitimate research, what is it? In answering this question, the motivations of his sources and associations is indeed quite relevant.

The person making that claim could have any motive: ignorance, money, religion, social experiment, irony ... it doesn't matter. Griffin is knowingly using a false statement to support his claim, therefore he's lying. You're answering another important question of why is he lying, but that, unfortunately, isn't a subject of that debate.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

right, well were the fires too cool to break windows? What were the temps in the building? I don't know, that is why I am asking.

It's all written around the reference point I was given above. Search for "window" :)

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

I'm sorry, did you actually post these white papers somewhere here, or give a link to them? I missed that.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

is it really necessary to refer to a truther as "it"?

No, but neither is using cutlery while eating.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

I would consider this a stalemate.

The truther is using an argument from ignorance to claim that these statements are "extremely honest" simply because you haven't proven that they are deliberate lies crafted by DRG.

While you can prove that his statements are false, there is almost no way to determine with 100% certainty whether DRG is intentionally being deceitful. You can't prove that drg is lying and the truther you're debating cannot prove that "he is clearly not".

Most of DRG's statements are wrong. Conceding that you can't prove that they are lies doesn't change this fact, nor does it mean that they weren't lies. (OJ was acquitted....it doesn't mean he didn't do it...it just means there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE that he did it)

I'm actually trying to get the twoofie to say that in defense of DR Griffin. It would be hilarious. :)

McHrozni

[Edx]

lol theres loads. How about the no hijackers on the flight manifests. Of course theres a fine line between proving incompetence and dishonesty.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

its very difficult to prove a lie (as opposed to an honest mistake, misstatement, stupidity, etc) especially when faced with professional charlatans like griffin

So Griffin's a "professional"?

Haven't you looked at him lately? He's been spewing the same stupid theories for many years now and it hasn't gotten him any where.

Everything that an EXPERT says Griffin rejects.

Some "professional" Griffin turned out to be!

Chewbacca makes more sense than Griffin!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Can you Truthers prove that theory about them not being on the flight passenger list?

It's called a PASSENGER LIST! You know, PEOPLE?

Manifest list is LUGGAGE and CARRY ON'S.

Of course this doesn't make sense to you cause you're a Truther.

Chewbacca could tell the difference between a passenger and manifest lists.

[cludgie]

Even if you take Griffin's almost non-existent research as an innocent mistake or an oversight, the errors have been pointed out countless times? Has he retracted these 'errors'? No. So to me hes quite happy to sustain the lie and so he is telling lies.

[JamesB]

That was Griffin's excuse when I exchanged e-mail with him:

Your question was about my state of mind when I wrote that chapter---("Why do you write in your book, The New Pearl Harbor on page 37...Was this simply an oversight on your part, or were you being intentionally misleading?")---not about whether what I said was correct or well supported.

I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.

[triforcharity]

For the same reason I looked up Wikipedia earlier today as to how the First Punic war progressed, as opposed to picking up a shovel and started digging for artifacts from the period and other basic archeology.

McHrozni

Nominated for Pith!! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that. Rough day. :D:D

[Lupie]

Why haven't you found one on your own?

Why are you incapable of simply answering yes, or no, when asked a direct question? In this case, why couldn't you simply say that in your opinion you have never heard Griffin Lie? What kind of truther are you? You cannot even come to the defense of one of your comrades? Do you ever contribute anything other than smart-mouth remarks and sarcasm? Time for ignore.

L.

[DavidJames]

I tried (essentially) that.
This is what I got in response:
He is being extremely honest and up front, as opposed to you who is deliberately trying to mislead anyone into thinking he is "lying" when he is clearly not. So, you still have to point a single lie.

McHrozniI would never get into a debate over whether DRG is lying or not. Debating lying vs. making a statement out of ignorance complicates the issue and allows the CT morons the ability to wiggle and argue and in the case of trying to prove a lie, maybe argue successfully.

The point is simple. Were his statements true or false. That's it, period, end of story. Trying to prove he lied is a step, a very difficult step, beyond what's necessary.

[Careyp74]

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

McHrozni

Thanks for the link. My problem was with the ambiguous statement as to why the window argument came up in the first place.

"My personal favorite is how he claimed the fires in the WTC were not hot enough to break windows. They broke hundreds of windows."

I took that to mean there might have been a different reason he was giving for the windows to break, which I remember asking. I wish I didn't have to read all of that to figure out why the argument actually came up.

[stateofgrace]

Not so much as a lie but a disgusting, speculative accusation.

There is, in any case, only one theory that explains both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building 7: Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to the fire chiefs.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Ps

33-year FDNY veteran Chief of Department Peter Ganci,

42-year FDNY veteran First Deputy Commissioner Bill Feehan,

40-year FDNY veteran Chief of Special Operations Command Ray Downey (the most decorated man in the history of the FDNY),

Head Fire Marshal Ronald Bucca,

31-year FDNY veteran Assistant Chief Gerard Barbara,

39-year FDNY veteran Assistant Chief Donald Burns,

and 18 Battalion Chiefs,

all of whom died on 9/11, along with 23 Captains, 46 Lieutenants, two Paramedics, and 251 firefighters (some of whom were in retirement and volunteered).

[CHF]

There is, in any case, only one theory that explains both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building 7: Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to the fire chiefs.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html


Wow.

So Griffin is vile enough to accuse the FDNY of involvement in the 9/11 cover-up.

Are his supporters that dumb?

[RedIbis]

Wow.

So Griffin is vile enough to accuse the FDNY of involvement in the 9/11 cover-up.

Are his supporters that dumb?

No. Only that word of WTC 7's collapse came from the OEM and passed to the street.

[CHF]

No. Only that word of WTC 7's collapse came from the OEM and passed to the street.

And the FDNY heard this and didn't object to the "obvious" demolition that followed. Which I suppose in your world would make them either complicit or stupid.

And why would the FDNY accept the idea of a collapse at all? "No steel-framed skyscraper had ever fallen from fire before," remember?

So were the firefighters stupid or just not as smart as the average truther?

[scratchy]

....will not satisfy the twoofie.
I think here is where your plan is flawed. Not gonna happen.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

What did the FDNY do but Jim Fetzer didn't?

He never helped a single victim/survivor evacuate the buildings.

He never helped the FDNY firefighters, with their 100 lbs. of life saving equipment, to the floors to rescue people.

(Open to other suggestions)

[R.Mackey]

I think here is where your plan is flawed. Not gonna happen.
Exactly.

In my opinion, the single most reprehensible thing Dr. Griffin has written is the following passage:

In reality, of course, NIST will not support this proposal [to conduct a controlled crash of a remotely piloted aircraft into a full-scale skyscraper] and no experiment will be done, because both NIST and the government know that the official theory is false. They know that the buildings were brought down by explosives in the procedure known as “controlled demolition.” But NIST, of course, publicly had to deny that this is what happened.

These are unambiguously his words, not cribbed from anyone else. In them, he accuses the NIST team -- real people, working scientists, hundreds of them, doing difficult labor on a grim subject for the benefit of the public -- of deliberately lying to the public, and participating as an accessory to murder and terrorism. In reality, their only real crime is daring to disagree in their professional, well-documented and quantitative opinion with the wild dreams of an old theology lecturer.

Now, you can argue amongst yourselves all you like about whether it's really dishonest if he's dumb enough to believe his own delusions, or if maybe a Twinkie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_White) made him say it, or pick whatever excuse you like. But if you think such irresponsible libel as what he wrote above doesn't qualify as a lie, then the word has little practical meaning for you.

[Orphia Nay]

This twoofer is just trying to avoid one of the main definitions of the word "lie".

"1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

It's perfectly clear that definition 'b' defines all of Griffin's claims. Yes, Griffin tells lies.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This twoofer is just trying to avoid one of the main definitions of the word "lie".

"1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

It's perfectly clear that definition 'b' defines all of Griffin's claims. Yes, Griffin tells lies.

Not only did he lie, but he's just making up things as he goes along. It's a word Truthers hate besides the word "lie":

HEARSAY!

According to common law, if hearsay is presented, it's inadmissable as evidence.

[McHrozni]

I would never get into a debate over whether DRG is lying or not. Debating lying vs. making a statement out of ignorance complicates the issue and allows the CT morons the ability to wiggle and argue and in the case of trying to prove a lie, maybe argue successfully.

The point is simple. Were his statements true or false. That's it, period, end of story. Trying to prove he lied is a step, a very difficult step, beyond what's necessary.

Yes, I know, but it doesn't matter. I'm not 'debating' it to convince it into anything, or to prove something. I know an internet debate won't do that to a twoofie. I'm doing it for the sheer sadistic pleasure of it trying to find ever more desperate excuses for it's idol.
That and maybe a fence sitter or two will someday read the 'debate' and be saved from twooferism altogether.

McHrozni

[KJC]

If he's like any other twoofer then he'll say pulverization is proof of a demolition... even though explosives simply don't do that. Least not silent explosives anyway.

[stewieg]

That was Griffin's excuse when I exchanged e-mail with him:

Did you mention to him that if he's trying to prove that 9-11 was an inside job using "The New Pearl Harbor" as the title is probably not the best choice? Anyone with the least bit of familiarity with the attacks on Dec 7 knows the attacks for what they were. A suprise attack that caught the USA with it's pants down.

[CptColumbo]

When I was in school I was having a discussion about Abraham Lincoln with a fellow student in the green room at the theatre (we were Theatre Majors), when another student chimed in with information that was wildly inaccurate. I am a Civil War history buff and knew what he said was wrong. I gently corrected him in the inaccuracy and pointed out how some people are often mistaken about this particular topic. He yelled "are you calling me a LIAR?" I responded that, "No, I'm saying that you are misinformed and wrong on this particular subject."

Just because someone is wrong, doesn't necessarily mean they are lying.

[CHF]

In reality, of course, NIST will not support this proposal [to conduct a controlled crash of a remotely piloted aircraft into a full-scale skyscraper] and no experiment will be done, because both NIST and the government know that the official theory is false.

Did I read that right?

Griffin wants NIST to recreate 9/11 by slamming a plane into a skyscraper just to prove to his dumb a** that the NIST report is accurate?

Seriously?

[Arus808]

A suprise attack that caught the USA with it's pants down.


well, there are some out there who believed that Pearl Harbor was an inside job as well... yes, we allowed the Japanese attack our military bases in Hawaii so we could have a convenient excuse to finally enter the war.

Titling a book "A New Pearl Harbor" is on par with these whackjobs.

[JamesB]

Actually Griffin himself believes that:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/11/david-ray-griffin-pearl-harbor-denier.html

On a concluding note, and this will be the first time I have stated this in public. Back in 2003, when I sent my manuscript for The New Pearl Harbor into the press, it concluded with a chapter on the original Pearl Harbor. In that chapter I described evidence that the Roosevelt administration had maneuvered Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. And that it had done this to shock the American people into accepting the necessity of entering the war. Roosevelt had long been telling Winston Churchill
that he would enter the war in Europe as soon as it was politically possible.

But my editor advised me to eliminate this chapter saying it would be too much to ask the American people to change their interpretation of Pearl Harbor at the same time I was asking them to change their interpretation of 9/11. Deciding that she was right, I eliminated that chapter. But I mention it now, in order to indicate that, referring to 9/11 as the New Pearl Harbor has this additional meaning, that just as the White House had arranged in 1941 for the Pearl Harbor attack, in order to enter World War II, so did the White House 60 years later arrange for the 9/11 attacks, this time carrying out the attacks itself in order to initiate its so-called War on
Terror. It is time for countries around the world to withdraw their support for America's 9/11 wars and to expose the deceit of 9/11 itself.

[Arus808]

^^ what he said....of course Griffin has nothing to back up these claims

[R.Mackey]

Did I read that right?

Griffin wants NIST to recreate 9/11 by slamming a plane into a skyscraper just to prove to his dumb a** that the NIST report is accurate?

Seriously?

yup. And I responded to that in my whitepaper.

He thinks it would be easy.

It's really quite difficult to take these people seriously after one reads things like that. As I've said here before, there is nothing to fear from the Truth Movement. There's not a one among them who's even faintly organized, scientific, or even particularly rational where Sept. 11th is concerned. This is why they keep repeating the same nonsense. They can't do anything else.

[tfk]

When I was in school I was having a discussion about Abraham Lincoln with a fellow student in the green room at the theatre (we were Theatre Majors), when another student chimed in with information that was wildly inaccurate. I am a Civil War history buff and knew what he said was wrong. I gently corrected him in the inaccuracy and pointed out how some people are often mistaken about this particular topic. He yelled "are you calling me a LIAR?" I responded that, "No, I'm saying that you are misinformed and wrong on this particular subject."

Just because someone is wrong, doesn't necessarily mean they are lying.

Hey Cpt,

Re: Lie vs. incompetent inaccuracy.

There is an added burden that one assumes when you hold yourself to be a professional: the burden of competence.

Your friend in school was a student. People expect students & amateurs to make mistakes. We all have limited time & interests, and depend on others to provide us information. So, it's understandable - skeptics might say "expected" - for amateurs to make incorrect statements. Often.

It's far less acceptable for someone who is a professional. If a historian said the same thing about Lincoln, that might be understandable... the FIRST time he was corrected on it. But, as soon as he found out that his story might be wrong, as a professional he is OBLIGED to go find out the truth. If he does not, he is doing far worse than simply repeating something incorrect that someone told him. He is violating his professional obligations.

I expect auto mechanics & plumbers to possess a measure of competence in their own fields. I would not accept, as their excuse for a failed repair job, "Well, that's what a poet told me to do..." Especially if he had seen that this method failed repeatedly in the past.

A professional has the responsibility to acquire competence within his/her own field. You can not disclaim responsibility for your failures by blaming others. You can not disclaim responsibility by failing to "close the loop", and make sure after the fact that your previous statements & actions proved to be true & effective.

Griffin's self-anointed profession is "telling the truth about 9/11". He is not some college student, 3 sheets to the wind, railing at a kegger. He holds himself up to be a competent, honest professional.

His responsibilities go far beyond "well... SOMEONE said it. It's not MY fault..."

He has failed miserably at these responsibilities.


Tom

[tfk]

By the way, the same indictment for incompetence of Griffin in his field (allegedly nonfiction history) applies to Steven Jones & Niels Harrit in their generic field (allegedly "science") as well.

They can not legitimately hide behind the claim that "well, I was just wrong", without ACTIVELY pursuing corrections, after the fact, if their earlier work becomes "suspect".

Once they have released their results, their responsibility for their conclusions are not over. They have just begun.

Real science is full of stories of various scientists who found out, after the fact, that their earlier results were untenable for some reason. Almost all of the signatories to the infamous Andrew Wakefield "Thiomersal / autism paper later publicly withdrew their support for their own paper, once further evidence became available. This is how honest science really works.

The process has gone pathological once people entrench themselves into untenable position purely because of ego. And the refusal to say, "Oops, my bad..."

Or an unseemly affection for the limelight and adoring sycophants.


Tom

[stewieg]

Actually Griffin himself believes that:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/11/david-ray-griffin-pearl-harbor-denier.html


DRG should really stick to theology and wacky 9-11 conspiracy theories. When it comes to history he's as ignorant as a 1st grader.

He offers no support for his claim that the attack on Pearl Harbor was arranged by the White House. How could FDR steer the Japanese into attacking PH? They were a sovereign country after all and not some lackey of the west. For all FDR knew the Japanese might have just gone after British and Dutch interests in the Far East leaving American ones alone. Roosevelt would have had a hard time convincing the American public in 1941 to go to war with Japan over European colonies. There was a Japanese admiral that purposed just that as a matter of fact.

The argument that the US forced Japan into war ignores one important fact. What was the USA supposed to do? Ignore the brutality of Japan's war in China? If we had done that then the US would be judged very harshly in the history books by turning a blind to genocide while making money off the aggressor. Then people like DRG would be crying how we turned a blind eye so "big oil" could make a buck.

[johnny karate]

No. Only that word of WTC 7's collapse came from the OEM and passed to the street.

Last time you made this claim, you were forced to back-pedal when presented with the facts (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4419675#post4419675).

Now that we know you know the truth, I think it's safe to say that by making this false claim again, you're just flat-out lying.

[DavidJames]

Last time you made this claim, you were forced to back-pedal when presented with the facts (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4419675#post4419675).

Now that we know you know the truth, I think it's safe to say that by making this false claim again, you're just flat-out lying.What if he were mentally incapable of understanding or internalizing information which challenges his delusions? Would it still be a lie?

[tfk]

DRG should really stick to theology and wacky 9-11 conspiracy theories. When it comes to history he's as ignorant as a 1st grader.

He offers no support for his claim that the attack on Pearl Harbor was arranged by the White House. How could FDR steer the Japanese into attacking PH? They were a sovereign country after all and not some lackey of the west. For all FDR knew the Japanese might have just gone after British and Dutch interests in the Far East leaving American ones alone. Roosevelt would have had a hard time convincing the American public in 1941 to go to war with Japan over European colonies. There was a Japanese admiral that purposed just that as a matter of fact.

The argument that the US forced Japan into war ignores one important fact. What was the USA supposed to do? Ignore the brutality of Japan's war in China? If we had done that then the US would be judged very harshly in the history books by turning a blind to genocide while making money off the aggressor. Then people like DRG would be crying how we turned a blind eye so "big oil" could make a buck.

Notice that he delivered this "revelation" during his tour in JAPAN. I'm sure that this played well in front of a few hard core, Japanese Pearl Harbor CTers.

What a despicable panderer...

Tom

[JamesB]

Notice that he delivered this "revelation" during his tour in JAPAN. I'm sure that this played well in front of a few hard core, Japanese Pearl Harbor CTers.

What a despicable panderer...

Tom

Yeah, notice that when he gives speeches in the US he usually mentions the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Reichstag fire as alleged historical precedents, but when he visits Japan and Germany, he fails to mention them. He has no trouble slandering his own country though.

[Luntoc]

Hello all

A twoofie demands that I show a lie by DR Griffin. I have pointed Mackeys' paper to it, but it refuses to discuss the paper. It keeps demanding that I point to a lie by it's idol.

I'm quite sure several of these lies are known, and I'd appreciate the help in locating them, for entertainments' sake. Unfortunately, only a lie will do - intellectual dishonesty, unreasonable incredulity and his other trademarks will not satisfy the twoofie.

Anyone? Thanks in advance :)

McHrozni

Tell him about the claim that it takes one minuet to contact norad. That wasn't in place before 9/11 yet griffin says it is.

Also, tell him about the claim that it takes 10 minutes to intercept a plane which the source griffin got this claim from is nothing more than video game. Also, that same site talks about planed coming into the country not planes originating inside the country. This is a classic example of picking and choosing facts. Griffin only picks what best benefits his agenda.

[ElMondoHummus]

Exactly.

In my opinion, the single most reprehensible thing Dr. Griffin has written is the following passage:



These are unambiguously his words, not cribbed from anyone else. In them, he accuses the NIST team -- real people, working scientists, hundreds of them, doing difficult labor on a grim subject for the benefit of the public -- of deliberately lying to the public, and participating as an accessory to murder and terrorism. In reality, their only real crime is daring to disagree in their professional, well-documented and quantitative opinion with the wild dreams of an old theology lecturer.

Now, you can argue amongst yourselves all you like about whether it's really dishonest if he's dumb enough to believe his own delusions, or if maybe a Twinkie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_White) made him say it, or pick whatever excuse you like. But if you think such irresponsible libel as what he wrote above doesn't qualify as a lie, then the word has little practical meaning for you.

I need to second Ryan here. It's one thing to catch someone stating an outright false fact when that person knows what the correct fact is. No one questions the fact that that is a lie. But deliberately distorted conclusions should also be considered lies, and not just chalked up to being a "difference of opinion" (or whatever euphemism a conspiracy peddler wants to use). Whether or not DRG truly believes his delusion about NIST, it does not reflect reality, and he has no basis for making his charge. He's slanting opinion in favor of his unsupported charge, and he has to know it's unsupported. If that's not a deliberate distortion (aka a "lie"), then like Ryan, I don't know what is.

[stewieg]

Yeah, notice that when he gives speeches in the US he usually mentions the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Reichstag fire as alleged historical precedents, but when he visits Japan and Germany, he fails to mention them. He has no trouble slandering his own country though.

Tha Japanese were actually guilty of a false flag operation in Manchuria yet the good doctor decides it's not worth mentioning? SUPRISE, SUPRISE, SUPRISE!!!! I'm sure the far right in Japan loves it when an American talks about FDR knowing about the PH attack.

Yet here's what DRG said that just as the White House had arranged in 1941 for the Pearl Harbor attack, in order to enter World War II, so did the White House 60 years later arrange for the 9/11 attacks,. That must mean the Japanese were tricked into attacking. You would have to be pretty stupid to allow yourself to be tricked like that.

P.S. The next time DRG gests on his "not putting forth any theory" horse just remind him of this.

so did the White House 60 years later arrange for the 9/11 attacks, this time carrying out the attacks itself in order to initiate its so-called War on
Terror.

[Lenbrazil]

Tell him about the claim that it takes one minuet to contact norad. That wasn't in place before 9/11 yet griffin says it is.

Also, tell him about the claim that it takes 10 minutes to intercept a plane which the source griffin got this claim from is nothing more than video game.

He said on a few occasions this was an "official FAA document" but who knows if that was a lie or stupidity. He also continues (until late 2008 at least) to claim there were no "Arab names" of the "passenger lists". It is hard to believe at this point he still believes that but often its hard to understand another person's religious beliefs.

[twinstead]

Researchers who are genuine in their desire to find the truth are usually very happy and prompt to remove any errors in their work pointed out to them.

[McHrozni]

He said on a few occasions this was an "official FAA document" but who knows if that was a lie or stupidity. He also continues (until late 2008 at least) to claim there were no "Arab names" of the "passenger lists". It is hard to believe at this point he still believes that but often its hard to understand another person's religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs are inherently untestable. Believing into something that can't be proven right or wrong is more acceptable than something that was proven countless times to be completely wrong, I think.

Calling twooferism a religion is an insult to the latter. At least the religious nuts can say "you can't prove me wrong". Twoofers can't even do that.

McHrozni

[Edx]

He also continues (until late 2008 at least) to claim there were no "Arab names" of the "passenger lists".

I'd love to have a source for that. Its one of my favourite truther claims.

[JamesB]

All of those "no name" rumors are originally based off of the CNN list of victims.

[Dave Rogers]

All of those "no name" rumors are originally based off of the CNN list of victims.

On a website with an information panel that states that the names of those determined to be the hijackers have not been included in the lists.

Yes, Griffin's that stupid.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

On a website with an information panel that states that the names of those determined to be the hijackers have not been included in the lists.

Yes, Griffin's that stupid.

Dave

I have a more cynical interpretation: I think he full well realizes that it's a victims list (which by definition excludes the perpetrators), but thinks everyone else is either too stupid or too lazy to go check for themselves.

[Edx]

All of those "no name" rumors are originally based off of the CNN list of victims.

I know its nonsence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8X2glIrA) (made a video about it), I want to know specifically when he said it last. :)

[Lenbrazil]

I know its nonsence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8X2glIrA) (made a video about it), I want to know specifically when he said it last. :)

I imagine he's said it since but according to Pat from the SLC blog he said it as late as August 08. Apparently he (Pat not Grifto) has a recording of a lecture he gave in Japan then. I imagine he could send you an audiofile of the appropriate portion

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search?q=GRIFFIN+arab+names

Fetzer made a bizarre twist he wrote:

"When I debated him on "Hardfire", Mark Roberts pulled out manifests
that look like those shown here. When I pointed out that the names
had been squeezed into the tops and bottoms of the list and had to be
faked, he did not resist my observation."

To which I replied:

I watched that a while ago but I don't remember you ever getting the best of Mark quite the opposite. As for your claim that "the names had been squeezed into the tops and bottoms of the list and had to be faked" that is simply more of your BS.

All four manifests are linked off the 911 Research page link above.

Flight 11 manifest - hijackers names were 1, 2, 13, 14 & 20 out of 81
listed passengers

Flight 175 manifest - hijackers names were 1 - 5 out of 51 listed
passengers. This list was in alphabetical order and their names all
began with `A', not a coincidental as it sounds since there were
two pairs of brothers and it's common for Arab surnames to begin
with the first letter of the alphabet. (due to the al- prefix)

Flight 77 manifest - hijackers names were 1, 12, 13, 19 & 20 out of 58
listed passengers

Flight 93 manifest - hijackers names were 2, 3, 4 & 26 out of 37 listed
passengers once again the list was in alphabetical order (that seems to
be how United organized them) and 3 out of 4 surnames began with
`A'.

I guess your new theory will be that the disproportionately used patsies
whose names began with `A' to facilitate faking 2 out of the 4
manifests. Funny then were don't have 7 families complaining about
the names of their loved ones (all conspicuously beginning with the same
letter as 7 of the hijacker's) not being listed.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/3441 (membership required)

[Edx]

Thanks, which manifests are you refering to in your Fetzer conversation? Is that the ones that are in Perfect Soldiers?

[Lenbrazil]

Thanks, which manifests are you refering to in your Fetzer conversation? Is that the ones that are in Perfect Soldiers?

Yes, indirectly the 911research page I cited was this one.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

[McHrozni]

Hilarity ensues, I suppose.

For the umpteenth time you haven't shown that he is lying. A lie is a deliberate deception. He gave his reasons for believing ten minutes is reasonable.

Note that I have already pointed out to it the flight 188 from the day before yesterday, and Patrick Swayne. It remains unconvinced, because I merely disagree with DR Griffins' conclusions. I dare anyone to parody it.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Heh, the twoofie is in a corner - I don't believe it, but it actually said Griffin uttered something that wasn't true. Specifically, that a normal time to intercept between when the aircraft begins to behave erratically and the actual interception occurring is 10 minutes. :)

Now it wants me to show Griffin was aware this wasn't true. Any ideas? I do know this was pointed out to Griffin on numerous occasions, but ideally, I'd like to have a definitive account.

Yes, I do know it's defense of the Idol is becoming spectacularly pathetic :)

McHrozni

[CptColumbo]

Heh, the twoofie is in a corner - I don't believe it, but it actually said Griffin uttered something that wasn't true. Specifically, that a normal time to intercept between when the aircraft begins to behave erratically and the actual interception occurring is 10 minutes. :)

Now it wants me to show Griffin was aware this wasn't true. Any ideas? I do know this was pointed out to Griffin on numerous occasions, but ideally, I'd like to have a definitive account.

Yes, I do know it's defense of the Idol is becoming spectacularly pathetic :)

McHrozniI would ask; what Griffin was basing that figure on? Otherwise Griffin was pulling a figure out of his elbow.

[R.Mackey]

Dr. Griffin's sources include a video game. We've been over this before. He's definitely lying, since his sources are either not reality (video game) or openly contradict his own conclusion. See here (http://911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html).

[Klimax]

Dr. Griffin's sources include a video game. We've been over this before. He's definitely lying, since his sources are either not reality (video game) or openly contradict his own conclusion. See here (http://911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html).

I'd say simulation,not "mere" videogame. On the other hand it is still just simulation and not reality. (And yet truthers are going after simulations by NIST...)

[McHrozni]

I'd say simulation,not "mere" videogame. On the other hand it is still just simulation and not reality. (And yet truthers are going after simulations by NIST...)

It's disclaimer states it does not necessarily reflect the official procedures. Somehow, this twoofie took that to mean it actually does reflect official procedures and that it is still quite solid evidence for official procedures.

Fun fact, Griffin altered:
will likely find two F-18s on their tail within 10 or so minutes
into
will likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes

Why is this significant you might ask? Because F-18s are naval aircraft, used only by US Navy and Marine corps (and some foreign operators) and not normally tasked with defending of US air space and not under NORADs' command and would only intercept such aircraft in highly unusual circumstances. In short, this seemingly small discrepancy, irrelevant for the game/simulator, is quite severe as to what it does to Griffins' claim. The fact he altered it, and that he talks about capabilities of an F-15 later clearly shows intent to deceive.

The twoofie is thus far ignoring the fact. How unusual.

McHrozni

[Edx]

How about snipping the quote "like a cruise missile with wings" as if to suggest Mike Walters saw anything but an American Airlines jet has to be an example of dishonesty.

[McHrozni]

How about snipping the quote "like a cruise missile with wings" as if to suggest Mike Walters saw anything but an American Airlines jet has to be an example of dishonesty.

I know that the lies of DR Griffin run far and wide, but it's supposed to be in the "Myth no.7" video of his usual lecture.

McHrozni

[Edx]

I know that the lies of DR Griffin run far and wide, but it's supposed to be in the "Myth no.7" video of his usual lecture.

McHrozni

Ah I see, well why not give that example and see if they would classify that as a lie. If not, then you cant convince them of anything more than that imo.

I've had these debates with Creationists before about Hovind and the like and to me it always comes down to them being either liars or delusional to believe their own *******.

Thats the approach I would take anyway.

[UNLoVedRebel]

The fact he altered it, and that he talks about capabilities of an F-15 later clearly shows intent to deceive.
Very Christian like.

[RedIbis]

Dr. Griffin's sources include a video game. We've been over this before. He's definitely lying, since his sources are either not reality (video game) or openly contradict his own conclusion. See here (http://911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html).

Where does he reference a video game? I didn't see it in the article you linked.

[MikeW]

Where does he reference a video game? I didn't see it in the article you linked.
I refer to it more specifically here (http://911myths.com/index.php/Intercept_time#ATCC_Controllers_Read_Binder).

[calebprime]

Where does he reference a video game? I didn't see it in the article you linked.


from the link:

But problem #2 is rather more significant, we think. Although Griffin describes his source as an "Air Traffic Control" document, and Ahmed quotes from its pages as though they have authority, it's not actually a Government release at all. The "Controllers' Read Binder" is, in fact,, a guide produced by Xavius Software for users of their simulation program ATCC (Air Traffic Control Center). Although this is described as a "fully realistic simulation of actual traffic flows, radar sectors, ATC procedures, and rader equipment currently used throughout the U.S. Designed by a real controller, ATCC is ideal for pilots [and] controller trainees”, so it should be realistic, it's still just a simulation game (classified as such here where it costs a mere $12), and not an official document in any sense. As you can tell from the qualification at the bottom of the page:

All information is for use with Xavius Software's Air Traffic Control CenterTM only, is the opinion of the author(s), and does not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration or Federal Aviation Service.
http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm

This doesn’t make the information it contains incorrect, of course. But it does suggest the document carries less authority than Griffin and Ahmed want to admit, perhaps why they kept its true origins buried in the footnotes of their books.

[McHrozni]

Where does he reference a video game? I didn't see it in the article you linked.

This indicates you really should get your vision checked.

McHrozni

[RedIbis]

If that's a video game, there are a lot of ATCs and other military personnel using video games as training resources.

[MikeW]

If that's a video game, there are a lot of ATCs and other military personnel using video games as training resources.
If it's such a legitimate source of information, why does Griffin not explain what it is up front, rather than falsely claim that it's an "Air Traffic Control" document? Why does he not explain how it's okay to ignore its qualification that the document "does not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration or Federal Aviation Service"? Why does he not explain that the document relates to intercepts for incoming flights, but is still useful because >insert reason here?<

[RedIbis]

If it's such a legitimate source of information, why does Griffin not explain what it is up front, rather than falsely claim that it's an "Air Traffic Control" document? Why does he not explain how it's okay to ignore its qualification that the document "does not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration or Federal Aviation Service"? Why does he not explain that the document relates to intercepts for incoming flights, but is still useful because >insert reason here?<

Granted, it's a simulation and not the real thing. It's not an effective source for his point. I agree with that. In fact, I'd be skeptical about any simulation being relied upon as a replacement for reality.

But it's not a video game as Mackey and others have made it out to be. It's not like Microsoft's Flight Simulator that I can buy at BestBuy. Calling it a video game is a bit of a disingenuous exaggeration. And around here such exaggerations are referred to as... now what's the word..., oh it's used so often around here, ... starts with an 'L' ...

[johnny karate]

If that's a video game...

It is clearly a video game. Your choice of phrasing seems to suggest it isn't, for some reason.

...there are a lot of ATCs and other military personnel using video games as training resources.

Beside the point.

Why can't you simply address the fact that Griffin completely misrepresented his source instead of going through such contortions to defend him?

If someone did something this fraudulent in support of the "official version" you'd be going on about what liars they are.

Gee, it's almost as if you have a bias.

[MikeW]

But it's not a video game as Mackey and others have made it out to be. It's not like Microsoft's Flight Simulator that I can buy at BestBuy. Calling it a video game is a bit of a disingenuous exaggeration. And around here such exaggerations are referred to as... now what's the word..., oh it's used so often around here, ... starts with an 'L' ...
No, actually it's cheaper and less professional than Microsoft Flight Simulator. I point to a link where it's called a simulation game. PC games are often referred to as video games. No exaggeration is required.

I'd say, oh, for example, Griffin calling the documentation for a simulation game an "Air Traffic Control Document" is rather closer to a lie. Wouldn't you?

Or maybe in this case we should go to the source, Nafeez Ahmed, who for instance took this original quote from the document:

The U.S. military has their own network of radars looking over the U.S. borders, and out over the ocean (NORAD). They are tied into the FAA computer to be able to get information on incoming flights from overseas, but if they see a target over international waters headed toward the U.S., without flight plan information, they will call on the "shout" line to the appropriate Center sector for an ID.

And in The War on Freedom turned it into this:

Indeed, “The U.S. military has their own radar network …(NORAD). They are tied into the FAA computer in order to get information on incoming flights.” If a target is discovered “without flight plan information,” or in violation of the same, “they will call on the ‘shout’ line to the appropriate [Air Traffic Control] Center sector for an ID.”

...so carefully removing all mention of the real situation, that this document was referring to intercepts of incoming flights from overseas. And that's the real point here: even if this were a legitimate source of information, it's still been butchered to suit the truther cause.

[johnny karate]

But it's not a video game as Mackey and others have made it out to be.

Yes, it is. It's not a mere training device, but rather used for entertainment purposes as well. That's kind of the definition of a game.

It's not like Microsoft's Flight Simulator that I can buy at BestBuy.

Only because it's out of print. Before that, while maybe not sold at Best Buy, it was available to be sold to the public like any other video game.

You can find more information here (http://www.xavius.com/atcc.html).

Calling it a video game is a bit of a disingenuous exaggeration. And around here such exaggerations are referred to as... now what's the word..., oh it's used so often around here, ... starts with an 'L' ...

And therefore, if it is a video game to claim the opposite must also be the dreaded "L" word, right?

[deep]

Yes, it is. It's not a mere training device, but rather used for entertainment purposes as well. That's kind of the definition of a game.


So, a game is anything used for entertainment purposes? If not, please provide a clear definition of "game".

[johnny karate]

So, a game is anything used for entertainment purposes?

Nope. Nor did I ever make such an assertion. What I said:
That's kind of the definition of a game.

I've bolded the qualifier since you seemed to have missed it last time.


If not, please provide a clear definition of "game".

Here you go (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/game):
game 1 (ghttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifm)

n. 1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime

Would you care to make an argument that the software in question does not meet this definition?

Because I'd love to see it.

[MikeW]

So, a game is anything used for entertainment purposes? If not, please provide a clear definition of "game".
Johnny's already helped out there, I see. But if you're mostly interested in whether this simulation can fairly be described as a game, maybe it's worth seeing how it's described on what's left of the original site: the "ATCC simulator game" (http://www.xavius.com/downloads.html).

[RedIbis]

Nope. Nor did I ever make such an assertion. What I said:


I've bolded the qualifier since you seemed to have missed it last time.




Here you go (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/game):


Would you care to make an argument that the software in question does not meet this definition?

Because I'd love to see it.

It's not a game, it's training software. This would be like calling Vigilant Guardian - Call of Duty, to use an exaggerated analogy.

[johnny karate]

It's not a game, it's training software. This would be like calling Vigilant Guardian - Call of Duty, to use an exaggerated analogy.

No, it's a game that can be used as training software. MikeW and I have both provided evidence to support this assertion. MikeW's link even has the publisher referring to it as a game.

If you insist on arguing otherwise, please provide your own evidence. Your unsubstantiated denials are becoming tiresome.

[Edx]

Red,

So they call the simulation software themselves a "game" and yet its so outrageous that Mike calls it a "videogame"?

[RedIbis]

Red,

So they call the simulation software themselves a "game" and yet its so outrageous that Mike calls it a "videogame"?

Where? In Mike's link, it's only referred to as a game by Mike.

[Edx]

Where? In Mike's link, it's only referred to as a game by Mike.

They call it a game, Mike calls it a game. I really dont understand where you see a lie?

[johnny karate]

Where? In Mike's link, it's only referred to as a game by Mike.

This the URL in MikeW's link:
http://www.xavius.com/downloads.html

What makes you think he is responsible for the authorship of that page?

[deep]

From Google's cache for xavius.com:
This program is intended not so much as a game, but as an accurate simulation of actual air traffic situations that exist hour by hour in the crowded skies.

[Edx]

From Google's cache for xavius.com:
This program is intended not so much as a game, but as an accurate simulation of actual air traffic situations that exist hour by hour in the crowded skies.

And yet they give this disclaimer below and do refer to it as a game themselves.

"All information is for use with Xavius Software's Air Traffic Control CenterTM only, is the opinion of the author(s), and does not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration or Federal Aviation Service."
- source (http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm)

Why then is this a "lie" to call it exactly the same thing that they do while Griffin is to be defended even though he pretends its an official manual for the FAA?

[Trojan]

Why do truthers lie?:jaw-dropp

[deep]

And yet they give this disclaimer below and do refer to it as a game themselves.(emphasis mine)

I don't see the word "game" anywhere in the page you linked - what exactly are you referring to?

[Edx]

(emphasis mine)

I don't see the word "game" anywhere in the page you linked - what exactly are you referring to?

Try this page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010719062309/http://www.digibuy.com/cgi-bin/product.html?98796036074

So its referred to as a "game" and as a "simulator" and that the manual explicitly has the disclaimer that it doesnt necessarily reflect policies or practices of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration or Federal Aviation Service.

Where then is the lie? You know, other than the one Griffin told.

[johnny karate]

From Google's cache for xavius.com:
This program is intended not so much as a game, but as an accurate simulation of actual air traffic situations that exist hour by hour in the crowded skies.

At worst, the phrase "not so much" in this context means "more like the second thing than the first". Which still means this software is considered a game, even if it is more so considered a simulation.

At best, the phrase is being used as hyperbolic rhetoric. To wit, you often see the phrase "not so much a movie as a... " in movie reviews (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22not+so+much+a+movie%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=). Is that to say that the particular movie being reviewed is not in fact a movie? Of course not.

Either way, the publisher is still referring to this software as a game, even if they are also referring to it as a simulation.

And no one here has stated this software is not a simulation.

What is being argued here is whether or not it is a game.

And now both MikeW and deep have provided statements from the publisher verifying that it is, in fact, a game.

[johnny karate]

(emphasis mine)

I don't see the word "game" anywhere in the page you linked - what exactly are you referring to?

In MikeW's link upthread, the publisher calls it a "simulator game". And of course, as explained in my previous post, you yourself provided a quote from the publisher where they again refer to it as a game.

[R.Mackey]

Here, once again, we have the Truth Movement in microcosm.

It's a game, folks. Its own publisher calls it a game. But that's not even the point. Even if it was an official training tool, produced and developed exclusively for the FAA under SBIR or a BAA expressly for training air traffic controllers, it still would not be an authoritative reference on NORAD intercept procedures. Dr. Griffin is a scholar, and he knows that this is absolutely worthless as a reference. Ergo, he knows that his "work" here would get laughed out of any journal, any conference, and any self-respecting historical department. That's why he's a liar.

The only weapons the Truth Movement has are semantics, misdirection, and outright deception coupled with overactive imaginations. This little drama is just another example. You may as well try to throw out the NIST Report because Dr. Sunder once wore mismatched socks, or blame the Government for Sept. 11th because a distant relative of the President once did a little business with the Port Authority. Oh, wait, you've already done that latter one. :D

ETA: Since you're using semantics, perhaps I will, too. There's no such thing as an "F-18" aircraft. Hence the manual is dead wrong no matter what. There is an "F/A-18," but it probably wouldn't be intercepting anyway since USN and Marines don't typically fly that mission. The most likely case would be if you were intercepted over Canada, and that would be a "CF-18."

In other words, you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except lies, of course.

[Edx]

The only weapons the Truth Movement has are semantics, misdirection, and outright deception coupled with overactive imaginations. This little drama is just another example.

I think thats what really shows the vacuous nature of 911 Truth, the fact that its proponants are so willing to defend such blatent dishonesty.

ETA: Since you're using semantics, perhaps I will, too. There's no such thing as an "F-18" aircraft. Hence the manual is dead wrong no matter what. There is an "F/A-18," but it probably wouldn't be intercepting anyway since USN and Marines don't typically fly that mission. The most likely case would be if you were intercepted over Canada, and that would be a "CF-18."

I know people that argue that way in real life about normal stuff, it always feels like that they want disagree with everything just to be picky. Sometimes Ive had a whole argument and then ends with them claiming it was my fault for not choosing the right word or I misunderstood them even though it was clear what everyone is talking about.

[CHF]

Dr. Griffin is a scholar, and he knows that this is absolutely worthless as a reference. Ergo, he knows that his "work" here would get laughed out of any journal, any conference, and any self-respecting historical department. That's why he's a liar.

It's obvious from his "research" that DR Griffin is a self-conscious fraud, just like Steven Jones and his "peer-reviews."

Sometimes I'm stunned at just how blatant their lies are but then I remember why they do it: to convince their moronic followers that they're serious about exposing the "truth."

It doesn't take much to impress some people, especially those who really really really want to believe it.

[JamesB]

ETA: Since you're using semantics, perhaps I will, too. There's no such thing as an "F-18" aircraft. Hence the manual is dead wrong no matter what. There is an "F/A-18," but it probably wouldn't be intercepting anyway since USN and Marines don't typically fly that mission. The most likely case would be if you were intercepted over Canada, and that would be a "CF-18."

In other words, you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except lies, of course.

Well at least it is not a helicopter.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/10/david-ray-griffin-is-even-dumber-than-i.html

Still more evidence that Washington had its own defenses, rather than being dependant on the fighter jets at distant Langley is provided by the description of the "principal missions" of Davison Army Airfield:

[T]o operate a "Class A" Army Airfield on a 24 hour basis, maintain a readiness posture in support of contingency plans, provide aviation support for the White House, US government officials, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and other government agencies...; and exercise operational control of the airspace.

Davison, which is about 12 miles south of the Pentagon, is equipped with both fixed-wing aircraft and UH-1 and UH-60 helicopters [Hueys and Black Hawks].

[johnny karate]

Bump thread for RedIbis and deep.

I'd like to see if either of you are willing to acknowledge that the software being discussed is in fact a video game.

I'd also like to see if RedIbis is willing to offer retractions and/or apologies for implying that R.Mackey and MikeW, among others, were lying.

I'll be over here not holding my breath.

[deep]

Bump thread for RedIbis and deep.

I'd like to see if either of you are willing to acknowledge that the software being discussed is in fact a video game.


There's no pre-defined way of winning or losing and it doesn't keep score.

I wouldn't call it a video game, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

[lapman]

There's no pre-defined way of winning or losing and it doesn't keep score.

I wouldn't call it a video game, but you're entitled to your own opinion.
Of course you wouldn't call it a video game. That would go against your fantasy. In the real world, it's called a video game. That's not an opinion. The fact that the game can be used for training purposes is irrelevant to rational people.

[Edx]

There's no pre-defined way of winning or losing and it doesn't keep score.

I wouldn't call it a video game, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

So you personally must not consider Microsoft Flight Simulator a game either then.

Thats fine, but its still perfectly valid to call it a game to the rest of the world.

[johnny karate]

There's no pre-defined way of winning or losing and it doesn't keep score.

I wouldn't call it a video game, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

The company that made it also call it a game. Do you disagree with them too?

[deep]

So you dont consider Microsoft Flight Simulator a game either then?


Microsoft Flight Simulator comes with pre-defined missions or campaigns - a way of tracking your own progress until you reach a pre-defined end-point. It's a game.

[Edx]

Microsoft Flight Simulator comes with pre-defined missions or campaigns - a way of tracking your own progress until you reach a pre-defined end-point. It's a game.

Ergo the simulator is also a game in the same way, does you not have anything that could be described as a goal or purpose? At what point does a game stop being a game? Why dont you deal with the fact that they consider it a game, are they lying about themselves? Are truthers the true keepers of the definition?

[lapman]

Microsoft Flight Simulator comes with pre-defined missions or campaigns - a way of tracking your own progress until you reach a pre-defined end-point. It's a game.
You can also just fly around. Pong has no pre-defined missions or campaigns. So I guess that's not a game by your difinition. What about when you're not on a mission or campiagn in FS? You can just fly around, make flight plans and navigate from one point to another just like in real life. You do realize that FS did not have missions in the beginning and the missions are not the main part of the game today.

[Edx]

Its idiotic ways of arguing like those like Deep is doing here that made me realise 911 truth was stupid, so thanks Deep you're a good representation of a truther.

[deep]

Pong has no pre-defined missions or campaigns. So I guess that's not a game by your difinition.


Pong provides a pre-defined way of winning or losing - it also keeps score, IIRC. It's a game.

[Justin39640]

Microsoft Flight Simulator comes with pre-defined missions or campaigns - a way of tracking your own progress until you reach a pre-defined end-point. It's a game.

You must not play many games.
This is a simulator. Simulators are sold under the category of "games".
Not all games keep score or have "predefined endpoints". Some like WOW you can play forever. There is no "end". (I don't play WOW lol)
A lot of games use AI and randomization to make the game play different every time you play. This is a game. An advanced game but a game none the less.

[Edx]

Pong provides a pre-defined way of winning or losing - it also keeps score, IIRC. It's a game.

You can argue semantics all day, the point is they call their simulator a game. They say their simulator doesnt reflect actual protocols. Dont like it? Too bad.

[johnny karate]

deep, the people that created the software call it a game. Are you claiming to know better than them?

[Edx]

deep, the people that created the software call it a game. Are you claiming to know better than them?

Clearly they lied in advance to make D.R Griffin look bad.

[Justin39640]

Oh and I would be pretty certain that this thing records stats.
Stats could be loosely defined as a "score".

[johnny karate]

There's no pre-defined way of winning or losing and it doesn't keep score.

Please cite a definition of the word "game" that uses such restrictive terms.

[lapman]

Pong provides a pre-defined way of winning or losing - it also keeps score, IIRC. It's a game.
Oh, so you're changing your definition now. Nice.

[deep]

Pong provides a pre-defined way of winning or losing - it also keeps score, IIRC. It's a game.
Oh, so you're changing your definition now. Nice.


Here's what I said earlier:

There's no pre-defined way of winning or losing and it doesn't keep score.

[Edx]

Look, DEEP.

"A "career" process lets you first "train" on sectors, where you can control the traffic level, and any mistakes you make don't count. Once you feel ready, you can then take a "certification check" where the simulated supervisor watches and grades your performance. If you're good enough, you become certified at that sector, and can then "work" it to build your hours and overall controller rating. Working a sector as a certified controller is considered a big responsibility--traffic levels are always kept at real-world intensities, and as in reality, mistakes are simply not allowed. You also can't just exit the program or turn off the computer when you feel like it, for example, or you'll get in big trouble when you return! (Instead, you must request a break, then a short time later a computer controller will arrive and take over...)"

Sounds like a "game" to me!

But I wonder if its really considered a game by the makers... hmm....

Oh! Snap!

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6600/gameor.png

[funk de fino]

What a sad turn this thread has taken for deep and Red.

Astonishing. They think there was an inside job that cost thousands of US lives, and all they can do is argue about whether a simple simulator is a game or not.

Pathetic, but not unsurprising.

[deep]

You can argue semantics all day, the point is they call their simulator a game.


Here's an exact quote from Xavius:

"This program is intended not so much as a game, but as an accurate simulation of actual air traffic situations that exist hour by hour in the crowded skies."

In my opinion, it's not a video game. Feel free to disagree - it doesn't bother me at all.

[Dave Rogers]

So, somebody just remind me - does all this mean that David Ray Griffin was quoting from something that couldn't be utterly discredited as an authoritative source on NORAD interception procedures by simply looking at the title page?

Nope, didn't think so.

Dave

[Edx]

Here's an exact quote from Xavius:

"This program is intended not so much as a game, but as an accurate simulation of actual air traffic situations that exist hour by hour in the crowded skies."

Since they do in fact refer to it as a game (as I showed you (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6600/gameor.png)) then your interpretation is clearly in error.

What could they mean? They obviously mean that it isnt intended to JUST be a game, but to be an accurate simulation.

However, what do they mean by "accurate"? Clearly they dont mean 100% accurate since they have a bold disclaimer saying it doesnt reflect real protocols.

In my opinion, it's not a video game. Feel free to disagree - it doesn't bother me at all.

They disagree with you, it doesnt bother me I think its really funny how you're trying so hard to defend Griffin.

[MikeW]

So, somebody just remind me - does all this mean that David Ray Griffin was quoting from something that couldn't be utterly discredited as an authoritative source on NORAD interception procedures by simply looking at the title page?

Nope, didn't think so.
Even the URL should arguably be enough to tell you it's probably not a government document, as it's hosted on xavius.com rather than a .gov domain.

Still, we are talking about the same Dr Griffin who can refer to a victims list URL in his text (www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html) and be surprised that the hijackers aren't on it, so I guess we shouldn't expect too much.

[deep]

What could they mean? They obviously mean that it isnt intended to JUST be a game, but to be an accurate simulation.


Another quote from Google's cache for xavius.com (emphasis mine):

Yes, collisions are possible (when working traffic) and what you'd see would be realistic. However, the sim was designed to be a realistic sim and not a "game" like some other programs. Thus, collisions are extremely unlikely.
We can agree to disagree - it happens.

[johnny karate]

Here's an exact quote from Xavius:
"This program is intended not so much as a game, but as an accurate simulation of actual air traffic situations that exist hour by hour in the crowded skies."
In my opinion, it's not a video game. Feel free to disagree - it doesn't bother me at all.

Your willful ignorance has now become blatant dishonesty.

The above phrase you quoted does not mean its not a game. In fact, it means the opposite. I know you know this, because I've already told you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5294682#post5294682).

Furthermore, links from the publisher's website by both Edx and MikeW clearly show they themselves refer to it as a game. This is not a matter of opinion. The people that make the software say it's a game, therefore it's a game.

This strategy of lying and ignoring evidence is only making you look foolish. I'm not sure why any rational person would engage in such behavior.

[Edx]

Another quote from Google's cache for xavius.com (emphasis mine):

Yes, collisions are possible (when working traffic) and what you'd see would be realistic. However, the sim was designed to be a realistic sim and not a "game" like some other programs. Thus, collisions are extremely unlikely.
We can agree to disagree - it happens.

And yet the publisher refers to it as a game, but Mike isnt allowed to call it a game?

Lets get to the point Deep, do you think Griffin in any way has a point regarding this?

[johnny karate]

Another quote from Google's cache for xavius.com (emphasis mine):
Yes, collisions are possible (when working traffic) and what you'd see would be realistic. However, the sim was designed to be a realistic sim and not a "game" like some other programs. Thus, collisions are extremely unlikely.
We can agree to disagree - it happens.


And here's Xavius calling the software a game (http://www.xavius.com/downloads.html):
Old newsletters for the ATCC simulator game from '97-'98, with some good general ATC tips and info.

Notice here they don't use scare quotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes) to alter the interpretation of the word like they did in your quote.

Seriously, is English not your first language? Because so far in this thread you've exhibited a dreadful knowledge of both word meaning and punctuation.

[johnny karate]

So, somebody just remind me - does all this mean that David Ray Griffin was quoting from something that couldn't be utterly discredited as an authoritative source on NORAD interception procedures by simply looking at the title page?

Nope, didn't think so.

You'll have to pardon the derail.

Sometimes it's necessary to expose people for the frauds and liars they are in the most amusing way possible. ;)

[Edx]

@Deep:

And clearly when it says its not intended as a "game" with quote marks it is refering to a videogame made for the purposes of entertainment.

As you have been shown they do refer to it as a game, their publisher refers to it as a game and they say it doesnt reflect actual protocol.

Do you or do you not think Griffin has any valid point to make here, or are you just trying to be argumentative?

[TruthersLie]

There's no pre-defined way of winning or losing and it doesn't keep score.

I wouldn't call it a video game, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

Ummm...
the original Sim city didn't keep score, or have a predefined way of winning or losing.

are you saying that isn't a game?

are you really that desperate to argue the semantics of whether this simulation (which was sold as a GAME for individual use) is not in fact a game? Really?

[TruthersLie]

Another quote from Google's cache for xavius.com (emphasis mine):

Yes, collisions are possible (when working traffic) and what you'd see would be realistic. However, the sim was designed to be a realistic sim and not a "game" like some other programs. Thus, collisions are extremely unlikely.
We can agree to disagree - it happens.

have you really sunk so low that you are going to DATAMINE a video game webpage to prove that is isn't a videogame?

ROFLMAO!!!

[Edx]

Even if he wants to be pissy about it they still have a disclaimer that shows Griffin is 100% wrong in all aspects relating to it.

[ElMondoHummus]

(*Sigh*) What in God's name does any of this matter? It's irrelevant whether this is a game, a sim, or whatever euphamism anyone wants to apply! The fact of the matter is that this program is not one that simulates FAA-NORAD interaction, nor does it simulate the confusion inherent in trying to identify aircraft not on their assigned flightpaths or, in at least one case, not even broadcasting it's transponder.

In the end, it doesn't matter if anyone calls it "game", "sim", or "lifelike recreation", the bottom line is that anything out of that program is inapplicable to 9/11 because it does not simulate the key events of that day. End of story!

[deep]

Do you or do you not think Griffin has any valid point to make here, or are you just trying to be argumentative?


I wouldn't consider this to be an singularly-authoritative source, if that's what you're asking.

[TexasJack]

I wouldn't consider this to be an singularly-authoritative source, if that's what you're asking.

What would you consider it?

[deep]

What would you consider it?


Weak evidence.

[johnny karate]

Understatement of the year.

[Edx]

I wouldn't consider this to be an singularly-authoritative source, if that's what you're asking.

What do you mean "singularly"?

Do you agree that whether you want to call it a "game" or a "simulator" you still cant use its manual as any indication of real life protocol?

Why do you say its "weak evidence" as if implying its still "some" evidence"? Why cant you call it what it is? Its dishonest!

Dont you like think Griffin has lied?

How about the CNN flight manifests? Or do you just think he is the most incompetent researcher?

[funk de fino]

Therein lies the rub for the 911TM. Griffin is either a wanton and disgusting liar or he is the worst researcher on the planet.

[twinstead]

Therein lies the rub for the 911TM. Griffin is either a wanton and disgusting liar or he is the worst researcher on the planet.

False dichotomy. You forgot a third option--"both"

[deep]

Why do you say its "weak evidence" as if implying its still "some" evidence"? Why cant you call it what it is? Its dishonest!

Dont you like think Griffin has lied?


DRG made a claim + provided evidence. If you don't feel that his evidence is strong enough to support the claim, that's fine - that doesn't make him a liar.

[lapman]

DRG made a claim + provided evidence. If you don't feel that his evidence is strong enough to support the claim, that's fine - that doesn't make him a liar.
When the disclaimer is on the document and the fact that he did know or reasonably should have known that he was not quoting any type of official document, that would make it a lie.

[twinstead]

DRG made a claim + provided evidence. If you don't feel that his evidence is strong enough to support the claim, that's fine - that doesn't make him a liar.

Jesus, that could be said for just about anybody, no matter how incompetent they are or how flimsy their evidence is. I suppose in DRG's case incompetence is the lesser of two evils.

[Edx]

DRG made a claim + provided evidence. If you don't feel that his evidence is strong enough to support the claim, that's fine - that doesn't make him a liar.

But the evidence he provided specifically says in no uncertain words it is not intended to refer to actual protocol.

Why does that not classify as a lie?

Griffin also says there were no hijackers on the flight maifests, yet points to a victim list and ignores the actual manifests.

Why does that not classify as a lie?

[johnny karate]

Most rational people wouldn't consider the instruction manual for a video game evidence of anything. But hey, when you've already made up your own word definitions and rules of grammar, I'd imagine your standards for what qualifies as evidence don't have much to do with reality either.

[RedIbis]

I know this is probably a silly question at this point but is the statement that originates with ATCC Binder true? Namely,

“The U.S. military has their own radar network …(NORAD). They are tied into the FAA computer in order to get information on incoming flights.” If a target is discovered “without flight plan information,” or in violation of the same, “they will call on the ‘shout’ line to the appropriate [Air Traffic Control] Center sector for an ID.” etc etc.

[johnny karate]

By what standard of "true"?

If you're going by what a rational-minded person with a grip on reality considers "true", this should answer your question:
All information is for use with Xavius Software's Air Traffic Control CenterTM only, is the opinion of the author(s), and does not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration or Federal Aviation Service.


However, if you're going by the standard of "true" you and deep have exhibited in this thread, well, I guess anything goes...

[RedIbis]

By what standard of "true"?

If you're going by what a rational-minded person with a grip on reality considers "true", this should answer your question:



However, if you're going by the standard of "true" you and deep have exhibited in this thread, well, I guess anything goes...

So an opinion can't be true?

[johnny karate]

Not if it's wrong.

[grandmastershek]

LOL!
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/grnadmastershek/20090801.gif

[LashL]

I know this is probably a silly question at this point but is the statement that originates with ATCC Binder true? Namely,

“The U.S. military has their own radar network …(NORAD). They are tied into the FAA computer in order to get information on incoming flights.” If a target is discovered “without flight plan information,” or in violation of the same, “they will call on the ‘shout’ line to the appropriate [Air Traffic Control] Center sector for an ID.”
etc etc.


Why are you citing a cherrypicked and misleading quote in the first place?

This was already addressed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5292416&postcount=103) by MikeW upthread.

The dishonesty of the "truth" movement knows no bounds.

[Dave Rogers]

DRG made a claim + provided evidence. If you don't feel that his evidence is strong enough to support the claim, that's fine - that doesn't make him a liar.

That's actually a fair point. However, the evidence is so poor that it should be immediately obvious that it isn't strong enough to support the claim. Since David Ray Griffin is an author who writes books about 9/11, it could reasonably be argued that correct evaluation of sources is his job, and a major responsibility of his. If so, he is either a liar, or incompetent to the point of uselessness, or both, as pointed out above. There really isn't any other possibility.

Dave

[McHrozni]

That's actually a fair point. However, the evidence is so poor that it should be immediately obvious that it isn't strong enough to support the claim. Since David Ray Griffin is an author who writes books about 9/11, it could reasonably be argued that correct evaluation of sources is his job, and a major responsibility of his. If so, he is either a liar, or incompetent to the point of uselessness, or both, as pointed out above. There really isn't any other possibility.

Dave

I called him "either a liar, or such a poor researcher as to be indistinguishable from a liar". I believe this is a fair assessment, essentially the same as you put it.

McHrozni

[MikeW]

I know this is probably a silly question at this point but is the statement that originates with ATCC Binder true? Namely,

etc etc.
What LashL said! That's Ahmed's butchered version. Here's the actual paragraph, with my emphasis on the bits Ahmed didn't want us to know:

The U.S. military has their own network of radars looking over the U.S. borders, and out over the ocean (NORAD). They are tied into the FAA computer to be able to get information on incoming flights from overseas, but if they see a target over international waters headed toward the U.S., without flight plan information, they will call on the "shout" line to the appropriate Center sector for an ID. Sector 66 might get a call to ID a radar target, and if 66 has no datablock or other information on it, the military will usually scramble an intercept flight. Essentially always they turn out to be private pilots ("VFR") not talking to anybody, who stray too far outside the boundary, then get picked up on their way back in. But, procedures are procedures, and they will likely find two F-18's on their tail within 10 or so minutes.
http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm

Now: what does this tell us about 9/11?

Maybe we should start with the first sentence, where NORADs own radar network is described as "looking over the U.S. borders, and out over the ocean". Is this accurate?

[Edx]

I know this is probably a silly question at this point but is the statement that originates with ATCC Binder true? Namely,

“The U.S. military has their own radar network …(NORAD). They are tied into the FAA computer in order to get information on incoming flights.” If a target is discovered “without flight plan information,” or in violation of the same, “they will call on the ‘shout’ line to the appropriate [Air Traffic Control] Center sector for an ID.”

etc etc.

So you just used a quotemine talked about one page earlier, wow?

[Edx]

I called him "either a liar, or such a poor researcher as to be indistinguishable from a liar". I believe this is a fair assessment, essentially the same as you put it.

McHrozni

I think that is the best way to put it in these cases.

[stewieg]

Well at least it is not a helicopter.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/10/david-ray-griffin-is-even-dumber-than-i.html

Dr. Griffin is a college students dream. Since he does not feel the need to back up any of his claims why would his students? Or say things that make any sense.

[johnny karate]

Bump for deep, who seems to think ignoring a counterargument automatically makes him right.

From Google's cache for xavius.com:

This program is intended not so much as a game, but as an accurate simulation of actual air traffic situations that exist hour by hour in the crowded skies.



At worst, the phrase "not so much" in this context means "more like the second thing than the first". Which still means this software is considered a game, even if it is more so considered a simulation.

At best, the phrase is being used as hyperbolic rhetoric. To wit, you often see the phrase "not so much a movie as a... " in movie reviews (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22not+so+much+a+movie%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=). Is that to say that the particular movie being reviewed is not in fact a movie? Of course not.

Either way, the publisher is still referring to this software as a game, even if they are also referring to it as a simulation.

And no one here has stated this software is not a simulation.

What is being argued here is whether or not it is a game.

And now both MikeW and deep have provided statements from the publisher verifying that it is, in fact, a game.



Another quote from Google's cache for xavius.com (emphasis mine):
Yes, collisions are possible (when working traffic) and what you'd see would be realistic. However, the sim was designed to be a realistic sim and not a "game" like some other programs. Thus, collisions are extremely unlikely.
We can agree to disagree - it happens.

And here's Xavius calling the software a game (http://www.xavius.com/downloads.html):


Notice here they don't use scare quotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes) to alter the interpretation of the word like they did in your quote.

Seriously, is English not your first language? Because so far in this thread you've exhibited a dreadful knowledge of both word meaning and punctuation.

[RedIbis]

Chapter 9 of his most recent book lays to waste the NIST WTC 7 report, a thorough, comprehensive destruction of what amounts to speculation and inflated computer models.

[HyJinX]

Chapter 9 of his most recent book lays to waste the NIST WTC 7 report, a thorough, comprehensive destruction of what amounts to speculation and inflated computer models.

So what did NIST get wrong...according to Griffin?

[johnny karate]

Chapter 9 of his most recent book lays to waste the NIST WTC 7 report, a thorough, comprehensive destruction of what amounts to speculation and inflated computer models.

How many video games does he use as references? Because I think the Mario Brothers had some interesting thoughts on fire safety and structural engineering.

[DGM]

Chapter 9 of his most recent book lays to waste the NIST WTC 7 report, a thorough, comprehensive destruction of what amounts to speculation and inflated computer models.
This sounds like it needs it own thread!!!!!!!! RedIbis, tell us poor people that can't afford his book (and thus denied the truthyness of it all) all about his insight. PLEASE!

[twinstead]

Well. Red thinks chapter 9 completely destroys the NIST WT7 report. That's good enough for me. Call up the media folks, this thing's going to get blown WIDE open! I'm sure the NIST is quaking in it's collective boots.

[RedIbis]

This sounds like it needs it own thread!!!!!!!! RedIbis, tell us poor people that can't afford his book (and thus denied the truthyness of it all) all about his insight. PLEASE!

Well, the entire book exposes the NIST report for what it is, but Chapter 9 is particularly destructive.

There was a thread about it, so feel free to bump that one. I certainly don't mind discussing the specifics of the book. I just thought I"d mention it here since this thread looks to be running a bit slow.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well, the entire book exposes the NIST report for what it is, but Chapter 9 is particularly destructive.

There was a thread about it, so feel free to bump that one. I certainly don't mind discussing the specifics of the book. I just thought I"d mention it here since this thread looks to be running a bit slow.

NISTs recommendations is "destructive"?

Don't you even know WTH you're talking about Red?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Recommendations.pdf

[DGM]

Well, the entire book exposes the NIST report for what it is, but Chapter 9 is particularly destructive.

There was a thread about it, so feel free to bump that one. I certainly don't mind discussing the specifics of the book. I just thought I"d mention it here since this thread looks to be running a bit slow.
Done:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159115

Now show us his wisdom!

[RedIbis]

Done:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159115

Now show us his wisdom!

I try not to reward cross-thread badgering but I have no problem discussing the book. Unfortunately, I'm probably the only one who's read it here.

Anyway, it's a long study so I'm not going to regurgitate it post by post. Especially in the second half, which is focused on NIST's primary collapse hypotheses, DRG eviscerates the NIST report, highlighting many flaws, not the least of which is NIST's exaggerated burn durations and heat estimates.

Even NIST admitted, that "burn duration was longer [in the simulation] than in the visual evidence," which "could have led to a mild overestimate of the the heating on the north side of the floor."

Could have? Again, this is a theory premised on unprecedented behavior of materials hundreds of degrees lower than expected.

[DGM]

I try not to reward cross-thread badgering but I have no problem discussing the book. Unfortunately, I'm probably the only one who's read it here.

Anyway, it's a long study so I'm not going to regurgitate it post by post. Especially in the second half, which is focused on NIST's primary collapse hypotheses, DRG eviscerates the NIST report, highlighting many flaws, not the least of which is NIST's exaggerated burn durations and heat estimates.

Even NIST admitted, that "burn duration was longer [in the simulation] than in the visual evidence," which "could have led to a mild overestimate of the the heating on the north side of the floor."

Could have? Again, this is a theory premised on unprecedented behavior of materials hundreds of degrees lower than expected.
Thanks of humoring me with your response. So to sum it up, DRG has nothing new?

[RedIbis]

Thanks of humoring me with your response. So to sum it up, DRG has nothing new?

In a sense, yes, that's true, it isn't much new, but what DRG has been able to do is consolidate and examine the key flaws in the NIST report, as well as a lot of other important information. It's not so much what DRG says, but that he is a thorough researcher. Perfect? Definitely not, but this book especially is an invaluable resource.

[TexasJack]

In a sense, yes, that's true, it isn't much new, but what DRG has been able to do is consolidate and examine the key flaws in the NIST report, as well as a lot of other important information. It's not so much what DRG says, but that he is a thorough researcher. Perfect? Definitely not, but this book especially is an invaluable resource.

What hypothesis does he set forth on 7 and what does he base it on? Or is he just a critic?

[RedIbis]

What hypothesis does he set forth on 7 and what does he base it on? Or is he just a critic?

The first half of this book is his view that NIST avoided evidence of controlled demolition.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The first half of this book is his view that NIST avoided evidence of controlled demolition.

How can they "avoid" evidence when they actually had experts looking at the evidence, then coming to NIST to make recommendations into fire safety?

Explain that one to us Red!

[A W Smith]

The first half of this book is his view that NIST avoided evidence of controlled demolition.
avoided? or didn't see any? when you say avoided, did anyone performing clean up at GZ or raking through debris at fresh kills. or examining steel in jersey city. bring forth any evidence of CD? Explosives? det cord? devices? and was that ignored by nist? perhaps the dirty bird will show us this ignored evidence?

[RedIbis]

avoided? or didn't see any? when you say avoided, did anyone performing clean up at GZ or raking through debris at fresh kills. or examining steel in jersey city. bring forth any evidence of CD? Explosives? det cord? devices? and was that ignored by nist? perhaps the dirty bird will show us this ignored evidence?

The namecalling is kind of corny and not really conducive to civil discourse. Don't you think?

[johnny karate]

Again, this is a theory premised on unprecedented behavior of materials hundreds of degrees lower than expected.

Science disagrees with you.

[A W Smith]

The namecalling is kind of corny and not really conducive to civil discourse. Don't you think?

got nothing?

Thanks for proving my point bird.

[dafydd]

Science disagrees with you.

Reality disagrees with RedIbis.

[TruthersLie]

I try not to reward cross-thread badgering but I have no problem discussing the book. Unfortunately, I'm probably the only one who's read it here.

Anyway, it's a long study so I'm not going to regurgitate it post by post. Especially in the second half, which is focused on NIST's primary collapse hypotheses, DRG eviscerates the NIST report, highlighting many flaws, not the least of which is NIST's exaggerated burn durations and heat estimates.

Even NIST admitted, that "burn duration was longer [in the simulation] than in the visual evidence," which "could have led to a mild overestimate of the the heating on the north side of the floor."

Could have? Again, this is a theory premised on unprecedented behavior of materials hundreds of degrees lower than expected.

Can you explain something simple to me red?

What are DR griffins qualifications to discuss any part of the NIST report?

I mean we have seen how badly he did with debunking 9/11 debunking... what was the total.... over 150 errors in 150 pages?

What qualifications does he have or possess in which to discuss any part of the NIST report?

I mean with his qualifications, unless GOD did it he is talking outside of his knowledge base.

[DGM]

In a sense, yes, that's true, it isn't much new, but what DRG has been able to do is consolidate and examine the key flaws in the NIST report, as well as a lot of other important information. It's not so much what DRG says, but that he is a thorough researcher. Perfect? Definitely not, but this book especially is an invaluable resource.
So what has he accomplished? All he has proven is he can pick out arguable wording in the report. Is this right? How does this "destroy" the report?

[DGM]

RedIbis:
Do you think that DRG believes that NIST is incompetent or that they are "in on it"? If "incompetent" he would need to actually show their errors. If we go with "in on it" he would need to come up with a logical explanation as to why they would leave all these "flaws" in a report that they know is a cover up. Or, is it combination of both? Does he go in to this at all?

[Dave Rogers]

Again, this is a theory premised on unprecedented behavior of materials hundreds of degrees lower than expected.

If I'd said something like that in public, I'd have the decency to feel embarrassed about it afterwards. Are you proud of how little materials science you know?

Dave

[dtugg]

The first half of this book is his view that NIST avoided evidence of controlled demolition.

What evidence? As you know, there isn't any.

[RedIbis]

If I'd said something like that in public, I'd have the decency to feel embarrassed about it afterwards. Are you proud of how little materials science you know?

Dave

The embarassment should be yours, as you're obviously unaware that NIST admits thermal expansion of floor systems occurred at temps hundreds of degrees lower than expected.

[Dave Rogers]

The embarassment should be yours, as you're obviously unaware that NIST admits thermal expansion of floor systems occurred at temps hundreds of degrees lower than expected.

There you go again. Is there some kind of course you have to go on to become this ignorant?

Dave

[DGM]

What evidence? As you know, there isn't any.
I think by "avoided" he means "didn't find what has to be there or my book is fiction".:o

[Slayhamlet]

The embarassment should be yours, as you're obviously unaware that NIST admits thermal expansion of floor systems occurred at temps hundreds of degrees lower than expected.

Where do they admit this? Be specific, because it sounds like a lie to me. Whether yours or Grifter's I don't know.

Also, you spelled "embarrassment" wrong.

[DGM]

Where do they admit this? Be specific, because it sounds like a lie to me. Whether yours or Grifter's I don't know.

Also, you spelled "embarrassment" wrong.
Cherry picked quote in......................

[RedIbis]

Where do they admit this? Be specific, because it sounds like a lie to me. Whether yours or Grifter's I don't know.

Also, you spelled "embarrassment" wrong.

Congratulations you found a spelling error. While we're being tedious, you don't use a comma before a dependent clause that follows an independent clause.

[Pardalis]

Cherry picked quote in......................

You sir are a precog. :eek:

[DGM]

You sir are a precog. :eek:
But I was wrong, He went with the "avoid the question" option.

[Pardalis]

But I was wrong, He went with the "avoid the question" option.

Well, it's a form of cherry-picking, he chose to respond to one part of the post (the trivial), and ignored the pertinent rest (what is actually being discussed).

But since he usuallly does that, it wasn't very hard to predict. ;)

[Dave Rogers]

But I was wrong, He went with the "avoid the question" option.

Yes, I was disappointed there too. Usually he manages to cherry-pick a quote and avoid the question.

Dave

[Slayhamlet]

Classic dishonest selective answer from RedIbis. Instead of responding to the pertinent question he goes off on a pointless tangent, pretending as though the question were never raised. Pitiful, but not unexpected.

Congratulations you found a spelling error. While we're being tedious, you don't use a comma before a dependent clause that follows an independent clause.

Since the main clause is imperative and the dependent clause is merely parenthetical, it's not incorrect. Your failure to use a comma after "congratulations" is, however, incorrect.

[TexasJack]

I'm still waiting for the proof that NIST avoided evidence of controlled demolition. I guess I'll keep waiting.

[johnny karate]

Griffin has actually admitted to being a fraud and a charlatan, so I'm not sure what RedIbis hopes to gain in defending him.

[Edx]

Griffin has actually admitted to being a fraud and a charlatan, so I'm not sure what RedIbis hopes to gain in defending him.

Huh? When did he do that? :confused:

[DGM]

Griffin has actually admitted to being a fraud and a charlatan, so I'm not sure what RedIbis hopes to gain in defending him.
Did I miss something?

[RedIbis]

Did I miss something?

Only Johnny's typical bluster.

[DGM]

Only Johnny's typical bluster.
My comment was directed at Johnny. Any comment on post #205?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5345298#post5345298

[RedIbis]

My comment was directed at Johnny. Any comment on post #205?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5345298#post5345298

He doesn't really get into motive. The focus is on the flaws of the NIST WTC 7 report.

[DGM]

He doesn't really get into motive. The focus is on the flaws of the NIST WTC 7 report.
So he identifies these "flaws" how? So far all I've seen is his interpretation of the wording. Is his contention that it could have be worded better? Does he offer any technical insight?

[DGM]

He doesn't really get into motive. The focus is on the flaws of the NIST WTC 7 report.
RedIbis:
I'll try to make this easy for you.
Why should the world believe a man who wrote a book about a technical subject that, only picks apart their own wording about their methodology but, does not have any proof (or insight) into what they actually got (presumably) wrong? Isn't this essentially what DRG has done?

[T.A.M.]

Red:

here is the link to Griffin's early work

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

Most of these lies have been proven either (A) outright wrong, (B) speculation, or (C) misrepresentation.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Shall we go in order Red?

Here is the first on his list of claims...


1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).

Seriously Red, the hijackers are still alive? really?

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

Only Johnny's typical bluster.

Accusations of bluster from the science-denier. :rolleyes:

However, the fact remains that David Ray Griffin is an admitted fraud. It makes you look foolish to continue to defend his fraudulence.

[T.A.M.]

Ok Red, here is his second big falsehood.


2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

Even if the sporadic and sketchy accounts of Arabs in bars turned out to be accounts of Atta and others (the girl who alleged to be his girlfriend in Florida has been proven a fraud so I only mention her and her account here in this context), we have this below...

We know that there is a sect of Islam that believe one can act like the infidels if it results in the cause of Allah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir_wal-Hijra


TAM:)

[twinstead]

Seriously Red, the hijackers are still alive? really?


Yes red. I'd like to see any evidence DRG has that the hijackers are still alive. If not, it's a lie.

[DGM]

Ok Red, here is his second big falsehood.



Even if the sporadic and sketchy accounts of Arabs in bars turned out to be accounts of Atta and others (the girl who alleged to be his girlfriend in Florida has been proven a fraud so I only mention her and her account here in this context), we have this below...

We know that there is a sect of Islam that believe one can act like the infidels if it results in the cause of Allah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir_wal-Hijra
TAM:)
Yeah, but how would a superb researcher like DRG know this?:rolleyes:

[RedIbis]

Shall we go in order Red?

Here is the first on his list of claims...



Seriously Red, the hijackers are still alive? really?

TAM:)

DRG has admitted when he has been wrong several times. I don't see this as a weakness at all. He has corrected himself on the cell phone/airphone issue. Granted I'm not aware of him following up on the "still alive" claims, and if not, I think he should reconsider due to the commonness of those names, and the simple fact that alive hijackers can be interviewed today and have not been, but even still, the overwhelming majority of his research holds up.

Other than this, you have very little on DRG, and unfortunately, you won't read this book on WTC 7. Therefore, you will remain ignorant of NIST's flawed simulations.

[T.A.M.]

and #3 Red;


3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

Evidence? An interview with one of his instructors that said he was a poor pilot. So? The commission themselves admitted this in their report, and well...Why should I go on...MikeW at 911myths has it well summed up here.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

I mean I could go on, but it has been done here, over and over...

TAM:)

[twinstead]

DRG has admitted when he has been wrong several times.

Didn't he just use the "hijackers are alive" argument in the interview with Kim?

[T.A.M.]

DRG has admitted when he has been wrong several times. I don't see this as a weakness at all. He has corrected himself on the cell phone/airphone issue. Granted I'm not aware of him following up on the "still alive" claims, and if not, I think he should reconsider due to the commonness of those names, and the simple fact that alive hijackers can be interviewed today and have not been, but even still, the overwhelming majority of his research holds up.

Other than this, you have very little on DRG, and unfortunately, you won't read this book on WTC 7. Therefore, you will remain ignorant of NIST's flawed simulations.

Shall we go on Red? So far you are on board with the "hijackers still alive" claim.

I have gone through 2 more above, shall we go through all 115?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Didn't he just use the "hijackers are alive" argument in the interview with Kim?

That was Gage I believe...they are such similar Parrots I often get them confused as well.

TAM:)

[JamesB]

DRG has admitted when he has been wrong several times. I don't see this as a weakness at all. He has corrected himself on the cell phone/airphone issue. Granted I'm not aware of him following up on the "still alive" claims, and if not, I think he should reconsider due to the commonness of those names, and the simple fact that alive hijackers can be interviewed today and have not been, but even still, the overwhelming majority of his research holds up.

Other than this, you have very little on DRG, and unfortunately, you won't read this book on WTC 7. Therefore, you will remain ignorant of NIST's flawed simulations.

He did? The last I heard he still insists there were no airfones and the calls were faked.

[DGM]

DRG has admitted when he has been wrong several times. I don't see this as a weakness at all. He has corrected himself on the cell phone/airphone issue. Granted I'm not aware of him following up on the "still alive" claims, and if not, I think he should reconsider due to the commonness of those names, and the simple fact that alive hijackers can be interviewed today and have not been, but even still, the overwhelming majority of his research holds up.

Other than this, you have very little on DRG, and unfortunately, you won't read this book on WTC 7. Therefore, you will remain ignorant of NIST's flawed simulations.
RedIbis:
Even a blind squirrel get a nut sometime but, DRG has sent out so many "feelers" why do you still think his "research" is so accurate?

[RedIbis]

I said this:

I think he should reconsider due to the commonness of those names, and the simple fact that alive hijackers can be interviewed today and have not been

Then you said this:
So far you are on board with the "hijackers still alive" claim.


TAM:)

Misunderstanding?

[twinstead]

That was Gage I believe...they are such similar Parrots I often get them confused as well.


Oh, yea, you're right. My bad.

[twinstead]

I said this:



Then you said this:


Misunderstanding?

I get my kooks confused sometimes.

[T.A.M.]

#4 Red;


4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

1. The only "publicly released" versions of the manifest that I have seen is the one given to the Boston Herald, which DID have arab names on it. We all know that DRG is referring to the CNN victims list that was shown to only contain the VICTIMS on it, and the terrorists do not qualify as victims. Terry McDermott was provided with print offs from the airlines, and on those print offs were the names of the hijackers.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I said this:



Then you said this:


Misunderstanding?

No, I meant that you are on board with us, that he needs to retract this unproven falsehood.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#5 Red;


5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

We now know that this, if not totally untrue, needs to be modified, to restate,

"prior to 9/11, no steel framed SKYSCRAPER has ever COMPLETELY collapsed SOLELY due to fire."

Beyond that, it is a strawman, because NIST has said it was more than just fire that caused the buildings to collapse.

TAM:)

[DGM]

No, I meant that you are on board with us, that he needs to retract this unproven falsehood.

TAM:)
That sounds like a good topic for his next book. Debunking DRG by DRG, A biography of snake oil salesman.

[TexasJack]

He doesn't really get into motive. The focus is on the flaws of the NIST WTC 7 report.

He doesn't get into motive? Don't you think it is important to have a motive of why a building of no particular significance would be targeted for a CD? Why NIST would deliberately avoid evidence of a CD? Don't you think this is important? If you look at the other targets on that day, the two towers, the pentagon, and either the Capitol or the White House, all of them held a symbolic importance. What was the significance of 7?

[T.A.M.]

#6 Red;


6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

1. They were big, involving multiple floors, over large areas of each.
2. They were hot.
3. They lasted long enough
4. What fires is he referring to. Without being specific, this statement is complete bs.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Here is a doosey...#7 Red,


7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

Do I even have to justify this malarkey with an answer? If so, let me know, or can we just concede this one as stupidity?

TAM:)