An appeal to the "facts"

by **Carlhole** » Mon 14 May 2007, 14:27:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'P')rof. Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy. He has absolutely no scientific or engineering expertise to evaluate any of the technical matters covered in the various NIST reports he purports to disprove.

by **NEOPO** » Mon 14 May 2007, 14:32:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'P')rof. Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy. He has absolutely no scientific or engineering expertise to evaluate any of the technical matters covered in the various NIST reports he purports to disprove.

by **Plantagenet** » Mon 14 May 2007, 15:12:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'P')rofessor Griffin is using the data and information provided by all the experts on both sides of the argument in order to present the whole picture of the debate to the reader.

by **CrudeAwakening** » Mon 14 May 2007, 16:44:19

Griffin simply points out inconsistencies in the official story.

Griffin uses logic to demonstrate that the official story is not internally coherent.

This doesn't require him to be an expert in anything other than logical thinking. And this, he is.

by **Carlhole** » Mon 14 May 2007, 17:06:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', 'G')riffin simply points out inconsistencies in the official story.

Griffin uses logic to demonstrate that the official story is not internally coherent.

This doesn't require him to be an expert in anything other than logical thinking. And this, he is.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 14 May 2007, 18:21:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', ' ')If I do I'll probably get banned for unorthodox perspectives, such as PO, among others... lol...

by **Carlhole** » Mon 14 May 2007, 19:11:04

Recent DRG interview at ElectricPolitics.com:

ElectricPolitics

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EP', 'S')o you implement one of the most stupendous black-ops of all time. Considering the multitude of variables, you've put together a fairly convincing cover story that fixes blame on Islamic terrorists.

Using the full weight of the political establishment you bulldoze away public discussion of the truth. A complaisant press repeats your lies in a ciclo infinito forte. Though a few malcontents won't buy it, they're marginalized.

Then along comes your worst nightmare: a distinguished theologian whose cross-disciplinary specialization involves highly sophisticated reasoning that requires familiarity with logic, science, and the scientific method — a man with no personal vested interest whatsoever (and no way to falsely hang one on him), who digs in tenaciously to ask the right questions, and who becomes a true patriotic hero to many.

In short order, despite the media blackout, a very large percentage of the public becomes skeptical. Such is the story of Dr. David Ray Griffin (PDF), a leader of the 911 Truth movement and author most recently of Debunking 9/11 Debunking. We all owe David an enormous debt of gratitude for his insights, energy, and determination. It was a real privilege to talk with him, and I'm sure his balanced views will continue to gain public support. Total runtime here of an hour and thirteen minutes. Listen carefully and please redistribute widely.

by **eastbay** » Mon 14 May 2007, 19:53:44

PMS,

What turkish/Armenian thing???

(just kidding....)

No, I was thinking along the lines of mentioning that Andersonville was only a typical prisoner of war camp that just simply ran out of food... it's tough for prisoners to go out and forage, as many soldiers did.

by **Plantagenet** » Mon 14 May 2007, 20:51:20

The Peak Oil concept is not analogous to the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

There are numerous highly respected professionals in the sciences, in the business world, in government, and in environmental circles who support the Peak Oil theory. Prof. Kevin Deffeyes, for instance, is a professor of Geology at Princeton and worked with M. K. Hubbert. Matt Simmons is a highly respected economist and businessman in the petroleum industry, etc. etc. There are many other experts, including some who grace this site with pearls of wisdom. At my own university there are scientists who are convinced of the validity of Peak Oil. The peak oil concept is based on real scientific and engineering data and real production data. The data itself is incontrovertible....the only issues involve the interpretation.

In contrast, even after 6 years of controversy and publicity, there are still NO scientists or engineers or architects in academia, government, or the private business world who have physical data that supports a cogent theory of controlled demolition at the WTC. Griffin is typical of the few educated people who are admitted conspiracy advocates....he is a retired philosophy Prof. and knows little or nothing about the technical issues involved. His book is NOT an impartial review of the data.....Griffin is a partisan advocate of the conspiracy theory model..

by **NEOPO** » Mon 14 May 2007, 20:51:54

did someone say armenian?

armenians rock!

"NEW!!! what? do you own the
WORLD??? how do you own dis
ORDER!!! dis
ORDER!!! dis
ORDER!!!"

AP is a Beautiful person

Nice thread, I think we will take it! :lol:

by **Carlhole** » Tue 15 May 2007, 07:34:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '.')..In contrast, even after 6 years of controversy and publicity, there are still NO scientists or engineers or architects in academia, government, or the private business world who have physical data that supports a cogent theory of controlled demolition at the WTC. Griffin is typical of the few educated people who are admitted conspiracy advocates....he is a retired philosophy Prof. and knows little or nothing about the technical issues involved. His book is NOT an impartial review of the data.....Griffin is a partisan advocate of the conspiracy theory model..

by **Plantagenet** » Tue 15 May 2007, 15:21:24

Do you have a link to a pdf of Dr. Jone's "scientific" paper on the 9/11 attacks. Where and when was it published?

Dr. Jones was forced out of his faculty position last year after he was shown to have lied when he claimed his 9/11 work was "peer-reviewed".

Is this the same lie that he was caught at before, or has he actually published something now?

Dr. Jone's credibility is very low in the scientific community because of his past lies about his publications.

by **dukey** » Tue 15 May 2007, 16:03:02

seen this ? "Seven is exploding"

[flash width=425 height=350]http://www.youtube.com/v/58h0LjdMry0[/flash]

by **Kickinthegob** » Tue 15 May 2007, 21:24:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'D')o you have a link to a pdf of Dr. Jone's "scientific" paper...

An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Re: An appeal to the "facts"

Who is online