David Ray Griffin: "you don’t have to have a theory"

[CHF]

Griffin interviewed by the "Ventura County Reporter:"

Do you have a personal theory of what really happened on Sept. 11?

Originally Posted by DR Griffin

No, and I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this, because insofar as there are antagonisms and disputes within the movement, they're related primarily to those things, where people say, well, here's what hit the Pentagon, and others say that's not true. I put my focus on evidence that the official story is false, and that evidence is so abundant and overwhelming, to make the case you don't have to prove what really happened and who did it and so on. It's like if you had a murder trial, and Jones is accused of murder. The defense attorneys can prove that Jones didn't do it without having a theory about who really did. All you have to do is a good alibi and lack of evidence and so on. Likewise, we can show that there is no evidence that al Quaeda did it, there's no way they could have done it, when you look at the details-for example, bringing the buildings straight down at virtual freefall speed. There is a sketch of a theory, that it was an inside job, that explosives were used in the buildings. But what kind of explosives exactly? When they were they put in there? How many were there? All those things some people want to get into. Or the critics say, you've got to have a theory. No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false.

In other words "the official story is obviously false but if I tried to come up with an alternate theory I'd be laughed off the face of the earth. So I'm gonna JAQ off instead."

[Tbone]

Also in other words: "I don't even take the supposed murder of 3000 people by my own government seriously enough to care about showing what actually happened."

[Brainache]

So DRG is a "No-Claimer"?

[Kenose]

I will humbly and honestly reply here:

Hypothetically, if Griffin were able to show that the official story or primary elements of it were demonstrably false, would that not alone be of immense value, and at the least, warrant the infamous "new investigation" the truth movement has been clamoring for?

I don't understand how someone could respond in the negative here.

I don't understand the line of thinking that says "Unless you know exactly what happened, providing a water-tight explanation of how the official accounts are impossible/false is completely pointless, thus my fingers are now stuck in my ears"

Three notes here:

1. My example was hypothetical! I'm not claiming DRG can prove anything, in fact, I haven't read any of his work and wouldn't know

2. Maybe "I don't understand" is the key phrase here, and some of you will be able to explain why my thinking is flawed.

3. No, I'm not a "truther" - at least not in the conventional sense.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Kenose

I will humbly and honestly reply here:

Hypothetically, if Griffin were able to show that the official story or primary elements of it were demonstrably false, would that not alone be of immense value, and at the least, warrant the infamous "new investigation" the truth movement has been clamoring for?

I don't understand how someone could respond in the negative here.

I don't understand the line of thinking that says "Unless you know exactly what happened, providing a water-tight explanation of how the official accounts are impossible/false is completely pointless, thus my fingers are now stuck in my ears"

Two notes here:

A. My example was hypothetical! I'm not claiming DRG can prove anything, in fact, I haven't read any of his work and wouldn't know

B. Maybe "I don't understand", and some of you will be able to explain why my thinking here is flawed.

C. No, I'm not a "truther" - at least not in the conventional sense.

No one is asking DRG, or any other CTer, to offer a water-tight explanation of what happened, but merely some kind alternative hypothesis that fits all the evidence better than the official version of events.

And it's interesting that you think it's unfair that we require a "water-tight explanation" from CTers, and yet don't seem bothered by the fact that that's exactly what they want from us. Even the slightest perceived discrepancy over the most insignificant detail, and they cry "Inside job!" and throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Kenose

I don't understand the line of thinking that says "Unless you know exactly what happened, providing a water-tight explanation of how the official accounts are impossible/false is completely pointless, thus my fingers are now stuck in my ears"

Well, let me take a crack at this:

The fact is that something happened. On September 11, 2001, the towers came down, the Pentagon got hit and four planes full of people didn't land. Truthers and non-truthers alike have to agree that something took place on that day that somehow led to this result.

The so-called official theory postulates exactly what it was that happened. There may be some unknowns. It may be that some things will never be known and cannot ever be known. But if we abandon it, what in the world should we abandon it for?

Griffin's answer is that we should abandon it for nothing. We should abandon it and then sit around hoping that something else makes itself known to us. Or we should investigate something in the hopes that somehow something starts to look like it fits together.

This seems to me to be inefficient. If a full alternate theory were developed, it could be weighed against the current theory and, compared for relative inconsistencies. We could move from one set of beliefs to another. If something else happened that day, just tell me what it was. I'll be glad to change my beliefs then.

[R.Mackey]

It's a basic principle of science. If you don't have a better hypothesis, then the best you can say about any hypothesis is that it appears unlikely. That's just not good enough.

The Truth Movement tries to poke holes in the "official story" with various facts, and sometimes falsehoods that they believe are facts. But what they don't realize is that these facts also blow holes in any competing theory. They attempt to dodge this by never coming up with a theory of their own.

I'll give you an example. "None of NIST's recovered steel showed temperatures greater than 250^oC, so NIST's fire-weakening story is crap." This fact is true, albeit misleading, since there's a reason why NIST didn't recover any hotter steel... but this "fact" also kills any thermite variant stone dead. Somehow, the Truth Movement fails to note this part, and so the smarter truthers conveniently forget about this fact when they start pitching thermite again.

If you consider all of the facts, you will find that the official story holds up pretty well, though it has some rough spots, of course. But there is no competing explanation. None has ever been offered. You can either deny facts, or you can avoid presenting a theory so that you can deflect facts one by one. Both of these tactics are de rigueur in the Truth Movement. Neither of them is logically sound.

That's why the Truth Movement never got anywhere, and why it never will. The JFK theories were at least vaguely possible -- I guess there maybe could have been some guy hiding on the Grassy Knoll, assuming the ballistics didn't work for Oswald, which of course they do. A Pearl Harbor LIHOP theory has no evidence either, but it's within the realm of imagination. But there simply is no Truth Movement theory. Their own leaders, Dr. Griffin in this case, can't even come up with one, and make the most spectacular excuses for it.

I feel sorry for those duped by such transparent idiocy.

[Btodd]

This is merely a DEFENSE MECHANISM.

Intelligent Design has had to resort to the same approach. Like the Truth Movement, Intelligent Design started out by making claims......we all remember how the 'mousetrap' and bacterial flagellum worked out, as well as Behe's incredulity surrounding the 'walking whale'. After making those claims, they were quickly blown out of the water, leaving him looking like an idiot. So.....no more claims!

When you have no evidence for your position, and not even a logical framework in which it could occur, the only way to proceed is to excuse yourself from any claims, and focus on the other side's position ONLY as if it were a matter of principle. You focus on them, and expect a win by default, although having never evidenced your position.

It's merely a matter of survival. The latest incarnation of the Intelligent Design movement is called Critical Examination of Evolution. It is entirely focused on the other side, to the exclusion of ANY explanation. They learned their lesson.

9/11 Truthers have learned well from ID'ers. DON'T MAKE CLAIMS, and act as if it's in line with the scientific method and honest inquiry.

Baloney.

[CHF]

I love the fact that Griffin avoids presenting a theory but at the same time he's a proud member of a "movement" that likes to chant "911 was an inside job!"

Griffin and his fans do have a theory - that the US government did it - but since they have no evidence to prove this, they suddenly turn into complete cowards whenever someone asks them for their alternative. Then, all of a sudden, "9/11 was an inside job" magically turns into "we don't know what happened - that's why we need a new investigation," or "Hey man, I'm just asking questions."

And twoofers wonder why the scientific world pays no attention to them.

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by CHF

I love the fact that Griffin avoids presenting a theory but at the same time he's a proud member of a "movement" that likes to chant "911 was an inside job!"

Griffin and his fans do have a theory - that the US government did it - but since they have no evidence to prove this, they suddenly turn into complete cowards whenever someone asks them for their alternative. Then, all of a sudden, "9/11 was an inside job" turns into "we don't know what happened - that's why we need a new investigation," or "Hey man, I'm just asking questions."

And twoofers wonder why the scientific world pays no attention to them.

Maybe they should start chanting " 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, maybe, well sort off, well,we don't really know but it all looks kind of dodgy to us and we don't have a theory" followed by " We are just asking questions and need a new investigation."

[rwguinn]

one correction, Ryan:
you said

Quote:

I'll give you an example. "None of NIST's recovered steel showed temperatures greater than 250oC, so NIST's fire-weakening story is crap." This fact is true, albeit misleading, since there's a reason why NIST didn't recover any hotter steel...

The fact is, they DID recover steel that had gotten hotter than 250C, they just could not identify the location it came from exactly, because identification marks had burned off.
so more correctly, you should have said:
I'll give you an example. "None of NIST's recovered steel showed temperatures greater than 250oC, so NIST's fire-weakening story is crap." This fact is half true, and wholy misleading, because although they found evidence of steel heated to high temperatures, they simply couldn't identify the exact location it came from...

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

one correction, Ryan:
you said
The fact is, they DID recover steel that had gotten hotter than 250C, they just could not identify the location it came from exactly, because identification marks had burned off.
so more correctly, you should have said:
I'll give you an example. "None of NIST's recovered steel showed temperatures greater than 250oC, so NIST's fire-weakening story is crap." This fact is half true, and wholy misleading, because although they found evidence of steel heated to high temperatures, they simply couldn't identify the exact location it came from...

Yes, of course -- provided you're careful with your definitions.

At the level of a soundbite, it's all semantics. Few in the Truth Movement ever bother to understand what really happened; most are content to simply echo summaries made by others without understanding the context.

And some people wonder how a retired professor of theology became a leading exponent of what should be an engineering-centric inquiry...

[Hyperviolet]

I think the Stephen Jay Gould quote with regard to Creationists' tactics is quite fitting:

Originally Posted by Stephen Jay Gould

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact -- which they are very good at. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!

[Kenose]

Thank you for the replies guys. I have some thoughts and I'll be back tomorrow to post them. Now it's sleep time : )

[gc051360]

Originally Posted by Griffin

It's like if you had a murder trial, and Jones is accused of murder. The defense attorneys can prove that Jones didn't do it without having a theory about who really did.

Not really. It's just establishing reasonable doubt. Not proving the guy didn't do it. And as far as I can see, the Truth Movement has not established reasonable doubt, at all.

eta:

This kind of troubled me,

Originally Posted by Griffin

Likewise, we can show that there is no evidence that al Quaeda did it, there's no way they could have done it, when you look at the details-for example, bringing the buildings straight down at virtual freefall speed.

No way they could have done it? There's no way Al Quaeda could have hi-jacked planes and flown them into buildings, resulting in their collapses? There's no way??

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by Kenose

Hypothetically, if Griffin were able to show that the official story or primary elements of it were demonstrably false, would that not alone be of immense value, and at the least, warrant the infamous "new investigation" the truth movement has been clamoring for?

That's a big "if". Ignoring the fact that Griffin's attempts so far have come up short - (for an example, see Ryan Mackey's refutation of DRG's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" here) - his refutations would've done little to disprove the narrative, even if they were correct. You see, 9/11 is a complex, multipart event that, like the Holocaust, isn't falsified by single errors or disputes here and there. Take for example his assertions regarding the GTE Airphones: If he were correct, that obviously brings into question the calls, but what else does it bring into question? Does it falsify the ATC radar data? The FDR data? The DNA findings? And above and beyond that, does it bring into question the 9/11 Commision's report? In short, would the issue of GTE Airphones be so fatal that a complete, from-scratch investigation be necessary? Would that issue really bring into question all the other evidence?

Of course, we can't falsify the whole of the truther narrative on one single failure either. However, you can see what's involved: DRG's refutations have to show more than point failures, they must show that the entire narrative - or as you said, at least primary elements of it - is/are incorrect. Continuing with the Airphones: Let's pretend that DRG's identification of that point failure resulted in the discovery that the government really did fake those calls. Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the government simply tried to use creative fiction to magnify the tragedy of the crisis that still occurred, sort of a Kuwaiti-Iraqui-babies-removed-from-incubators redux? Would it, by itself, result in the need for review of the other aspects of the Pentagon events? Because there were many people involved with assembling those parts of the narrative - the Pentagon Building Performance Report, for example, Griffin would need more than the Airphones issue to justify a reexamination of those aspects. You see, disproving the Airphones element of the story only disproves the Airphones element of the story; it's still a long stretch to disprove the other elements of the Pentagon events, or to even bring into question what happened to Flight 77, let alone demonstrate that it didn't hit the Pentagon. To falsify the entirety of just the Flight 77 narrative, the other contributing evidence also needs to be disproved (the ATC radar data, DNA evidence, etc.).

At that point you can tackle his other arguments regarding Flight 77, but I think my point is made: The falsification, rebuttal, disproving, whatever of individual elements doesn't automatically lead to the falsification of separate elements, let alone the overall narrative. So to call for "a new investigation" (in reality, several new investigations; the 9/11 Commision Report, for example, is a distinct and separate investigation from the engineering one NIST conducted for the Twin Towers), there's a large burden of "disproof", so to speak. Individual holes here and there don't do the entire narrative, and in many cases - take as another example DRG's NIST report criticisms - at most could only justify point re-examinations.

You see what I'm getting at?

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

At the level of a soundbite, it's all semantics. Few in the Truth Movement ever bother to understand what really happened; most are content to simply echo summaries made by others without understanding the context.

Ohhhh, Lordy, is that ever true. Hence the confusion between thermite and explosives, let alone the parroting of all the aviation claims.

Course, I do the same when it comes to engineering or aviation aspects of 9/11. But I trust you guys. Mostly. More or less.

Ps. Keep in mind the importance of that trust! If you, N.B., and Architect have been leading Heiwa on, I got a bone to pick.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by CHF

In other words "the official story is obviously false but if I tried to come up with an alternate theory I'd be laughed off the face of the earth. So I'm gonna JAQ off instead."

Jay Windley gave an outstanding explanation of this conspiracist strategy a couple of years ago in a bautforum.com post.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Arguments of the form, "You say X happened, but you don't have evidence to show that Y didn't happen instead," deny the inductive leap. When a jury convicts someone, they acknowledge that it's possible that all the evidence against him could still be true, but that he is nevertheless innocent.

Most conspiracy theories taken the approach of trying to widen the inductive leap required in the prevalent theory. That is, they say, "There are so many anomalies and inconsistencies that you really have to stretch your imagination in order to believe that X happened." Or, as I sometimes call it, the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) approach. The goal is to so erode faith in X that any alternative Y, no matter how ludicrous, starts to look better by comparison. Often Y can explain individual anomalies with much greater facility, but that isn't sufficient as we discover below.

Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution. As long as conspiracy theories simply "call for more research" or assert that "it remains an open question," their proponents will continue to enjoy attention.

As we discover, the alleged "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" almost always turn out to be a failure to meet the ignorant and ill-founded expectations of the conspiracy theorists. And so it's tempting to spend a lot of time arguing whether those expectations are right or wrong. Hog-heaven for the conspiracist. By quibbling over just how wide that inductive leap is, the argument becomes endlessly subjective and fails to acknowledge that the absolute width of the leap is utterly irrelevant.

Whether one's inductive leap is trivial or strenuous is irrelevant if it's still the shortest one. That is, the theory to which we rationally subscribe is always the best theory, regardless of how objectively good it is. If the inductive leap for one theory is long, we can still hold to it if the leap in other theories is still longer.

The only meaningful challenge to one line of induction is another line of induction whose inductive leap is shorter. The question is thus not that X isn't proved sufficiently to remove the inductive leap altogether and thus reject Y categorically. It isn't that X's inductive leap is so long that you're just better off believing Y on general principles. The question -- the only proper question, that is -- is whether the inductive leap associated with Y is greater or lesser than X's leap.

That's why you never get a coherent Y out of conspiracists. That's why they'll have individual scenarios that explain individual anomalies (thermite on the steel, missiles at the Pentagon, etc.) but no coherent full-scale theory. Why? Because by giving you just bits and pieces, or by claiming they don't have or need a Y because they're only "raising issues", they don't give you anything whose inductive leap can be measured against X's. [italics original; bolding mine]

[DC]

Did OJ Simpson prove who used the Glove that was to small for him?

[LastChild]

Griffin is right. Neither he nor anyone else has any obligation to supply a bunch of nitwits with alternative theories so they may pretend to debunk them. They need to support their own unbelievable conspiracy theory. They have a lot of trouble doing this so debunking is just a lame effort to distract from their own inadequate version of events.

[DC]

did Dwayne Allen Dail ever say who the sperm belongs to, the sperm that proved him innocent after 18 years in jail?

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

Did OJ Simpson prove who used the Glove that was to small for him?

And yet OJ was convicted in a civil court on the balance of probabilities. That just shows that criminal jury trials are not perfect and can be biased on occasion.

But thanks for showing how spectacularly irrational you are. And DRG. And the hopeless LostChild.

Because the equivalent to OJ in the 9/11 case, Al Qaeda, admitted responsibility. If you want to play defense lawyer, then your "client" - the accused perpetrator - is shouting his guilt from the rooftops.

So burden of proof - and the responsibility for coming up with an alternate theory that is a necessary part of that burden of proof - is certainly on you.

[Alferd_Packer]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

Did OJ Simpson prove who used the Glove that was to small for him?

OJ never prooved that the glove was too small for him in the first place.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

And yet OJ was convicted in a civil court on the balance of probabilities. That just shows that criminal jury trials are not perfect and can be biased on occasion.

But thanks for showing how spectacularly irrational you are. And DRG. And the hopeless LostChild.

Because the equivalent to OJ in the 9/11 case, Al Qaeda, admitted responsibility. If you want to play defense lawyer, then your "client" - the accused perpetrator - is shouting his guilt from the rooftops.

So burden of proof - and the responsibility for coming up with an alternate theory that is a necessary part of that burden of proof - is certainly on you.

sometimes guilty ppl are "found" innocent like my first exampleshows.
and sometimes innocent ppl are found guilty, like my second example shows.

and when someone admit, that he murdered someone, but there are somethings in that case that dont add up, will it be investigated or is it enough that he admited it?

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

sometimes guilty ppl are "found" innocent like my first exampleshows.
and sometimes innocent ppl are found guilty, like my second example shows.

and when someone admit, that he murdered someone, but there are somethings in that case that dont add up, will it be investigated or is it enough that he admited it?

It was investigated, or are you one of those loons that thinks the 19 hijackers didn't exist?

[DC]

he did not really

[RedIbis]

DRG maintains the least attractive tactic possible. He nails it dead on when he says,

Quote:

When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false.

I have also maintained that debunkers have to be better than just good debators, they have to support the official explanations. This is why in my debate challenges, I've requested that the debunker has to defend official positions. If I can show that they are refuted by competing evidence, the objective has been accomplished.

There is no point in providing a competing theory until the official story has been proven false.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

It was investigated, or are you one of those loons that thinks the 19 hijackers didn't exist?

i am one of those loons that wonder why we dont have more video of all of those 19 hijackers in the airports they used.

i am one of thoose loons that wonders why the hijackers knew how to handle the autopilot and transponder, flying boeings's, flying it in a very low attitude 100 kias above the planes Vmo, but , instead of talking to the passanger, like theyr message implies, they transmit it to the tower.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

DRG maintains the least attractive tactic possible. He nails it dead on when he says,



I have also maintained that debunkers have to be better than just good debators, they have to support the official explanations. This is why in my debate challenges, I've requested that the debunker has to defend official positions. If I can show that they are refuted by competing evidence, the objective has been accomplished.

There is no point in providing a competing theory until the official story has been proven false.

But you also need a sturdy platform from which to demand this proof. Do you have this platform? Where is my logic flawed?

[firecoins]

Originally Posted by Brainache

So DRG is a "No-Claimer"?

lol good pun

I am a No-Brainer. I believe DRG has no brain.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by DGM

But you also need a sturdy platform from which to demand this proof. Do you have this platform? Where is my logic flawed?

The sturdy platform is made up of contradictions, deceptions, shifting timelines, stonewalling, whitewashing and improbabilities.

[ElMondoHummus]

It is wrong for DRG to take up the mantle of defense attorney in the issue of the 9/11 events. For starters, in regards to conspiracy theory the government is the accused, and the conspiracy peddlers are the ones accusing. For DRG to wear the mantle of defense attorney to give his falsification comparison traction, he has to assume that the conspiracy fantasy is the valid, accepted storyline and that the event that everyone else witnessed and what all evidence points at is the deviation from the norm. Which is of course what he assumes, all his protestations to the contrary nonwithstanding.

Second, a supposed "defense" (in reality, an attempt to take up the mantle of "prosecutor") that contradicts itself and that is based on misperceptions, fantastically abnormal twists of logic, factual inaccuracies, or internal contradictions is a lame defense, regardless of how many holes it purports to make in the "prosecution's theory". Thermite and explosives are contradictory theses. Steel never heated beyond X degrees and thermite use are contradictory assertions. Hijackers are still alive and Hanour is a poor pilot are contradictory theses.

Third, a supposed "defense" (again, in reality, an attempt to take up the mantle of "prosecutor") that misrepresents itself - from the misrepresentations of Mary Schiavo's claims on PQ911, to the mischaracterizations of what Dr. Quintierre and Dr. Astaneh-Asl are truly criticizing - is not one attempting to establish truth of their client's innocence (or in the case of 9/11, establish the validity of the conspiracy hypotheses), it's one trying to cloud the consistencies and supporting evidence of the opposition without attempting to build any cohesive narrative or consistent story. Granted, to the best of my knowledge a defense isn't obligated to build a consistent story in a criminal trial, but again, the conspiracy peddlers aren't really the defense, they're attempting to be the prosecution, and besides, issues of scientific and engineering fact aren't criminal cases to begin with.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There is no point in providing a competing theory until the official story has been proven false.

Unless, of course, you and your movement want to ever actually accomplish anything.

But otherwise, I agree completely.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Unless, of course, you and your movement want to ever actually accomplish anything.

But otherwise, I agree completely.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The ongoing exposure of the deficiencies in the official story is an accomplishment of historic proportions.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

The sturdy platform is made up of contradictions, deceptions, shifting timelines, stonewalling, whitewashing and improbabilities.

The problem is none of these are more than accusations. Can you advance these more than this? That would be a platform. Do you understand my reasoning?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by DGM

The problem is none of these are more than accusations. Can you advance these more than this? That would be a platform. Do you understand my reasoning?

I appreciate your line of reasoning, and when the tone is sincere I don't mind expanding on my position.

1) These are not simply accusations. There are many researchers exposing these deficiencies. Believe me or not, but my posting on jref is not the totality of my research or active participation in this enormous field.

2) There are brief, fundamental questions that although satisfactory to you and the so called debunkers on this forum, are not settled. This is the platform.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by CHF

Griffin interviewed by the "Ventura County Reporter:"

Do you have a personal theory of what really happened on Sept. 11?

In other words "the official story is obviously false but if I tried to come up with an alternate theory I'd be laughed off the face of the earth. So I'm gonna JAQ off instead."

However, regarding the details of the attacks, the 9/11 Truth Movement has better theories than the debunkers. How were WTC 1 and 2 destroyed? NIST does not model the collapse because the official explanation would not match the observable data. The hypothesis that WTC 1,2 were progressively blown up top to bottom is a better theory than the government's. How did WTC7 collapse? Controlled demolition. What hypothesis does the government have? Well, they are still working on that 6 years after the event. So when it comes to the destruction of the towers, the Truth Movement has far better explanations than the government.

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

That's a big "if". Ignoring the fact that Griffin's attempts so far have come up short - (for an example, see Ryan Mackey's refutation of DRG's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"

Ryan Mackey hasn't provided anything that could be considered a refutation of David Ray Griffin's chapter on NIST. When a question is asked by a member of the Truth Movement to a debunker they usually respond, "that question has been answered over and over it again." Debunkers respond by saying a question has been answered without ever answering it. Ryan Mackey's paper was labeled as a refutation without having to do anything to prove it. If his paper was true science it could be demonstrated experimentally. Where can I see experimental verification?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

The ongoing exposure of the deficiencies in the official story is an accomplishment of historic proportions.

Interesting. "Historic proportions" is a highly subject phrase, of course. Difficult to define with precision. However, I hope you can agree that one characteristic that an accomplishment must have to be reasonably considered to be of "historic proportions" is that it must have a significant effect on subsequent events.

So can you back up your opinion by answering this question: if the truth movement had never existed, what would be different today?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Ryan Mackey's paper was labeled as a refutation without having to do anything to prove it. If his paper was true science it could be demonstrated experimentally. Where can I see experimental verification?

As soon as ANY paper that claims to show the NIST conclusion is impossible is properly peer reviewed you may have some moral justification for saying that. Until then, it's the pot calling the kettle black, and you know it.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I appreciate your line of reasoning, and when the tone is sincere I don't mind expanding on my position.

1) These are not simply accusations. There are many researchers exposing these deficiencies. Believe me or not, but my posting on jref is not the totality of my research or active participation in this enormous field.

2) There are brief, fundamental questions that although satisfactory to you and the so called debunkers on this forum, are not settled. This is the platform.

I too understand what your saying.
Now to date I have not see any of these said arguments that have shown more than political posturing or in fighting. Do you see my point?
Have you ever seen any arguments from official sources that were more than the "normal" political BS?

*I know that you have some understanding of politics and know that any one of them would turn coat on another to satisfy a personally want*