Can anyone tell me what DRG's current position is on the Pentagon no plane issue? Does he acknowledge that this may be disinformation, that there is actually evidence of a 757, and that this is not the best theory to be putting forth?
Thanks.
We heard that he may have backed off his previous position somewhat, but I couldn't find the source for this, it was only a mention in passing from someone he had been consulting for his book (not someone I'd want to dialog with, so didn't).
hope we get some clarification on this. reading "the new pearl harbor" several years ago was watershed experience for me--it was the first time that i really felt that the case for government complicity was overwhelming. it was intense. unfortunately, i was also swayed by DRG's treatment of the Pentagon to start considering missile and no-plane theories as well.
And who turned DRG onto 9/11 truth? Fred Burks, who promotes the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon stuff heavily (his site has a polarity of either MSM NYT/WSJ articles, or Loose Change and In Plane Site, and virtually nothing in between). I may be wrong, it's just a guess, but given that he promoted In Plane Site as the best 9/11 video resource for a long time, and seemed to feel strongly that a plane couldn't have hit there, I would imagine he imparted this on DRG when he opened his eyes to 9/11 . . .
Some people feel that the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon meme is the most powerful discrediting tool there is, more so than the belligerent stuff, more so than the lunatic stuff. It's subtle and deeply dug in and attracts everyone who isn't able to hold the full spectrum of the evidence, only what attracts them. The full spectrum is a contradiction.
David Ray Griffin is one of the heroes of this movement, but that doesn't mean he's infallible. I hope someone can get him to reconsider his promotion of no-plane at the Pentagon, the bin Laden confession tape, and perhaps other points...
This is where the study of conspiracy theory comes in handy.
About a year after the attacks, one of our long-standing on-again/off-again contributors, who has actual "deep" connections, warned us that a significant campaign was planned to spread the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory as a means to deflect attention.
This "warning" was also seen from other sources on other conspiracy theory communities (I think RumorMillNews.com was one of them) in mid-to-late-2002.
I'm trying to find the post.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/griff...
Indeed, even some of the 9-11 Deniers are very uncomfortable with Bollyn's prominence in their movement:
I used to think that Griffin used Bollyn as a source because he didn't know better, but folks have been bashing him for these types of sources for years. I'm beginning to suspect that Griffin uses Bollyn because he agrees with his kooky ideas on Jews and the Holocaust.
http://www.911review.com/denial/holocaust.html#bol...
Is Griffin still promoting no plane at the Pentagon in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking?" Does he really use Bollyn as a source, without knowledge of his connections to anti-semitic organizations and ideas? What's up here? Is Griffin really as spotless as he appears?
You must log in to post.