Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi (51 posts)

  1. JohnA
    Member

    I think we need a 911 Fundamental Truth movement - where we stop hedging our bets by only half-way suggesting that maybe perhaps possibly we have suspicions some of the 'leaders' of this movement are betraying our cause.

    Maybe we need to create an overwhelming case for a new fearless declarative statement : "911 Truth" is a government conspiracy to cover-up the facts of 9/11 - populated by intentional disinfo agents, disruptors and useful idiots to their cause.

    maybe we need to stop shying away from this reality.

    maybe we need a very vocal and public break from the movement - plant our flag - fearlessly declare our position - and see who supports our call from "911 Fundamental Truth"

    911 Fundamentalism: Activism to demand answers. No theories or speculation. no charismatic personalities. zero tollerance for disruption or misinformation.

    we create a very short list of the MOST fundamental questions - and declare that this is our mandate for activism. Nothing more. Nothing less. we openly condemn the existing movement for its TIN FOIL HAT theories.

    we throw diplomacy out the window. we call a spade a spade.

    and - above all - we refuse to engage THEM in any further dialogue. we simply create our editorial content WITHOUT being drawn into their arena.

    we create a real dichotomy between the ADULTS and the CHILDREN of this movement.

    we do press conferences.

    we have a board of directors.

    we go serious

    Posted 9 years ago #
  2. truthmover
    Administrator

    Arabesque said:

    If it's responsible activism by a collective approach, it's immunization.

    Yeah. we could use a bit of immunization right about now. I suppose that's what I've been getting at. We are so isolated and exposed in some ways. That makes it easier to disrupt our efforts.

    Here's an example from that thread on 911blogger:

    (now go email your little minions on Arabesques site and get them to come over here and vote this comment down before too many people see it.)

    This reveals two things on the assumption that the opinion above is not unique. First, that others recognize the coalition we have here of strategically oriented individuals. We're not smarter than anyone else. We're not better at promotion than anyone else. We're not more moral than anyone else. The rare element I've been stumbling around here is the commitment we all share to determining the best strategies. People are seeing that.

    And second, that Arabesque has been framed as a leader. And evidently we are all his "minions."

    I agree that this is all rather silly and predictable. But it would also serve the interest of immunization if we collectively refuted the Arabesque Truth Movement meme where appropriate.

    Sadly these people are missing the best part of how you are providing leadership, and that is in the logical and moderate tenor of your writing. People are looking to you for a level headed response. That's very healthy leadership in a truth movement. But that capacity does not separate you from all of us. It's important that it not.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  3. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    I hope this doesn't anger you John, we've had this go-around a few times, but the following eminently reasonable observation that I agree with --

    Maybe we need to create an overwhelming case for a new fearless declarative statement : "911 Truth" is a government conspiracy to cover-up the facts of 9/11 - populated by intentional disinfo agents, disruptors and useful idiots to their cause.

    -- in the absence of paper documentation or confessions, sounds (so I believe) more ridiculous to most of those Americans who are not 9/11 skeptics than the idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon (which, though wrong, appears at first to have photographic evidence in support). And when these very same agents, disruptors and useful idiots make the exact same claim, how does the correct claim get distinguished from their static? You know how so many people are: "Gee, they're both yelling! I don't know who's right! I wanna go home..." Sort of like how in the presidential "debates" it's essential not to be forceful against the other guy if you want to "win," even when you're right.

    I think if you start from where you then went, however, you are taking on (and reviving) the only strategy that could work (but please without the fire-word "fundamentalism"):

    maybe we need a very vocal and public break from the movement - plant our flag - fearlessly declare our position - and see who supports our call from "911 Fundamental Truth"

    911 Fundamentalism: Activism to demand answers. No theories or speculation. no charismatic personalities. zero tollerance for disruption or misinformation.

    we create a very short list of the MOST fundamental questions - and declare that this is our mandate for activism. Nothing more. Nothing less. we openly condemn the existing movement for its TIN FOIL HAT theories.

    we throw diplomacy out the window. we call a spade a spade.

    and - above all - we refuse to engage THEM in any further dialogue. we simply create our editorial content WITHOUT being drawn into their arena.

    we create a real dichotomy between the ADULTS and the CHILDREN of this movement.

    we do press conferences.

    we have a board of directors.

    we go serious

    Reject the bogus theories, don't bother with the "movement" disruptors personally - unless what you have on them can get them in a court of law. Same idea also applied in the larger matter of actually getting at the 9/11 orchestrators.

    This is what 911Truth.org and the "Justice for 9/11" petition was going to be, and didn't become. (Having played my own role in that failure, I won't claim I'm useful for the next go-around.)

    Posted 9 years ago #
  4. NicholasLevis
    Member

    This is what 911Truth.org and the "Justice for 9/11" petition was going to be, and didn't become. (Having played my own role in that failure, I won't claim I'm useful for the next go-around.)

    To that I should have given the due where it is due: It is also what 911 CitizensWatch provided on a small scale for the duration of its activities. And Kyle Hence, so often doubted, went on to produce the most worthwhile and important two films by far. Two films that could still shift the terms of debate (without being open to easy attack and polarizing the population into 20:80 ratio). If you could get them on primetime.

    Overall no one found the right balance between the undeniable need for credibility and factual accuracy too often leading to a kind of over-neutrality or timidity -- in retrospect: there should have been big boisterous sit-ins at the 9/11 Commission hearings, not just the lame stuff we did -- and the all-out, justifiably enraged "ballsy" approach that grabs attention and then goes straight over the cliff with We Are Change.

    And nearly all of us, throughout, maintained our conditioned consumer mentality: buy or sell enough books, t-shirts and buttons, achieve sufficient visibility of the slogans, get cool speakers who bring in their own audiences from the conspiracy niche markets, and the world is supposed to change.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  5. nornnxx65
    Member

    cross posted at truthaction

    imho, "voice morphing" is the new "space beams" and Nicholas is right about Nafeez Ahmed http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html

    “No Phone Calls on 9/11?
a trick to separate 9/11 family members from truthers” http://www.oilempire.us/no-phone.html

    Very relevant questions raised in this thread; how could “they” have gotten samples of all those voices and created conversations that fooled all those family members? Extremely unlikely that could happen, or that it would be tried. And besides that, why go into theorizing at all? As the quote Arabesque linked shows, he 1) knows there's no need and 2) knows it makes an easy target and 3) also, he’s way more than smart enough to know the voice morphing doesn't make sense 4) and has not been proven 5) is not easily proven 6) not proven that it’s the most likely theory 7) not proven that simpler and more feasible and likely theories have been ruled out, and it’s as well accepted among his peers as space beams and no planes.

    What good comes from claiming that the damage at the Pentagon is inconsistent with a 757 crash? Griffin is aware that a credible case for a 757 has been made by serious researchers that he quotes, like Hoffman and Jones. There's no actual evidence that anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, and there's a lot of evidence it was a 757. At most someone could say the public photos and video are inconclusive; then isn't the appropriate thing to demand the release of ALL evidence, along with testimony from relevant people under oath so the public can see for ourselves? Why claim/imply it likely was NOT a 757, i.e. a missile or warplane, without hard evidence? And why no acknowledgement that this view is controversial in the 9/11 Truth Movement- and that the most credible researchers have all rejected the claim?

    Why go there? Official statements and actions contradict what we’re told, the govt is sitting on mountains of evidence already requested and has never given a credible explanation for how 9/11 happened; we don’t need to explain what happened, We the People, the Citizens need answers- now even the 9/11 Commission and their staff all need to testify in public under oath.

    Griffin is a Phd Professor emeritus, author or editor of over 30 books. His several 9/11 books contain hundreds of footnotes, and in total probably amount to thousands of hours of research, writing and documentation. From the way Griffin explains his approach in his introductions, and the detailed way he analyzes and deconstructs evidence and questions, it's obvious he understands how to weigh evidence, witnesses, sources etc. for relevance and credibility. Griffin's 9/11 books contain numerous references to numerous credible 9/11 researchers, mainstream media and govt. statements and documents. They are also riddled with references to holocaust deniers/racists like May, Hufschmid, Bollyn, etc. and people who promote bogus info, like Fetzer, Reynolds, Rowland Morgan, etc. I'm a 1st year student at a community college and all my teachers have standards for source citation in the papers we turn in; i find it extremely unlikely Griffin doesn't know how badly this reflects on him and his books, and by association the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    I own 4 Griffin books and had decided i was just gonna boycott his books after getting Debunking, but i'm thinking of getting his new one expressly to see what he's done and write a review of it. He has a very high profile, is pushing bogus theories, references bogus sources and is stubbornly committed to doing so, even after numerous sincere 9/11 truth activists have pointed out the problems to him, privately and publicly. The words Arabesque quoted shows he understands, yet he persists. How can his book and tour reflect well on him or the 9/11 Truth movement?

    David Ray Griffin: still promotes "no plane" hoax, promotes Holocaust deniers as credible sources distrusts the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or cleaned up the plane parts afterwards http://www.oilempire.us/griffin.html

    To counter the false impressions of 9/11 Truth that are being sown being sown, what do you think of any of these ideas?

    1) Publish more articles critiquing his work, the good and bad, and encourage others to do so; I could only find the one at oilempire.us

    2) Circulate an open letter/petition among his peers (and/or all truth activists) regarding corrections that need to be made, problems with his sources/claims, etc.- this could be published at JOS911.com; get Griffin on public record as to why he’s saying and doing these things.

    3) Post and ask other truth activists to post reviews of his latest book and other books on Amazon, etc. acknowledging Griffin’s good points, but letting readers know that his views on voice morphing, no 757 and referencing certain people is rejected by the majority of people who question the OCT.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  6. chrisc
    Member

    NicholasLevis said:

    the following eminently reasonable observation that I agree with --

    Maybe we need to create an overwhelming case for a new fearless declarative statement : "911 Truth" is a government conspiracy to cover-up the facts of 9/11 - populated by intentional disinfo agents, disruptors and useful idiots to their cause.

    -- in the absence of paper documentation or confessions, sounds (so I believe) more ridiculous to most of those Americans who are not 9/11 skeptics than the idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon (which, though wrong, appears at first to have photographic evidence in support).

    I don't know about most Americans but many of the activists I have been arguing with for years do think this is the case without properly looking at the best material produced by the truth movement, this is what a lot of activists who think it's impossible that it was any kind of an inside job think...

    However it does appear to be the case, but since we don't have "paper documentation or confessions" I'd word it something more like:

    "911 Truth" might as well be (or appears to be) a government conspiracy to cover-up the facts of 9/11 since it's populated by intentional disinfo agents, disruptors and useful idiots cause.

    This is so overwhelmingly true in the UK that it's really not funny...

    I also have a problem with "fundamental" but don't have a better name suggestion at the moment, I'm also not keen on "directors" but apart from that I agree.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  7. truthmover
    Administrator

    Moderator Comment

    It was brought to my attention by one of our peers that some of the comments on this thread might be used by those we contradict to paint our efforts in a negative light.

    (To be frank, that would be my comments and John's. John, you took my pass, and ran out of the stadium with the ball. :) More on that below.)

    It is important for all posters to this forum to recognize that this forum, the TruthAction forum, and the comments at 911blogger are all very closely monitored by those hoping to counter any of our efforts at responsible activism.

    Therefore, despite our desire for this forum to be as open as possible to the personalities and rhetorical creativity of all its posters, we each have a responsibility to maintain a measure of candor determined by how we want to more publicly reflect our values.

    Personal comments:

    My response to the OP was the thought that questioning Griffin might be impractically laborious in a movement that largely considers him to be a 'founding father.' I tried to emphasize that point by suggesting that those who would be committed to that task are few. I was not assuming that there would be any consensus among us about how to proceed. I was setting up and posing questions.

    John provided his answer to some of those questions. It's apparent to me that he was using the term "fundamentalism" in a dramatic fashion meant to imply that we really need to codify and stand for our values and priorities. If you know John, you get his rhetorical nature. Everyone's rhetorical nature is welcome here. However, as others have pointed out, this may not be the best choice of words when making an initial proposition for unified action. I certainly wouldn't join the 9/11 fundamentalist movement.

    I also don't think it's ever a good idea to refer to people as "children." Our effort is fundamentally educational. In that light, people are either students or opponents. We don't want to scare off the students, and it's important not to reduce the agency of our opponents.

    Based on past experience, I have not been assuming that some group of us is going to put all this together and come up with a new organization. And while attractive in some ways, that proposition draws the conversation away from how we are best able to respond based on our present relationships.

    So then, what to do about Griffin?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  8. JohnA
    Member

    i did not mean to suggest we should actually use the word "fundamentalist".

    i was just trying to find a way of explaining myself. i agree the word has too much baggage associated with it.

    But - i WOULD use the phrase "fundamental questions."

    voice morphing is not a 'fundamental question." it is a highly speculative theory.

    Insider trading and air defenses are both fundamental questions we must have the answers to.

    i agree that my declaration that 911 Truth is a 'government conspiracy' is strategically faulty. but - i think we can NOT afford to pull punches when explaining that this very public schism in the movement is indeed the result of intentional disruption and disinformation. and - i disagree with Nicholas that we need "papers" to prove this. we have MORE than proven intentionality.

    intentionality. that is all we have to demonstrate.

    really - do we real need a notarized legal document to prove that Nico Haupt is intentionally disrupting the 911 Truth movement?

    but i would say that we should talk about 'a conspiracy to disrupt' as opposed to 'a government conspiracy to disrupt' - as a matter of form.

    And while attractive in some ways, that proposition draws the conversation away from how we are best able to respond based on our present relationships. So then, what to do about Griffin?

    well... i disagree.

    my proposition does not draw the conversation away from how we can best respond. my proposition in fact aims for a solution that cuts right to the heart of the issue - as opposed to discussing 'stylized responses' that never work.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    No, there's no doubt intentionality is there and will be seen by anyone who examines the case. But you pick the easiest example - is it as obvious with reasonable sounding people who just push one hoax, rather than all hoaxes like Nico? Seeing this intentionality requires a lot of work to the newcomer resistant to "conspiracy theory," and they're still likely to be soured on 9/11 skepticism generally after their thorough analysis of the works of Fetzer and such.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  10. truthmod
    Administrator

    Forget Taibbi and Griffin, maybe it's time for the real "Ultimate 9/11 Truth Showdown."

    I'm down, but like many of you, I can't muster all that much excitement or positive thinking after working at this for several years.

    TruthMove was founded on the same principles that many responsible, disillusioned activists seem to be calling for. The 2008 Declaration was something that I personally put a lot of energy into and that I think is very important, but that probably has not had much of an effect on the wider movement.

    But maybe now is the time, with our (many of us) old hero and champion, DRG, stabbing us in the back, to shed our final illusions and step up to the challenge.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  11. truthmover
    Administrator

    that probably has not had much of an effect on the wider movement.


    7th Anniversary of 9/11 - London Events

    Note that while we welcome anyone who wishes to be involved we are only asking for participation from those 9/11 groups & activists who respect and embody the 'TruthMove 2008 Declaration'

    http://9-11.meetup.com/420/messages/boards/thread/...


    But maybe now is the time, with our (many of us) old hero and champion, DRG, stabbing us in the back, to shed our final illusions and step up to the challenge.

    Principle before association. Is it really worth doing if we aren't going to fully represent our values and priorities? I'm not into the half-truth movement. Here's some truth for us. Sound strategy for this movement does not include promoting speculation or fallacy. And that's not rocket science. Just a bit of history and shared experience.

    If David Ray Griffin does not acknowledge that truth when its significance is widely and constructively pointed out to him, we can not consider him to be operating without bias.

    Now, I have no idea what his biases are based on. But they greatly undermine his reputation for any kind of academic objectivity.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  12. jthomas
    Member

    David Ray Griffin has always been good at vague language, rhetorical evasion, and never taking responsibility for his own words. He knows what he's doing, but what is sad that so many people do not see it. DRG is no leader; instead, he knows he can take advantage of people's lack of good critical thinkingIt's good that people are beginning to see through DRG

    A good example making the rounds is this statement DRG made which you can listen to and watch on YouTube:

    "You know, these things really are all connected... after JFK, many people who were trying to get the truth out said, you know, if we don't get it exposed, they'll be emboldened, they'll do it again... and sure enough, Martin, Bobby and then 9/11. And, of course, before that, we had the original Pearl Harbor, and they got away with that too... and we may not like to think about it, but that one also was an inside job... This is non-denominational; Republicans and Democrats have participated in these events... If we do get a real investigation or a trial, there is simply no doubt of what the verdict will be because now... the evidence that 9/11 is an inside job is now overwhelming..."

    David Ray Griffin http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Aw9Qwk4U0w

    Digest that for a minute.

    Who are the ones DRG refers to as "they"? Are the same "they" supposed to have been behind Pearl Harbor, the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK, and 9/11, events that span over 60 years? Do these people have names? If DRG knows there are "Republicans and Democrats have participated in these events...", do they have names?

    No, they don't have names, but of course, "the evidence that 9/11 is an inside job is now overwhelming...", DRG claims. And he spout on this way because he has known the Truthers will not - and have not - questioned him or what he says or writes. DRG has been given a blank check and he has used it to engage in the worse form of intellectual dishonesty.

    Only his followers can change that if they are willing to look critically at what DRG does to deceive everyone.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  13. chrisc
    Member

    the Truthers will not - and have not - questioned him or what he says or writes

    Who are the ones you refer to as "the Truthers"? Do they have names?

    Anyway, I'm glad I'm clearly not one...

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2379

    Posted 9 years ago #
  14. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    JT: You'll have to address this to "his followers," as I doubt very many of the people here, if any at all, ever were that.

    From the beginning, I was not. I regarded his work as, at best, a serious step down from Nafeez Ahmed and Paul Thompson, and said so. I do wish now I had expressed it more often in writing, and not just in objections at meetings where he was so often praised.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  15. Arabesque
    Member

    I pointed this out on the truthation forum, but it is noteworthy that the very first response in this debate by DRG includes discussion of voice morphing:

    "In defending you, your attorney, having pointed out that the water bottle could have been planted, then argues that, since you did not make that call and never went into that building, the police must have fabricated evidence by using digital (voice and video) morphing technology. When the prosecutor rolls his eyes, your attorney cites William Arkin's 1999 Washington Post article, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing," which points out that voice morphing, like photo and video manipulation, is now good enough to fool anyone. With regard to why the police would have tried to frame you, your attorney suggests that the FBI may have asked the local police to put you away because of critical things you had written about the White House."

    This is not an isolated occurrence. I have heard at least two radio interviews where he begins with voice morphing as a large part of the discussion. YT of truthaction also described a 40-minute discussion of faked phone calls and voice morphing that he walked out from in anger. He is apparently presenting this topic as a central theme during his latest book tour, as it is clear from radio interviews and presentations.

    So of all the issues that he wrote about, he has decided to focus on the issue of faked phone calls and voice morphing? In a debates, radio interviews and presentations? Out of all of the 9/11 issues? This is bizarre.

    Why focus on the most controversial issues in promoting a book in debates, radio interviews, and presentations? At one point in the Taibbi debate as I pointed out, he admitted he "doesn't know" what happened at the Pentagon!

    Then why focus on this issue in a debate?

    Anyone?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  16. truthmod
    Administrator

    jthomas, welcome to the forum. The DRG quote you mention sounds like a general, off-the-cuff remark, not something that most of us would point to as an example of his irresponsibility.

    Most of us here think the insidiousness of DRG's continuing promotion of discredited information lies in his associating it with the very legitimate body of evidence for 9/11 skepticism. DRG, as a major spokesman for the movement also has a responsibility to maintain certain standards and to be open to credible critiques from others as well as to revising his positions in light of certain evidence.

    I used to think of DRG as some kind of hero. I have a signed copy of "The New Pearl Harbor." I used to buy copies of that book and give them to friends. He seemed like an eminently logical/reasonable person to me. When I began to see the obviousness of the case AGAINST no-plane-at-the-Pentagon, I assumed DRG would also revise his position soon enough. I was mistaken and have been exponentially disappointed over the last few years, to the point where I wouldn't recommend his books to anyone or put an ounce of trust in him.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  17. NicholasLevis
    Member

    A post of mine from truthaction, responding to this:

    On the phone issue, Griffin knows as does anyone who has talked to aircrew that the cell phone calls were impossible from aircraft in flight, unless some US Military ELINT (electronic intelligence) assistance was provided. But there's no way to prove that either at this time.

    This just goes round and round, impervious to reason. So here's my last post on it:

    • Hello, air phones (!!!!) (Hello? Hello?)

    • Injection into the scenario of secretly installed ELINT equipment on the plane (or flying alongside, whatever) is speculative and unprovable, therefore useless. But it's several light-years closer to reason than the voice-morph bullshit, which brings us into a place where there are necessarily dozens, if not hundreds of entirely bloodless, robotic extra personnel initiated into the plot and involved in creating a complex side-hoax that is irrelevant to executing the plot, or to fulfilling the goals of a "new Pearl Harbor."

    • Plus it means all these relatives were successfully fooled. Or plants, as some people would have it. (Why not both? I've seen that one too.)

    • Again, most important, relevancy as a necessary part of 9/11 plot: None.

    • Sensitivity of forefronting this argument in terms of framing and public persuasion: None.

    • Usefulness in pointing to likely indictable perpetrators or otherwise getting us closer to a criminal investigation of unsolved crimes, regardless of form or venue: None.

    • Standard of preferring the simplest explanation that explains the relevant facts: Dubious.

    • Hello, airphones (!!!!)

    There are some red flags casting suspicion on the Beamer and Olson calls. That's about it. There are about 1000 times as many in the chain of command and air defense reaction and stories spun to explain them, which actually point to real-world perpetrators and obstructors after the fact, some of whom can be named. Which deserves the focus?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  18. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Also, this:

    .

    In speculating on possible 9/11 scenarios, I take as an axiom that minimizing the personnel initiated into the plot, and that insulating them as far as possible from direct contact or identification with the victims, would be absolute priorities for the planners of such an operation. The voice-morphing and other actors-faking-calls scenarios violate that, on behalf of a side-hoax that is not necessary to the goals of the operation. (If, on the other hand, you want to posit that the perpetrators preferred to do it in as satanic a fashion as possible, like the Joker, even if this raises the risks, well then maybe it makes sense to you.)*

    The more you "monsterize" the perps -- who without a doubt sold themselves on the idea that the crime served a worthy higher purpose (that's how it always is, even with the world's Hitlers) -- the less plausible the scenario becomes.

    (*note: It does make sense to me with JFK to make it an obvious public execution, as an intimidating show of power, but there's no need for such baroque touches in 9/11, it increases the risk in an already complex operation that has plenty of psychological trauma and intimidation already built into the main plot.)

    Posted 9 years ago #
  19. truthmover
    Administrator

    From my moderator comment above:

    It is important for all posters to this forum to recognize that this forum, the TruthAction forum, and the comments at 911blogger are all very closely monitored by those hoping to counter any of our efforts at responsible activism.

    From Screw Loose Change:

    David Ray Griffin in the Crosshairs

    Looks like the Troofers are waking up to the Great God Griffin's promotion of "marginal" theories (as compared to legitimate "proof") like the voice-morphed phone calls. Some (deservedly) harsh discussion here: (TruthMove forum) (also TruthAction below)

    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/10/david...

    My first comment on this issue:

    Griffin is viewed by the vast majority of 'truthers' as a grandfather of the movement. If we were to begin to challenge Griffin with the assertiveness we have demonstrated questioning people like Barrett, I'm not sure that the outcome would be positive. The division resulting might very well be an intended distraction.

    The author doesn't fail to give us crap about the remote control discussion and actually expresses appreciate that we chose not to promote Griffin's work. The title of this post implies that the movement is divided on this issue. And the content sets up TruthMove and TruthAction on one side of an argument that some might hope would greatly distract us.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  20. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Honestly. Why should I care what Screw Loose writes? Or his bride, Nico Haupt?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  21. NicholasLevis
    Member

    cross-posting from TA:

    Griffin = 1000 truth movement activists?

    No.

    Competent research and valid argument > all of us.

    Need for justice > all of us.

    We must get past leaders and arguments over the plausibility of their various "how" hypotheses, and back to the original, political fight for disclosure around the key questions of what happened and why, official accountability, and just treatment of the the perpetrators and victims of crime.

    • AWOL command-chain reaction suggesting coordinated facilitation or desire for self protection. Everyone should know the names: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, Winfield, Mies, Eberhard.

    • Air defense response anomaly, false timelines, cover-up and wargames disclosure. Epic "failures" -- followed by promotions and budget increases!

    • Foreknowledge - who knew what, and more importantly: where did it come from? Foreign agencies, financial trail, variety of possible insider deals.

    • Surveillance and obstruction prior - who suppressed information and shut down investigations into the alleged hijackers (patsies or otherwise, it barely matters: another distraction!) and why? Hamburg cell surveillance, Malaysia surveillance, Able Danger, agency recruitment attempts and connections, FBI informants linked to alleged hijackers, Wilshire, Frasca-Bowman-Maltbie, etc. etc.

    • Obstruction after (evidence withholding and destruction, FAA tapes, black boxes, much more), commission cover-ups and omissions. Fraudulence of reports -- as now allowed by the former Commissioners themselves. Use of "confessions" under torture from possible imposters to construct the entire main plot of the 9/11 Com Report.

    • Shanksville crash anomalies (meaning: time of crash change, evidence of shootdown).

    • History of US and other allied-agency links to "al-Qaeda." Use of "al Qaeda" in effecting policy. All that Ali Mohamed / Emad Saleem / Saeed Sheikh stuff.

    The above all implicate known names including many officials in differing capacities from negligence through obstruction and facilitation to perpetration. Put some who were not the direct planners under sufficient pressure, the facade cracks and the rest of the story will be exposed.

    The bodies of evidence for the above are likeliest to meet probable cause standard for legal action against specific persons, in turn opening up the rest. (Demolitions argument does not do that!)

    The following two lead to context and creating plausibility:

    • History of precedents and other criminality by government.

    • Rumsfeld, Cheney, old Bush mob coming back to power, PNAC and perception of imperial decline, CoG planning, intent and preparation to invade Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11.

    These will be the focuses when you guys wake up in the real America of today (where "9/11 conspiracy" has become a part of the subcultural mosaic, just another spectacle) and decide being right doesn't matter: Winning justice does. Play to win.

    Too late? Maybe. 2009 should be an interesting year.

    .

    Posted 9 years ago #
  22. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yes, I don't think we should be too cautious about disassociating from and critiquing DRG. Who are we really going to alienate? Good riddance to people who can't distinguish between speculation and fact. Good riddance to people who want heroes and daddy figures more than truth or justice. Good riddance to those who "just want everyone to get along," at the expense of our credibility and effectiveness. And a bid god damn good riddance to government agents who would terminate our movement (and probably our existence) if they could.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  23. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Here is another example of Griffin using the cellphone calls as "best evidence":

    http://www.blackopradio.com/black391a.ram

    That part begins at about 28:30. Michel Chossudovsky is another person who takes this position on the cellphone calls. Since I have not devoted much time to the cellphone topic, I am just surprised with the lack of thoroughness as Griffin describes this "evidence."

    I think that the case of Griffin is very similar to Mark Lane in the JFK case. Mark Lane is still very popular amongst most of the JFK research community and he is the author of the only #1 best seller that is critical of the Warren Commission. Both Lane and Griffin have played massive roles in framing what their respective movements should focus on while maintaining legitimacy. Both of them, in my view, have pointed people in a less effective direction while maintaining a certain degree of legitimacy.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  24. Arabesque
    Member

    That part begins at about 28:30. Michel Chossudovsky is another person who takes this position on the cellphone calls.

    Thanks for this link. I would like to document as much as possible how frequently he is promoting this as a central claim.

    As for Michel Chossudovsky, it is true that he doesn't think the calls were real. But nowhere does he say "voice fakery". Correct me if I'm wrong on this. This is completely different than claiming for example that there are contradictions in Ted Olson's explanation of the calls. Or that Ted Olsen was "either" lying or a victim of "voice morphing" like DRG does. Michel Chossudovsky wrote an article about the calls and I did not encounter any claims about "morphing". What he seems to miss is the fact that some of these calls were likely airphone calls.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  25. chrisc
    Member

    I haven't found Michel Chossudovsky making any stupid assertions either, in his own writing, however he does, at times, host dubious material on his site, like articles from Fetzer... I don't know to what extent the content of his site is decided by more than just him.

    Posted 9 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.