New DRG Article: "I myself believe that none of the reported calls occurred" - Page 2

Drudgewire · 10th September 2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

According to his theory, there really were hijackers on the planes, but they were not Arab Muslims, or even Muslims of any sort. He also holds that relatives of victims did not actually report receiving cell phones calls. Instead, this claim was invented by the corporate media to trick the foreseen 9/11 truth movement into denying that the calls occurred, because the calls had revealed real truths that the government did not want to be known.

*head asplodes*

A-Train · 10th September 2008, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

My favorite part of that DRG essay is when he describes the CT of the guy who he's "debating":

Quote:

"According to his theory, there really were hijackers on the planes, but they were not Arab Muslims, or even Muslims of any sort. He also holds that relatives of victims did not actually report receiving cell phones calls. Instead, this claim was invented by the corporate media to trick the foreseen 9/11 truth movement into denying that the calls occurred, because the calls had revealed real truths that the government did not want to be known."

Anybody with half a synapse would not bother to debate that theory.

Griffin is deliberately distorting the ideas of the guy he is debating. In the comments of the 911Blogger post, Kornkven quotes the same paragraph, and writes:

Quote:

"One not familiar with this intricate debate might conclude from the above that I believe the relatives of the victims did not receive phone calls whatsoever. I believe that all the calls from the planes-- the one allegedly from Todd Beamer on UAL93 excepted-- are real, made by real passengers who were in the process of being hijacked by real hijackers. I have also conceded that a few of the calls, such as Renee Mays' from AAL77, were indeed made with cell phones. My contention, however, is that the vast majority of the calls were made from GTE seatback airphones installed on at least three of the planes."

Drudgewire · 10th September 2008, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by A-Train

Griffin is deliberately distorting the ideas of the guy he is debating.

Are you sure? That doesn't sound like the DRG I know at all.

deep · 11th September 2008, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by CHF

Last year our own Ryan Mackey wrote a 180+ page response to Griffin's latest book on demolitions and the grand priest of the TM has been ignoring it ever since.

Right, but it wasn't peer-reviewed & published in a mainstream scientific journal.. and we all know what that means.

Arus808 · 11th September 2008, 12:16 AM

A refutation article, pulling FACTS straight out of other reports (that have gone through the peer review process) doesn't need to be peer reviewed.

deep · 11th September 2008, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Arus808

A refutation article, pulling FACTS straight out of other reports (that have gone through the peer review process) doesn't need to be peer reviewed.

Oh, fantastic - so I guess that means you've embraced the "14 point of agreement ..." paper by Dr. Steven Jones (et al), since that doesn't need to be peer-reviewed?

Either way - people can decide for themselves. I just wanted to point out that Mackey's paper (as a response to DRG) has not been peer-reviewed or published in a mainstream journal.

Arus808 · 11th September 2008, 12:33 AM

No i haven't because nothing in teh 14 point list of DRG's was backed by evidence or facts, and was mininterpreted by DRG.

YOu seriously do not understand the difference.

PhantomWolf · 11th September 2008, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by deep44

Right, but it wasn't peer-reviewed & published in a mainstream scientific journal.. and we all know what that means.

Well apart from the fact that the paper it was against wasn't either, it certainly did go through a form of peer-review, I believe that Mackey even had to modify a few points that were shown to need work.

fuelair · 11th September 2008, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by ktesibios

Yeah, that paragraph is rather hard to parse. Perhaps it would help if Griffin were to explain exactly what he's trying to say- preferably to some of the people who were on the receiving end of those calls.

In a quiet, soundproof room that they have keys to get out of anonymously but he doesn't. So they can discuss it appropriately with him.

10th September 2008, 01:31 PM	#41
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Quote: According to his theory, there really were hijackers on the planes, but they were not Arab Muslims, or even Muslims of any sort. He also holds that relatives of victims did not actually report receiving cell phones calls. Instead, this claim was invented by the corporate media to trick the foreseen 9/11 truth movement into denying that the calls occurred, because the calls had revealed real truths that the government did not want to be known. head asplodes
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

10th September 2008, 02:15 PM	#43
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by A-Train Griffin is deliberately distorting the ideas of the guy he is debating. Are you sure? That doesn't sound like the DRG I know at all.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

11th September 2008, 12:14 AM	#44
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367	Originally Posted by CHF Last year our own Ryan Mackey wrote a 180+ page response to Griffin's latest book on demolitions and the grand priest of the TM has been ignoring it ever since. Right, but it wasn't peer-reviewed & published in a mainstream scientific journal.. and we all know what that means.
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367

11th September 2008, 12:16 AM	#45
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	A refutation article, pulling FACTS straight out of other reports (that have gone through the peer review process) doesn't need to be peer reviewed.
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

11th September 2008, 12:27 AM	#46
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367	Originally Posted by Arus808 A refutation article, pulling FACTS straight out of other reports (that have gone through the peer review process) doesn't need to be peer reviewed. Oh, fantastic - so I guess that means you've embraced the "14 point of agreement ..." paper by Dr. Steven Jones (et al), since that doesn't need to be peer-reviewed? Either way - people can decide for themselves. I just wanted to point out that Mackey's paper (as a response to DRG) has not been peer-reviewed or published in a mainstream journal.
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367

10th September 2008, 01:56 PM	#42
A-Train Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 432	Originally Posted by Brainster My favorite part of that DRG essay is when he describes the CT of the guy who he's "debating": Quote: "According to his theory, there really were hijackers on the planes, but they were not Arab Muslims, or even Muslims of any sort. He also holds that relatives of victims did not actually report receiving cell phones calls. Instead, this claim was invented by the corporate media to trick the foreseen 9/11 truth movement into denying that the calls occurred, because the calls had revealed real truths that the government did not want to be known." Anybody with half a synapse would not bother to debate that theory. Griffin is deliberately distorting the ideas of the guy he is debating. In the comments of the 911Blogger post, Kornkven quotes the same paragraph, and writes: Quote: "One not familiar with this intricate debate might conclude from the above that I believe the relatives of the victims did not receive phone calls whatsoever. I believe that all the calls from the planes-- the one allegedly from Todd Beamer on UAL93 excepted-- are real, made by real passengers who were in the process of being hijacked by real hijackers. I have also conceded that a few of the calls, such as Renee Mays' from AAL77, were indeed made with cell phones. My contention, however, is that the vast majority of the calls were made from GTE seatback airphones installed on at least three of the planes."

11th September 2008, 12:33 AM	#47
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	No i haven't because nothing in teh 14 point list of DRG's was backed by evidence or facts, and was mininterpreted by DRG. YOu seriously do not understand the difference.
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

11th September 2008, 12:58 AM	#48
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,891	Originally Posted by deep44 Right, but it wasn't peer-reviewed & published in a mainstream scientific journal.. and we all know what that means. Well apart from the fact that the paper it was against wasn't either, it certainly did go through a form of peer-review, I believe that Mackey even had to modify a few points that were shown to need work.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

11th September 2008, 07:51 AM	#49
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Originally Posted by ktesibios Yeah, that paragraph is rather hard to parse. Perhaps it would help if Griffin were to explain exactly what he's trying to say- preferably to some of the people who were on the receiving end of those calls. In a quiet, soundproof room that they have keys to get out of anonymously but he doesn't. So they can discuss it appropriately with him.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!