WTC#7 - Black is White (George Orwell)

[Horatius]

Doesn't faze me none! I chase dogs for fun!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490461af3d4a617d.jpg

[Unfit4Command]

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/avatar74675_8.jpg

[GodSend]

U4C:

Blah, blah, blah.........

My original post, subsequently refined for the 'hard of hearing', explicitly states that something OBVIOUS requires no 'proof', 'evidence' or 'additional information'. The endless and tiresome repetition of this ridiculous request (which insults the intelligence and Common Sense of all Americans who can SEE for themselves what happened to WTC#7), simply is the proof and evidence that you are collectively engaged in the Orwellian ruse of calling Black, White. We all KNOW that Black is Black - we don't need any 'proof' :eek:

Before long, 97% of Americans will DEMAND to be told who set the explosives in WTC#7 (as well as WTC#1 and WTC#2!) To put it in the vernacular, "All Hell is going to break loose", or, in shorthand: TSWHTF :eek: Just ask Rosie or all those 'Patriots for 911 Truth' :)

[Unfit4Command]

U4C:

Blah, blah, blah.........

My original post, subsequently refined for the 'hard of hearing', explicitly states that something OBVIOUS requires no 'proof', 'evidence' or 'additional information'. The endless and tiresome repetition of this ridiculous request (which insults the intelligence and Common Sense of all Americans who can SEE for themselves what happened to WTC#7), simply is the proof and evidence that you are collectively engaged in the Orwellian ruse of calling Black, White. We all KNOW that Black is Black - we don't need any 'proof' :eek:

Before long, 97% of Americans will DEMAND who set the explosives in WTC#7 (as well as WTC#1 and WTC#2!) To put it in the vernacular, "All Hell is going to break loose", or, in shorthand: TSWHTF :eek:

What will the other 3% of Americans be doing?

[GodSend]

I think that A&W rootbeer's photo should win a prize :)

[The Doc]

GodSend,

Stop sending people to your crappy website. All it does is crash peoples browsers. Post your evidence here, I don't care if it is cut and paste.

[kookbreaker]

I've posted this one before, but I like it:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/Catfish.jpg

[Beleth]

U4C:

Blah, blah, blah.........

My original post, subsequently refined for the 'hard of hearing', explicitly states that something OBVIOUS requires no 'proof', 'evidence' or 'additional information'.
Spoken like a true charlatan.

What you claim is obvious fails to stand up to the slightest cross-examination. What's more, it is based on a logical fallacy, as I have already pointed out.

[GodSend]

Beleth:

Failure to acknowledge the OBVIOUS will not protect anyone from being smashed by it ;) You can run, but you can't hide :eek: Neither can all the Zionist criminals who are responsible for murdering 3000 innocent people and intentionally bringing down the WTC and sending a drone/missile into the Pentagon!

Truth is approaching and Judgment will be right on its heels! :eek:

[The Doc]

What is "obvious" to the ignorant, is complex to the intelligent.

You are not the latter GodSend.

[GodSend]

Hey, Doc!:

Take 2 sleeping pills (or more) and call me in the morning! :eek: Maybe you'll wake up intelligent - miracles can happen ;)

[The Doc]

Hey, Doc!:

Take 2 sleeping pills (or more) and call me in the morning! :eek: Maybe you'll wake up intelligent - miracles can happen ;)

Again, you ignorantly assume you know me.

I have yet to see you say one intelligent thing. You have provided no evidence to back your claims up other than "it's obvious". How is that intelligent?

No one heard Einstein say "And I conclude that e=mc squared... it's just freaking obvious, ok!".

BACK YOUR CLAIMS UP. IF IT IS OBVIOUS, TELL US WHY - SHOW US SOME WORKING.

You claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. What makes this obvious?

Quit your trolling. Put up, or shut up.

[westprog]

U4C:

Blah, blah, blah.........

My original post, subsequently refined for the 'hard of hearing', explicitly states that something OBVIOUS requires no 'proof', 'evidence' or 'additional information'. The endless and tiresome repetition of this ridiculous request (which insults the intelligence and Common Sense of all Americans who can SEE for themselves what happened to WTC#7), simply is the proof and evidence that you are collectively engaged in the Orwellian ruse of calling Black, White. We all KNOW that Black is Black - we don't need any 'proof' :eek:

Before long, 97% of Americans will DEMAND to be told who set the explosives in WTC#7 (as well as WTC#1 and WTC#2!) To put it in the vernacular, "All Hell is going to break loose", or, in shorthand: TSWHTF :eek: Just ask Rosie or all those 'Patriots for 911 Truth' :)

Just checking, Godsend - clearly the collapse of WTC7 is so OBVIOUS that there is no need to prove it. How about the collapse of WTC1 & 2. Is that OBVIOUS as well? Or do we need to do some rooting around for EVIDENCE? A plan of action is required here.

I'm starting to think that Godsend might be just messing with our heads - but my experience on LCF shows that there is no limit to the absurdity of the claims that can be made or taken seriously.

[The Doc]

A world run by GodSend.

"It was OBVIOUS!... the prosecution rests."

[Belz...]

Spoken like a true charlatan.

Failure to acknowledge the OBVIOUS will not protect anyone from being smashed by it ;) You can run, but you can't hide :eek: Neither can all the Zionist criminals who are responsible for murdering 3000 innocent people and intentionally bringing down the WTC and sending a drone/missile into the Pentagon!

Truth is approaching and Judgment will be right on its heels! :eek:

Spoken like a true charlatan, again.


It's interesting how people in general always interpret their own way of thinking as "intelligent", no matter how smart they really are. Anybody can say "I can't dance to save my life", or "I can't draw" or "Mathematics make my brain explode", but when it comes to intelligence, almost everyone has a problem with admitting that they may not be as smart as they thought they were; or not at all.

Godsend's "Hey, I blindly believe in this, and the fact that you don't makes you stupid" is a prime example.

[uk_dave]

Godsend's been suspended...

...Poland is safe once more.

[defaultdotxbe]

Godsend's been suspended...

...Poland is safe once more.
too late for czechoslovakia though :(

[aggle-rithm]

P1: A controlled demolition looks like this.
P2: WTC7 looks like this.
C: WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

This commits the same logical fallacy (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm) as the following:

P1: Cats have four legs.
P2: This table has four legs.
C: This table is a cat.

My mother-in-law has a table with five legs.

Therefore, it follows logically that some cats have more than four legs.

[uk_dave]

My mother-in-law has a table with five legs.

Therefore, it follows logically that some cats have more than four legs.

Or any woman owning a fived legged table is your mother-in-law.

Just don't tell your wife ;)

[pomeroo]

Beleth:

Failure to acknowledge the OBVIOUS will not protect anyone from being smashed by it ;) You can run, but you can't hide :eek: Neither can all the Zionist criminals who are responsible for murdering 3000 innocent people and intentionally bringing down the WTC and sending a drone/missile into the Pentagon!

Truth is approaching and Judgment will be right on its heels! :eek:



Wow, you're dumb! And crazy!

[chipmunk stew]

Wow, you're dumb! And crazy!
And banned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506698#post2506698):

Godsend has been banned following two abusive PMs sent during his /her suspension.

Not that I'm surprised. I just wish he could SEE his own racist hatred and admit it for what it is.

[Mashuna]

Godsend's been suspended...

...Poland is safe once more.

The suspension didn't last long, now it's a ban.

Suicide by mod, via abusive PMs.

[JonnyFive]

The suspension didn't last long, now it's a ban.

Suicide by mod, via abusive PMs.

Man, he moves fast, doesn't he?

[Regnad Kcin]

Gone? And by abusive PMs to boot? How very godly and Christian.

Too bad. If ever there was a shining example of the ignorance of agenda-driven CTers...

[The Doc]

I'm not performing an ad hominem here guys, and I am not trying to be insulting. But it is my opinion that GodSend may have had a drug problem.

[JimBenArm]

Well, it's not surprising. Every one of these nuts eventually get themselves banned, because they just have no ability to control their impulses, and think they can say/do what they want with impunity. Never fails!

[Belz...]

I'm not performing an ad hominem here guys, and I am not trying to be insulting. But it is my opinion that GodSend may have had a drug problem.

Based on what ? Lots of sober nutters, around.

[The Doc]

Based on what ? Lots of sober nutters, around.

I've known enough people with drug problems to pick one out when I see one. Trust me. GodSend just reminded me of people I have known along the years with certain habits. The way he conveyed his thoughts, his lack of understanding, and his irrationality was all too familiar. I have never had a drug problem myself though. Then again, you are right that there are a lot delusional people who are just naturally delusional.

But seriously though, I obviously can't back that up with any evidence because I don't know him. Just an educated guess.

If someone had me on the record and asked me if I thought he had a drug problem, I would say I don't know. But off the record, my personal opinion is that he does.

So in summary, that statement was just an opinion, and I certainly wouldn't make any formal accusations against him.

[De_Bunk]

...and I certainly wouldn't make any formal accusations against him.

I would...

DB

[TellyKNeasuss]

U4C:

Blah, blah, blah.........

My original post, subsequently refined for the 'hard of hearing', explicitly states that something OBVIOUS requires no 'proof', 'evidence' or 'additional information'. The endless and tiresome repetition of this ridiculous request (which insults the intelligence and Common Sense of all Americans who can SEE for themselves what happened to WTC#7), simply is the proof and evidence that you are collectively engaged in the Orwellian ruse of calling Black, White. We all KNOW that Black is Black - we don't need any 'proof' :eek:

In other words, you're not going to post any proof because you don't have any. Believe it or not, everybody who reads your posts is not an idiot (though they might feel like it for having wasted time).

Before long, 97% of Americans will DEMAND to be told who set the explosives in WTC#7 (as well as WTC#1 and WTC#2!)But we already know. It was Larry Silverstein and the New York Fire Dept.

[aggle-rithm]

But we already know. It was Larry Silverstein and the New York Fire Dept.

That was a critical part of the plan. For, you see, had Silverstein not paid the fire department to secretly blow up his own heavily damaged building, Bush would never have gotten away with his nefarious plot to invade Iraq and fail to find weapons of mass destruction.

The evil genius of these people!!!

[oddball]

Post your evidence here, I don't care if it is cut and paste.

It's not "my" evidence, but I wonder if any of y'all have read Debunking 9/11 Debunking (http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7413166-1253449?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179013931&sr=1-1)... I heard of it the other day, and based on Amazon.com reviews - one of which I will insert in part here (with typos from the original corrected) - am thinking it might be worth a read.
___________

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-5-0._V47081849_.gif Griffin does it again, March 30, 2007
Reviewer:Alexander E. Paulsen "AlexP" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3TLY1A7NGVCQM/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-7413166-1253449) (Jacksonville, Fl United States) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3TLY1A7NGVCQM/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-7413166-1253449?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview)
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/reputation/c7y_badge_tr_6._V47081619_.gif (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=cm_rn_bdg_help/103-7413166-1253449?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279681&pop-up=1#TR) http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/reputation/c7y_badge_rn_1._V47060296_.gif (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=cm_rn_bdg_help/103-7413166-1253449?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279681&pop-up=1#RN)
In his latest work Griffin dissects the so-called 9/11 debunkers. Those who claim that the Kean Commission was the "fullest possible accounting into the events of September 11th" basically have their hindquarters handed to them - gift-wrapped.

I have read the Popular Mechanics book and found that in my opinion it debunks itself. It is loaded with false assertions and contradictions. It creates its own straw man arguments and from its foreword admits that it accepts the official story even before it looks at any evidence. All roads lead to the Kean Commission report and the very basis of the PM book is that the Kean Commission answered all the questions and all that remained is to match the facts with the official story any way they could. This is admitted right from the first page.

The PM book reads more like a parody than a serious analysis. A parody DRG seems to have fun blowing to pieces.

It is obvious to the casual observer that many of the most vocal supporters of the Kean Commission and the PM book have not actually read either. DRG points out many issues that I (and probably most folk) missed even after several careful readings of both.

Well, DRG read them and exposes each and every contradiction, impossibility and all the lies. Further, they're exposed so thoroughly and completely that there are no counter arguments left. Griffin misses nothing; there are no weaknesses or chinks in the case. This is the work of a true scholar.

This is a powerful book and one that is very dangerous to the adherents of the official story of 9/11. I predict that this book will gather several single-star reviews by folks who have not even seen it much less read it, that is to be expected I suppose. It is also typical of those who worship the official story; none wish to be confronted with the facts. Facts for which they have no counter argument.

This book is easy to read despite being information dense and meticulously referenced is a true scholarly work. Gripping in fact, and liberally sprinkled with DRG's wry wit.

Reading a well-researched book like this written by a genuine scholar is a real treat and a contrast to the usual nonsense that tends to get published today. When you read a book written at this level it is an eye-opening experience. After this go read one of the sophomoric "debunkers" that this book addresses for a good laugh.

It is not essential to read any of Griffin's other works on this subject, but I highly recommend that every interested or curious party read "A New Pearl Harbor" and "Omissions and Distortions". This work does stand on its own but mainly deals with destroying the self-proclaimed debunkers' attempts to prop up the official story.

Griffin misses little and even if you have read the "debunkers" and laughed as I have, Griffin makes points and observations that many have missed even after careful study. That is what real scholars do. That is the difference between a scholar and an amateur shill like James Meigs of Popular Mechanics.

If this book is responded to at all by the corporate media outlets, do not expect it to be challenged on the material within. Expect shrill ad-hominem attacks, expect them to call DRG a traitor or that he insults the victims or the troops. Expect everything BUT facts.

I actually don't expect any major media outlets to review this book, even an attempt to debunk it will be way too dangerous. I expect this book to greeted mostly with silence. I also notice that the Hannitys and O'Reillys will never invite Griffin on their shows. They know DRG is way out of their league and has the truth and facts on his side. He would destroy them and they know it. Plus, he would destroy them with a smile while the other side sputters and spits.

Any honest person interested in the future of our republic must read this book. If you are honest and believe the official story then read it, if you think that it cannot possibly be true, then refute it, but refute it on the facts presented if you can.
__________________

Would be interested in any reviews of this book from forum members who have read it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Once it shows up at my library, or I find it at a garage sale, I'll read it. I'm not going to contribute to that lunatics revenue stream.

[boloboffin]

I have read the Popular Mechanics book and found that in my opinion it debunks itself.

Nonetheless, Griffin thought he could make a buck or two debunking something that "debunks himself."

Has this book been released yet? Maybe it's at Half Price Books...

[gumboot]

Given Dr Griffin's dismal and utter failure to "debunk" the 9/11 Commission Report, I haven't much faith in his ability to debunk "the debunkers".

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Griffin, total hearsay, no facts, no evidence. Almost pure lies.

[oddball]

Has this book been released yet? Maybe it's at Half Price Books...

I think it came out about a month ago. It's selling well at Amazon.com - at #636 now.

[oddball]

Griffin, total hearsay, no facts, no evidence. Almost pure lies.

If it's that full of lies, I guess refuting it would take a whole book too. I was hoping someone here had already read it and could give an honest review.

[gumboot]

If it's that full of lies, I guess refuting it would take a whole book too. I was hoping someone here had already read it and could give an honest review.


I'm in the process of looking at DRG's 115 key points in his other book Omissions and Distortions at the moment. DRG is an ignorant moron. Frankly he deserves a slap in the face.

He's one of the least well-informed conspiracy theorists I have come across, and that's quite an achievement, as ignorance is par for the course when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Currently I'm trying to address the dilemma of addressing his Omissions and Distortions claims without actually paying for the book.

-Gumboot

[oddball]

I'm trying to address the dilemma of addressing his Omissions and Distortions claims without actually paying for the book.

Right now there's a used copy in VG condition from a 3rd-party seller at Amazon, only $7.50: LINK (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1566565847/ref=dp_olp_2/103-7413166-1253449?ie=UTF8&qid=1179024175&sr=1-4)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If it's that full of lies, I guess refuting it would take a whole book too. I was hoping someone here had already read it and could give an honest review.
It's the same problem as can be observed in the Hovind v Shermer debate. Hovind can slickly toss out a dozen smooth sounding factoids in his X minutes; each of which would take Shermer X+Y minutes to debunk per factoid.

[beachnut]

If it's that full of lies, I guess refuting it would take a whole book too. I was hoping someone here had already read it and could give an honest review.
You can read the review of his book and notice there are zero facts to support the ideas Griffin tries to make you come up with.

It was easy to see from his own books that he has no facts or evidence, just hearsay. I am not the best at expressing myself, but it was way too easy for me to see his books are hearsay. What do you think?

If you know anyone who thinks he presents facts or evidence, I would love to see how they are fooled and what specifically has fooled them.

By full of lies I mean he is presenting misleading information. Yes he is selling books, but it does not mean his misleading information is anything better than just lies. I am sorry for calling his book full of lies, but to me it meets or exceeds the definition of lies and can be call lies. I find it low of him to present his material since there are no facts or evidence to support him. The only grand research Griffin has done is to present what other people say on 9/11. If someone is unable to figure this out after I have figured it out, they are not very smart.

Take for example the "hani hanour can not fly lie". To tell you the truth anyone off the street could of flown the 757/767 into the Pentagon and do as good or better than Hani. Hani even had an FAA lenience, and the fact that they would not rent a plane to Hani is that they think he was having problems communicating and landing. I bet you could go get a lesson right now and crash the plane very close to the center of the runway with out much help. So we have Griffin telling misleading information, i.e., a lie. The entire book is like this. Total hearsay, and the information presented amount to lies. (I spent 28 years in the AirForce, KC-135 instructor and I have flown for 33 years as a pilot, and hold an Airline Transport Pilots Certificate from the FAA.) If you do not believe me go ask a lot of pilots to get a better feel for what I said. But it is a fact Hani had a Commercial Pilots License. What does Griffin say?

I am open for why his book is not full of lies. Got any good points?

[beachnut]

Right now there's a used copy in VG condition from a 3rd-party seller at Amazon, only $7.50: LINK (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1566565847/ref=dp_olp_2/103-7413166-1253449?ie=UTF8&qid=1179024175&sr=1-4)They should pay you for having to read the junk.

[oddball]

You can read the review of his book and notice there are zero facts to support the ideas Griffin tries to make you come up with.

It was easy to see from his own books that he has no facts or evidence, just hearsay. I am not the best at expressing myself, but it was way too easy for me to see his books are hearsay. What do you think?

If you know anyone who thinks he presents facts or evidence, I would love to see how they are fooled and what specifically has fooled them.

By full of lies I mean he is presenting misleading information. Yes he is selling books, but it does not mean his misleading information is anything better than just lies. I am sorry for calling his book full of lies, but to me it meets or exceeds the definition of lies and can be call lies. I find it low of him to present his material since there are no facts or evidence to support him. The only grand research Griffin has done is to present what other people say on 9/11. If someone is unable to figure this out after I have figured it out, they are not very smart.

Take for example the "hani hanour can not fly lie". To tell you the truth anyone off the street could of flown the 757/767 into the Pentagon and do as good or better than Hani. Hani even had an FAA lenience, and the fact that they would not rent a plane to Hani is that they think he was having problems communicating and landing. I bet you could go get a lesson right now and crash the plane very close to the center of the runway with out much help. So we have Griffin telling misleading information, i.e., a lie. The entire book is like this. Total hearsay, and the information presented amount to lies. (I spent 28 years in the AirForce, KC-135 instructor and I have flown for 33 years as a pilot, and hold an Airline Transport Pilots Certificate from the FAA.) If you do not believe me go ask a lot of pilots to get a better feel for what I said. But it is a fact Hani had a Commercial Pilots License. What does Griffin say?

I am open for why his book is not full of lies. Got any good points?

I haven't read the book (or any of his other books). That's why I was asking for a JREF member review. There are other reviews on Amazon that do cite facts from the book - the one I quoted from was the first one on the page, but I found it interesting enough to read the other 11 (all but one of which rates it at 5 stars) as well as the editorial reviews.

At this point I am inclined to want to read the book itself, if only to find out why DRG is getting a bad rap here.

As to HH's skills (or lack thereof), I've heard differing opinions from other professional pilots.

Interesting that you say DRG only presents anecdotal evidence, because according to at least one of the Amazon reviewers, that is what DRG says about the PM book.

[gumboot]

As to HH's skills (or lack thereof), I've heard differing opinions from other professional pilots.


I've never really heard a logical case for why Hani Hanjour couldn't do what he did. Flying is easy. Landing and taking off is the hard bit, and even then, it's not like landing on a carrier or something.

Even the instructor that refused to rent him a Cessna believes he could easily have hit the Pentagon.

As for DRG, I flicked through the reviews on Amazon but didn't see any that actually gave any specific examples from the book unfortunately. Sounds like you've found some reviews that do cite specific examples. I'd be curious to hear what they are, just to get an idea of what he is saying in the book.

I'd buy a copy myself, but I'm totally opposed to giving any money to him.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

I haven't read the book (or any of his other books). That's why I was asking for a JREF member review. There are other reviews on Amazon that do cite facts from the book - the one I quoted from was the first one on the page, but I found it interesting enough to read the other 11 (all but one of which rates it at 5 stars) as well as the editorial reviews.

At this point I am inclined to want to read the book itself, if only to find out why DRG is getting a bad rap here.

As to HH's skills (or lack thereof), I've heard differing opinions from other professional pilots.

Interesting that you say DRG only presents anecdotal evidence, because according to at least one of the Amazon reviewers, that is what DRG says about the PM book.
Griffin should know the scientist that helped put out the PM book are qualified to debunk the lies from the 9/11 truth movement. Griffin whole selling point is to people who rate him with 5 stars. The people who rate him with 5 stars must be unable to research and find facts and ignore the hearsay Griffin is feeding them.

I know Griffin has no facts to support the ideas he is pushing on 9/11. If Griffin wants to tell lies about PM, it proves my point about him. I have to ask to name one point PM got wrong on 9/11.

Griffin is making money on people who can not find facts on 9/11 and mistake his hearsay junk as some thing of substance.

Give me your list of pilots who say that HH could no fly the jet into the Pentagon.

I have discussed it with current Pilots for United who fly the 757/767 and many Air Force pilots. We all agree the flying done on 9/11 could be done without training, off the street.

I bet your pilots are all from PFT. I think you missed the point, I can not find one pilot who agrees with Griffin. I worked with pilots on 9/11, I was on active duty on 9/11. Not one single pilot I worked with in the Air Force or the Air Force Reserves who also Fly for the Airliners agrees with Griffin, and was before Griffin wrote his book. Do you understand the flying was easy and the pilots I have talked with since 9/11 personally know the terrorist could easily fly the planes as done on 9/11. My list of pilots is many more than PFT.

Seems the pilots you have talked to are not very good if they believe the garbage of 9/11 truth. I would not fly with them if they believe in lies and fiction from 9/11 truth. They may not be stable.

Plus the HH stuff does not mean anything. Griffin is making up a false statement and he is wrong since HH hit the Pentagon. Funny how all of 9/11 proves Griffin wrong years before Griffin discovered how to make money from lies about 9/11. Ironic. But there are suckers born every second and some of them buy books from liars like Griffin. Who would think it? Do you want to buy a vacuum cleaner? How bout some land in Florida?

[oddball]

You obviously want to be believed, and at the same time you are supplying the kind of anecdotal evidence that you say is insufficient... I guess I will have to read the book and judge it for myself. I heard Griffin speak once and saw no reason to think he has some profiteering agenda. He is a prolific writer and could just as easily have spent his time writing on other matters. I found his stated reasons for being concerned about 9/11 more than credible, even though he finds it necessary to "invoke the deity", his sincerity was absolute.

[oddball]

I'd buy a copy myself, but I'm totally opposed to giving any money to him.

So get a used copy. He won't profit from that.

[beachnut]

You obviously want to be believed, and at the same time you are supplying the kind of anecdotal evidence that you say is insufficient... I guess I will have to read the book and judge it for myself. I heard Griffin speak once and saw no reason to think he has some profiteering agenda. He is a prolific writer and could just as easily have spent his time writing on other matters. I found his stated reasons for being concerned about 9/11 more than credible, even though he finds it necessary to "invoke the deity", his sincerity was absolute.
Griffin tries to say Hani could not do it. Hani did do it and anyone could do it. Griffin is telling lies. Which part of mine is hearsay?

From all the facts I can get Hani flew 77 into the Pentagon. Griffin brings up Hani was not good enough to fly it. He uses statements from someone who says he could do it, to imply Hani could not do it. These are facts that Griffin is twisting statements to say something that you can anecdotal, yet Griffin is allowed to state it as a fact and sell books and you say he is great or something.

You say you have pilots that say Hani could not fly the plane. Who are they. I have said I have pilots in the air force who say he could. I say go fly and find out for yourself in you can do it. Griffin never said it, Griffin never presents facts to prove Hani could not fly. The FAA granted Hani a Commercial Pilots Certificate which means Hani was qualified to fly. Griffin is the one telling lies by leaving out information which prove his statement Hani could not fly as total hearsay and misinformation. Why?

Hani's instructor who said he was not allowed to rent, said he could do the task.

Hani had a Commercial Pilots License

Anyone who wants to try could fly a plane and hit an object can, have you tried?

Not one single pilot I have personally met has said Hani could not fly and hit the Pentagon. This is from back in 2001.

Griffin and you are the only ones who find 100 percent of your pilots you talk to that agree with you about Hani, you have not asked airline pilots at random, you must of fallen into a pack of PFT, the 20 or 30 pilots who are truthers for some unknown reason and they also like to tell lies for some unknown reason.

Now you must at least add me, I am a pilot and an engineer, I say Hani or even you would have no problem flying a jet and hitting a building. This is not hearsay, I have put non pilots in the seat of a plane as big as a 757/767 and they were able to hit the runway, but yes I had to take the plane and go around before we actually crashed in the middle of the runway.

Why is this not the same. Because saying Hani can not fly 77 into the Pentagon is false. It is a lie therefore to say Hani can not. Do you understand. I am saying Hani could, which is true. Griffin implies he can't.

You are trying to take my evident and say it is the same as Griffin's. Griffin is saying Hani could not, I am saying he could. I am correct because the reasoning Griffin uses is false.

This would be saying you could not drive your car into a building. If Griffin said you could not drive your car into a building because your instructor said you were not checked out to drive by yourself because you could not communicate with other and stop at stop signs. I can say correctly you could get in a car and drive it into a building because the reasons Griffin stated are not related to the task. Griffin is a liar, and he does it so well people are fooled to think he is using logic and reason. He is just telling lies, and using faulty logic and not telling the whole story.

I do not care if you think my proof is hearsay, it make logical sense to prove Hani could fly 77 into the Pentagon. There is no reason he could not unless you have some facts.

Do you have any facts to prove Hani could not fly 77 into the Pentagon? Can you give me one fact Griffin has to prove Hani could not fly 77 into the Pentagon? Thus Griffin is telling lies by trying to say Hani could not fly 77 into the Pentagon because he has left out testimony and facts.

[oddball]

beachnut, most of your post I can't answer because I haven't read any of Griffin's books. As to my statement about you using anecdotal evidence, you wrote things like "other pilots that I know said such and so". Just one example.

As to the pilots I spoke with, I don't think any of them are involved in the so-called "truth movement", and Hani's ability or inability to fly into a building was not the main issue that was discussed, they made several other points about the flight that point to different conclusions than the Official story states. I am more interested in seeing what Griffin has written about those points (if anything).

[chipmunk stew]

At this point I am inclined to want to read the book itself, if only to find out why DRG is getting a bad rap here.
There's enough of his writing available elsewhere to understand why he's getting a bad rap here.

I don't believe for a minute that you're actually interested in a debunking of Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

[oddball]

There's enough of his writing available elsewhere to understand why he's getting a bad rap here.

I don't believe for a minute that you're actually interested in a debunking of Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

A review of the actual book would have filled the bill. But you're absolutely right, that's a lie, you shouldn't believe it. I'm a pathological liar. That's gotta be why I'll consider reading a book filled with lies.

[beachnut]

beachnut, most of your post I can't answer because I haven't read any of Griffin's books. As to my statement about you using anecdotal evidence, you wrote things like "other pilots that I know said such and so". Just one example.

As to the pilots I spoke with, I don't think any of them are involved in the so-called "truth movement", and Hani's ability or inability to fly into a building was not the main issue that was discussed, they made several other points about the flight that point to different conclusions than the Official story states. I am more interested in seeing what Griffin has written about those points (if anything).When you get time please share one point backed with facts and evidence that point to a different conclusion than what happen on 9/11, which you call an "official" story.

You can find all the points Griffin covers on the web and save money.

If you think a commercial pilot, as Hani was, can not fly a plane into a building, just go get one lesson. But to say Hani can not do it is a faulty logic argument and wrong. Go fly and see how easy it is. That is the crashing part.

I think if Griffin's Hani stuff is indicative of all his stuff. You can find more of Griffin on the web. YouTube, etc, et al, ! Seriously, even if you want to be a truther, save your money and put it together on the web. The one real truth about 9/11 truth is, you can find it all for free.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Griffin+9%2F11&search=Search

74 hits for Griffin videos, this will be more than enough to understand his books and his views. Good luck. But have at it, listen to Griffin. Too bad he has to make up stuff and pass it on about 9/11. But he is making money off of people who can not Google.

Ironic, you can found out about 9/11 truth on the internet but it is hard to find the truth about 9/11 on the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Griffin+9%2F11&search=Search

You paid how much for your computer, just read and watch Griffin and save your 10 bucks.

http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&q=griffin+9%2F11+ray+david

666,000 hits, I knew griffin was the anti-christ, now google confirms it! Personalized Results 1 - 20 of about 666,000 for griffin (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=dict&ei=Ud5HRsOqDovehAO-2uXBCw&sig2=Nr7m9kZLHMWbnlbg6jXwaw&q=http://www.answers.com/griffin%26r%3D67&usg=AFrqEzeGTDhL6aeeyLurwdsFpweCOFELNQ) 9/11 ray (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=dict&ei=Ud5HRsOqDovehAO-2uXBCw&sig2=bYo-1JEslcm7k6v4pL0gBQ&q=http://www.answers.com/ray%26r%3D67&usg=AFrqEzc-A_rK9JLJE9Wu6fVDxVCOOylkCA) david (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=dict&ei=Ud5HRsOqDovehAO-2uXBCw&sig2=_-Gqb-Ewd4OSG06GD4Dsuw&q=http://www.answers.com/david%26r%3D67&usg=AFrqEzfP4zGsMfdhgjlDZrMq6I7L4B0uzA). (0.34 seconds
How long will it take to check out 666,000 hits? end of times?

[oddball]

How long will it take to check out 666,000 hits? end of times?

:boggled: Much longer than reading the book, for sure!

[beachnut]

:boggled: Much longer than reading the book, for sure!That is a lot of stuff. Just the video will keep you busy for some time.

[chipmunk stew]

A review of the actual book would have filled the bill. But you're absolutely right, that's a lie, you shouldn't believe it. I'm a pathological liar. That's gotta be why I'll consider reading a book filled with lies.
Let's take a quick example of DRG's writing to illustrate why there's not much interest in reading his book.

This is an excerpt of DRG's response (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17256.htm) to what many Truthers call a "hit piece (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17223.htm)" by George Monbiot:

One of the reasons these people reject the government’s conspiracy theory is that, if they were to accept the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they would need to affirm magical beliefs. A few examples:

The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic.

Do you need me to explain why these statements (particularly the parts I bolded) are demonstrably, painfully, wrong? Or is this quote sufficient as it stands to illustrate why we are so reluctant to wade through 392 pages of DRG's "debunking"?

An example from the book (or so I've read) is DRG's regurgitated (and false) ad hominem that a senior editor of the Popular Mechanics article, Benjamin Chertoff, is a cousin of Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff. The only evidence to back up this claim is a second-hand account (by Christopher Bollyn, an internet article-writer with a monstrously poor record of factual accuracy) of a response given by B. Chertoff's mother to Bollyn's inquiry about whether there was any relationship. It's clear that she was uncertain. And it's clear that if there is any relationship, it's distant, and they've never met or considered each other family. For DRG to continue to make this false claim, in writing, as the purported "fact-checker" for Dylan Avery's pending release of his Final(?) Cut, and to make the claim as part of a supposed DEBUNKING OF FACTS, is utterly disgraceful.

[oddball]

Have you contacted DRG to tell him why you think he is wrong? If so, what was his response?

[gumboot]

Have you contacted DRG to tell him why you think he is wrong? If so, what was his response?

I'm currently responding to his 115 claims of intentional deceit in the 9/11 Commission Report, and intend to send him a PDF when it is finished.

-Gumboot

[boloboffin]

I'm currently responding to his 115 claims of intentional deceit in the 9/11 Commission Report, and intend to send him a PDF when it is finished.

-Gumboot

Rock.

[chipmunk stew]

Have you contacted DRG to tell him why you think he is wrong? If so, what was his response?
No, I haven't. I know he is wrong. Would you like an explanation of why he is wrong?

Hint: He may be a fine theologian, but he is grossly incompetent in the realm of physics.