The New Pearl Harbour - a critique.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Dear all

You may care to read this debate with David Ray Griffin:

http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221

CTS

[Wokeman]

CHIP BERLET: Well, in one case where people always talk about the maximum speed, you know, that these jets fly at 1,875 miles an hour, and they do these calculations as if it was Star Trek, and, you know, the commander says make it so, and they hit 1,875 miles an hour instantly to fly these distances if they did that, the pilots would be dead. A lot of this is armchair guesswork by people who haven't done their homework. Somehow this gets incorporated as reasonable to insert into a book that makes these claims. I just don't understand it. This is Professor Griffin's previous work has been stellar. He's one of the singular most important religious philosophers in America. I don't understand this lapse.

What on earth is this idiot talking about?

[andyb]

CTS,
as per, the real questions aren't answered, just attacking a few of the more minor points. Hardly going to change anyone's mind on here I'm afraid.

[kbo234]

Yes, read Berlat's written critique of 'The New Pearl harbour' and Griffin's written response to that critique.

Berlat does not actually engage with the substance of the evidence that Griffin has collected about 9/11 and presents in his book.
Berlat is a very clever man. He attacks Griffin, accusing him regarding the logical and philosophical structure of Griffin's analysis and arguments rather than the evidence itself that Griffin presents.
If Griffin were not a clever man himself he would struggle to defend himself against an attack of this subtlety.

In fact he does defend himself, and well, clearly winning the argument in my view, leaving this reader at least in little doubt regarding not only the truth of Dr. Griffin's assertions but also regarding the honesty and integrity of Dr. Griffin's character. In contrast, regarding the character of Mr. Berlat the words of Bob Dylan come to mind:

"I see through your eyes and I see through your brain,
Like I see through the water that runs down my drain."

Actually, here's the whole thing ('Masters of War')...as powerful as ever:

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

[Martin Conner]

Amy Goodman is one of Chomsky’s cohorts and Democracy Now is funded by the Rockefeller organisation.

A cornerstone of this investigation is Building 7; David Ray Griffin mentions it in the transcript. However, Mr Chip Berlet (Chip) avoids tackling this part of the issue and I am surprised DRG didn’t push him to comment.

[orestes]

CHIP BERLET: Well, I think a good example would be the Osama Bin Laden treated at the due buy hospital. It's possible that happened, but there's no on the record source that has actual evidence of that and the head of the hospital has denied that Osama Bin Laden was ever there. All of the reports track back to anonymous sources. So, is it possible that he was treated there? Yes. In the great cosmos of possibilities, many of the claims made by Professor Griffin are possible, but the way he presents them as facts is I think, the problem.


Note how he merely asserts that the story goes back to anonymous sources. Well, quelle surprise. The sources were speaking to French media. They were anonymous because French intelligence agents, like most of them (those that aren't dead), tend not to give their names to the media. Who would uncritically state that the head of the hospital claims OBL wasn't there? Well, maybe someone who didn't mention that the anonymous sources were French intelligence agents?

There are a number of suppositions. There are a number of claims which have been made which he presents as facts which are easily refuted. An example would be in the book he talks about how jet aviation fuel doesn't create the kind of explosion one sees at the pentagon, and yet if you track back the source to that, it goes back to the book by Terry Methan and he's claiming a number of scientific facts about jet fuel and explosions and how that happens. The claims that are being made are that jet fuel doesn't explode in the circumstances presented at the Pentagon. But yet there are a whole websites devoted to studying how jet fuel can explode in different circumstances, especially those circumstances that accompanied that of a jet aircraft hitting usually the ground.

Uh, at the risk of being pedantic, did the aircraft hit the ground at the pentagon? No? So Dewlap's claim that jet fuel can explode when planes hit the ground isn't relevant? Then maybe his point is, "there are whole websites devoted to studying jet fuel can explode in different circumstances." [sic] Is the sarcasm too obtuse for those who are convinced by this nitwit? Let me be more simple: he is saying that David Ray Griffin said that planes don't explode like that (what Dewlap? like what?) and actually he is wrong. We know this because some websites say that jet fuel explodes when planes hit the ground. Ladies and Gentleman, we are in the presence of a debating God.

So, time and time again, you go through this and look at underlying claims that Griffin is relying on. He has looked at these books and claims by a number of people, and he is somewhat skeptically says let's assume the claims are true. What would be the possible reason for this happening? But if you fact-check and you go back and look at a number of these claims by the preliminary researchers, you find out they're quite easily refuted.

So refute them Beerflap, instead of just saying they're wrong. Incidentally, what kind of Dork spells Thierry 'Terry' and Dubai 'due buy'? Is this website run by retards?

[orestes]

I was going to respond to the rest of his points, but I couldn't find any worth responding to. It's not a debate worth the name. He points to something to do with a certain witness? Big deal? Then Goodman lets him just uncritically speel off the results of the NIST report (I assume that is what he is referring to) as if there was no debate and no points to be made about the validity of that report. Piffle and poppycock. Worthy of CBBC.