Talk:David Ray Griffin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Delusional thinking / Beware false authority

Id anyone else disturbed by that fact that Rosie O' Donnald wanted to interview David Griffin about his book Debunking the debunking of the offical 9/11 conspiracy? I mean, the guy has a doctorate in religion and theology! How does that qualify him for being able to 'debunk' phyics, material science, and engineering? Just because you have a doctorate in something, that doesn't mean you know everything.

I read his interview with Nick Welsh. Griffin's paranoid ranting shows that this guy is delusional. This is worse than believing that "space aliens kidnapped Elvis Presley" delusional. RK

Maybe instead of the above derogatory comment you (RK) should explain, intelligently, why you think Griffin is delusional and that believing any of his critique of the official 9/11 account is "worse than believing that space aliens kidnapped Elvis Presley." Then we could have an intelligent discussion about this, instead of empty ad hominem attacks.

Question - And the other smoking guns?

Answer - The second strongest piece of evidence I would say is the crash at the Pentagon. The physical evidence contradicts so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight 77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that’s just not the size of the hole.

But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created by something other than a Boeing. Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall. This had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard.

Totally against laws of physics. If you put a marshmallow on the head of a hammer and hit the hood of your car, it will make a dent. Wings of aircraft only penetrate buildings in cartoons. The structure that penetrates is the tubular body.--Cberlet 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

How is an aluminium tube any stronger structurally than aluminium wings with large solid spars in them to keep them rigid? That argument is a non-starter. If the WINGS were to crumple against the wall, then by extension the un-stressed aluminium tube that is the fuselage should crumple like an empty coke can.

And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly after the crash — show no plane whatsoever.

Totally false and easy to debunk. There are a number of photos that show debris on the lawn, including a very large piece of an airliner with airline colors.[1]. Analyzing a low resolution JPG photo for evidence is like taking a magnifying glass to this Monet painting and concluding there is no water depicted in the painting.[2] --Cberlet 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Your assertion that this is totally false is an outright lie. There was NOT "debris on the lawn"; rather, there was ONE piece of debris, large-scale photographs of which could not be matched to any piece of a Boeing 757 at a nearby airport. You can see just from the dimensions and the shape of this piece of strategically placed debris that it does not come from an airliner.

Question - What do they show?

Answer- They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this...

Totally false.--Cberlet 22:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You, sir, are either an idiot or a liar. To claim "totally false" with no proof whatsoever is childish in the extreme, and highlights a personality that either wants to argue for the sake of it, or one who steadfastly refuses to look obvious facts in the face.

Question - If what you’re saying is accurate — that it was a missile — then what happened to the plane and all the people on it?

Answer - That’s why I stress I’m not trying to give an account of what really happened. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77.

Question - You suggest that the World Trade Center buildings must have been detonated with explosives to account for the heat generated and the speed the structures collapsed on themselves. That sounds extreme. What’s the evidence?

Answer - The evidence is cumulative — several things that point to controlled demolition. First, a steel-framed building, according to all the reading I’ve done, has never collapsed solely because of fire. They will bend and buckle in a very large all-consuming fire that lasts for a very long time. But they have never collapsed.

Um, since when has there been comprehensive tests done to the structural integrity of buildings that were collided with by passenger jets; especially those full of fuel? They are out there, but usually related to "hardened" targets such as nuke reactors. Also, by merely suggesting this was an "inside job" that is giving a lot of credit to the US government itself. Way way waaaayy tooo much credit. Hell, with all that leaks out of the military, White House, and various agencies (Scooter Libby, anyone?), you think the open spigot (more like the fire hose) that is the American government can keep a conspiracy this nasty a secret? Right. Keep dreaming. Shadowrun 11:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how it was possible to climb up (obviously nobody climbed DOWN from the upper floors, as nobody from above the impacts escaped) into the impacted areas and meticiously mark and plant the charges FLOOR BY FLOOR and still climb all the way back down to the ground in 56 minutes in the South Tower or 111 minutes in the North Tower without the helicopter cameras catching you. Obviously the charges could NOT have been planted before the impacts, else they would have either been detonated on impact (causing the Tower to instantly collapse) or been destroyed. And please explain why "they" would have waited 56 minutes before detonating (or 111 minutes) and thus allowing hundreds of people to ESCAPE the Towers (so the majority of people inside were rescue workers, not civilians). 01:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyVulpine (talk • contribs)

Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts: Theologian Charges White House Complicity in 9/11 Attack by Nick Welsh. The Santa Barbara Independent Online

Numerous independent structural studies demonstrate how and why the building collapsed the way they did. The criticisms on this page are modest and barely scratch the surface. If anything they should be expanded.--Cberlet 22:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Numerous structural studies"? Conducted by whom? Please point to these studies. Once more, lots of invective, not much to back it up. Also please explain how a falling building generates the energy to expel chunks of steel hundreds of feet and pulverise concrete.

Until the government can explain how a flash fire ( explosion ) of kerosene ( jet fuel ) that lasts for seconds, followed by a fire of paper and office material can melt steel ( so that all rivets, etc melt and weaken at exactly the same second - and not once but twice - forget trying to explain how the third building collapsed, try the two big ones first ) I will continue with my opinion I had when I saw the two towers collapse "Bullsh.t"

Steel doesn't have to melt to lose structrial integrity, just get real hot. Anyone who has ever witnessed a machine gun barrel slump and the bullets exit the side of the barrel will understand this. The steel will reach a plastic state before it 'melts' I.E. becomes molten. This property of steel is commonly understood and this is why no structural engineer or materials scientist has come forth to challenge the governments account of the structural collapse of the WTC. Like the moon hoaxers, one thing all of the critics have in common is lack a serious backgrounds in science and engineering.The only bullshit I see here is from the hoaxers. If you wish to disprove the offical account, I suggest you pursue a career in the hard sciences or an engineering discipline starting with a degree from an accredited instution of higher learning.

At a minimum, take your concerns to the engineering department of a large university and have a professor or a doctorial sudent discuss them with you.69.241.40.207 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Your parallel with the gun barrel getting hot is accurate, as it's one of the many reasons the US military doesn't use a fully automatic m16/4. Aside from just wasting ammunition, it wears out the components faster. Yes, I especially love the argument "But there was no debris on the lawn! How could an aluminum airplane cut into a building??" A basic pass at an introduction to physics class will answer that.

This is from the WP:RS page

"Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority.

Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field for the undergraduate level or higher: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject."

As such, I submit that David Ray Griffin is not a reputable source on the issue of what did or didn't happen on 9/11. Morton devonshire 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Then who IS a reputable source on the issue? The Bush Admin? The 9/11 Ommission Commission? What qualifications exactly are needed to discuss and debunk obvious lies? I personally am not a demolition expert, yet I have seen enough controlled demolitions to know that the WTC buildings (including Building 7 which was conveniently not mentioned by the Omission Commission) were brought down by controlled explosion; if your mind is not completely closed you can even SEE this happening. Have you actually READ anything by David Ray Griffin, or is this just the usual pro-establishment debunkery?

Then please explain the ABSENCE of the loud bangs and flashes that accompany CDs. NO bangs or flashes were heard/seen on ANY camera of the dozens that were around the Towers when they fell. And CD bangs can be heard for thousands of feet, and flashes can be seen from quite a distance too, but none were reported to be seen/heard from outside the Towers that day. TyVulpine (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Beware of Albert Einstein and anything he said - he had a degree in Education, he only tinkered in physics.

Graduated in 1900 from the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (the Federal Polytechnic) in Zurich in mathematics and physics. Earned a doctorate from the University of Zurich in 1905 for a thesis on a new determination of molecular dimensions.

Any more lies about Einstein you care to make?69.241.40.207 21:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He has one of those analytical minds which just opens up the various events of 9/11. Unlike authors like Michel Chossudovsky or Webster Tarpley, Griffin doesn't put forward comprehensive theories of his own, let alone "peddle" any. His skills in philosophy qualify him to apply logical analysis to a comparison of what is known and documented about 9/11 versus what we've been told about 9/11. One doesn't have to look far before almost everything we've been told falls apart. He has also provided a service by compiling the numerous unanswered questions along with the conclusions of many other researchers. His efforts have provided a significant overview of this large and complex body of documented fact, government claims and ongoing speculation.

WaPo review

The Washington Post review of New Pearl Harbor focused on the (false) claims about Flight 77 while ignoring the other 90% of the book -- a clue that the rest of the material is evidence that the establishment media would rather ignore. (comment by user:4.243.3.230 moved from article)

Or a clue they have limited space to deal with the matter and chose to througly dispute one point. Once you establish one has questionable methodology, the rest of the assertions become of a very minimal value.69.241.40.207 21:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Customary

Dear User:Kaimiddleton -- It's customary on Wikipedia to discuss things before you make a revert of changes. Thanks. Morton devonshire 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Zinn is a noted author who has been writing for over forty years. He has written on topics germane to the political issues encompassed in the discussion of David Ray Griffin. It seems to me that his contribution to this debate is worthy in establishing David Ray Griffin as an authoritative source. The mention of Zinn is neither egregious nor irrelevant therefore I think deleting mention of it, effectively reverting another wikipedia editors change, is inappropriate. Kaimiddleton 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Morton devonshire: pot, meet kettle. You have just removed a sentence without answering User:Kaimiddleton post here on the talk page.Jayvdb 08:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Book: Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11

I just had to restore the following line that someone else deleted:

• Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action, Westminster John Knox Press, (2006) ISBN 0664231179

The book has already been published, and is creating a stir in some quarters. I am recording the title as a fact of publishing, not because I take a view about its contents either way. DFH 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I was trying to revert the title, not delete the book. Sorry. --Sloane 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation & apology. We all make such mistakes. DFH 16:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist v. theorist

Doesn't NPOV stipulate that editing should refrain from smearing someone as a "conspiracy theorist" because they disagree with the "official" government version? And a sizable segment of Americans agree that the official story is phony, given all the unanswered questions... ...not that I agree with Griffin, but tarring him a "conspiracy theorist" does not obey NPOV.

• Does he advance conspiracy theories? Yes. Thus, he is a conspiracy theorist.
  • • Um *Sigh*. How many times do I have to stress this to everyone? Whether or not you believe the government endorsed-theory, we are ALL conspiracy theorists. The official account of 9/11 is ALSO a conspiracy theory. If you're confused about the actual definition of 'conspiracy theory', look it up in a good proper dictionary. The only difference between the official conspiracy theory and the alternative conspiracy theory are the agent provocateurs.. Other than that, both sides to the story are ALL conspiracy theories.Vlag (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Vlag

• • That's your opinion, subjective slant and a smear and insult against him. Calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is akin to calling him crazy. You may disagree with his research, but tarring him a "conspiracy theorist" is to pronounce judgment against his character. We don't label critics of global warming conspiracy theorists, even though all the peer reviewed journals (100%) sway against them. It can be written that many consider his research to be "conspiracy theory" but even 30-40%+ of Americans do not believe the official 9/11 commission reports. It's not a conspiracy theory because you say it is, as like you could call something black red...
    • I'm not calling him a CT, the washingtonpost is. --Sloane 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • And that is opinion too. Since when is Washington Post gospel? Maybe it's a shade bettter than Pravda, but official truth it is not. So please, please adhere to NPOV and drop the namecalling -- it is an insult (negative material) and your editorial input injected.
        • You consider it an insult. Washingtonpost is a reliable source who claims he's a conspiracy theorist. Reflecting that in the article is perfectly ok. --Sloane 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Please stop reverting my edit. First, just because a reporter or editorial lobs an insult of "conspiracy theorist" does not make it so. It is negative material and does not adhere to NPOV. It is generally accepted that "conspiracy theorist" is an insult, and a genetic fallacy argument -- it is disrespectful of accomplished author, and YOU are the one injecting editorial, non-NPOV content. If you must add "conspiracy theorist", you must preface it by stating that "many people feel/believe" or qualify it. You've reverted my edit multiple times and keep injecting your editorial slant whereas I corrected with proper link and adopt NPOV and removed insult. Good Lord, since when has the Washington Post been gospel? Just like Malaysisan Times or Pravda?
          • Again, please cease and desist from reverting my edit that removes negative material and violates NPOV. J henry waugh 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not Pravda. It's a reputable source according to Wikipedia standards. See WP:RS. Morton devonshire 20:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's still reporter opinion and negative material for an accomplished author. Not a reliable source and opinion that violates NPOVand hurls insult at author without citing any FACTS. - J henry waugh 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Also, this is not ED. Here on Wikipedia, we use colons to separate our comments. Just add one more per response. Thanks. Morton devonshire 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not that the quote appears, so much as its placement that is problematic. It would be like starting an article on Barry Goldwater by leveling the "warmonger" label at him in the first paragraph. It doesn't matter how well you cite it or from where. It is, by its placement, predjudicial. Move it. 150.199.110.146 17:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So moved. MerricMaker 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be OK to write that "the Washington Post refereed to Griffing as a 'conspiracy theorist... " and then duly provide a verifiable citation. It is a violation of the NPOV neutral language policy to use the language in the article without a quotation. Apparently, Wikipedia has a higher standard than the Washington Post. If you don't like the policy,, write for the Washington Post instead of Wikipedia. However, my guess is that someone writing an op ed piece might have called him that. I doubt the Washington Post allows that sort of pejorative language from its reporters.. --Cplot 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see you folks are having, yet another, interesting discussion, perhaps we should consider conspiracy as one of those "words to avoid". Is there a motion about such take, if so, let me know… and btw Morton's opinion doesn't count… he is way to biased to have any say on this… as for my, unfortunately it's in quantum entanglement with Morton's cruft… & if such cruft is meritum, then no one should be labeled with the term conspiracy. Lovelight 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See, the problem here with regard to the 9/11 theories is that the ones that contradict the official government theory are simply labelled as 'conspiracy theories'. The term 'Conspiracy theory' make 'alternative 9/11 conspiracy theories' look irrational and that is the reason why believers of the 'official 9/11 conspiracy theory' tactically smear alternative 9/11 theorists and theories as 'conspiracy theorists' and 'conspiracy theories'. To date, all theories are still Conspiracy Theories, including the official story. If we are to equally discriminate between the two camps, then we should correctly call the government endorsed theory as the 'official conspiracy theory' and the alternative conspiracy theories as 'alternate conspiracy theories'. Simply labelling the official story as just 'official story/theory' and naming everyone and everything else as 'conspiracy theorists' and 'conspiracy theories' is unfounded.Vlag (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Vlag

Your opinion about whether the term is or isn't pejorative is irrelevant -- we do not publish WP:OR. If the NYTimes, Washington Post, or other reputable sources call him a conspiracy theorist, then that's what he is here, regardless of what 911.wtc.magicbullet.kookytheory.net says about it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but neither of those sources have to deal with Morton & his cruft, do they? Lovelight 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I cite policy, you cite personality.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Baer's updated position with footnote: DO NOT DELETE UNLESS YOU WANT A LONG ARBITRATION AND MORE BAD PUBLICITY

I understand that admin Tom Harrison and Dr. Rubin are possibly paid by their employers for their edits here and that they work as a team to use arcane rules to keep relevant footnotes off pages so that the page is spun to their employer's liking..

I am not paid for my edits here, and I have 4 years of experience as a journalist.

I smell a rat that needs to be exposed..

I will report both Tom Harrison and Rubin if they continue to vandalize this page by deleting footnoted facts that are relevant. thank you freyfaxi Freyfaxi 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you approach it that way, I'm not even going to discuss it with you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Harrison,

Really, Mr. Harrison, you evade the question. Why not simply answer the question and discuss the footnoted change in a civilized manner instead of changing it back and waiting for me to violate the three edit rule, that you easily get around using legalism, and it seems, an army of paid cronies here?

You are on-line quite a lot-- about 30 seconds after i made the edit both yesterday and today.... Hmmmmm..... Do you have an alarm system that alerts you to a change within 30 seconds?

Are you willing to state unequivocably that you are not being paid by either a government agency or a private PR agency-- to monitor this page and maintain your version of spin? I would wager big money that you are being paid a fairly nice wage.

I'd be happy to discus the matter in a civilized fashion, but since you have stated that you refuse to engage in a truthful, open and civilized disucssion, that speaks volumes as to your credential as an administrator and as a resonpisble wikipedan leader who artibrates in a truly fair and balanced manner..

Are you willing to state publicly that you do not get paid for your work at Wikipedia and that you are not prompted by your employer to spin pages?

Are you willing to talk in a civilized manner about an edit that simply updates Baer's posiiton?

I would wager that you are not the least bit interested in talking about the edit....because it chips away at the spin on this page....and that you will continue to undo it wil not discusion whatwsoever, in violation of Wikipedia policy...

I assure you that I'm not paid by my employer to edit here, although I have, from time to time, used Wikipedia to research some statistical results. In fact, I think they might be upset under my employer's confilct of interest guidelines, even though they would have no justification. The anon, on the other hand, may be encouraged to edit here by suggestions on a certain web site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, it seems likely that if a WP:RS that Baer's position changed can be found, then we can include it in the article. The questionable sources you've provided might be allowed in an article about Baer, but probably not this one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Baer's updated opinion BAER HAS CHANGED HIS MIND. DO NOT DELETE.

Baer, who later changed his mind about the official NIST explanation for 911, added in an Amazon.com editorial review of the Griffin's subsequent book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory:"

"Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation--not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture--we will never know what happened on 9/11. David Griffin will never let this go until we get the truth." [[3]]

Freyfaxi 00:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WATCH "Terrorstorm" and the history of false flag operations

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

For those who are unable to actually read David Ray Griffin's books, ( most who comment here have not even bothered to read Griffin's books....)

..... then I implore you to watch the movie Terrorstorm in full before you continue to edit this page in an uniformed manner. Terrorstorm describes the many instances of state sponsored terror, (also known as Flase Flag operations) that have happenend in the last century here and overseas. These well planned operations are now occuring at home- with dire ( and planned) consequence for our civil liberties:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

Please watch the film with an open mind. Freyfaxi 00:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Ray Griffin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Basically I think this is a good article and I appreciate the efforts of the author who made the information available. I do think it gives undue emphasis to Griffin's theories about 9/11. It remains to be seen what the actual facts are in this regard. But Griffin's main significance is as a theologian. He articulates an alternative to both scientism and fundamentalist religion -- a third way -- and shows how this rationally palatable theology would impact how we think about ecology and politics. I'm not enough of a scholar to make these additions, but think the article needs to be expanded to emphasize these less sensational but still very important aspects of his life and thought. jedson

Last edited at 13:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

ANY COHERENT/RATIONAL DISCUSSION ON THE ARTICLE "David Ray Griffin" BEGINS HERE…

Seriously, children, this isn't the place to discuss Zionism, all CTs being crazy, and how DRG's being a theologian somehow instantly disqualifies him from doing any empirical research. For THAT kind of discussion, please try a newsgroup or a chatroom—or why not start your own blog of unsubstantiated claims? The article is supposed to be informative, NOT persuasive—same thing for the discussion pages. Your opinions on whether or not 9/11 was an inside job do not belong here. This is not the place to make those claims. They are entirely immaterial. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a platform for demagogues and thought police. The purpose of this discussion page is to discuss the article to which it belongs and suggest any grammatical, formatting, and citational corrections and/or improvements to the quality of the article according to WP conventions. Is that so difficult to understand? Thank you.—Strabismus (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)