is David Ray Griffin a fraud?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I am coming to believe that DRG is a fraud in the same way as Steve Jones -- IE cloaked in a perception of mild mannered respectibility but deep down taking the truth movement in the wrong direction

Is he directly or indirectly knowingly or unknowingly working for the perps

I expect to get lots of outrage and indignant replies from those of you who have bought into his perceived respectability --- peel back the veneer and take a closer look

[QuitTheirClogs]

No, he's not. And nor is Steven Jones.

[scubadiver]

Is this another attempted angle for NPT???

[marky 54]

TWSU3 if your theory is correct you would'nt need to spend time discrediting people. your facts alone would prove them wrong, obviously they dont so you need to discredit people.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

David Ray Griffin, is the author of the book, The New Pearl Harbor, beloved by many in the 911 Truth Movement as providing a definitive 911 skeptics account, even discussing various physical evidence claims pointing to 9-11 being an inside job. Writing his book's forward is Richard Falk. They're often a team, David Ray and Richard, both one world government aficionados (and I don't know about you, but I do admit to finding one world gov't advocates creepy) who work on the same projects and write for the same publications advocating a world government solution. Richard Falk, in fact, is a member of the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations. He's worked on new world order projects for the CFR, like the World Order Models Project financed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Rockefeller Foundation. What the hell is one to make of a CFR member wanting to expose 9-11? Another frequent writing/project partner of Griffin is John Cobb, former senior economist for the World Bank. Griffin and Cobb founded the Center for Process Studies which received support from the Rockefeller Foundation. Griffin and Cobb have also co-authored some materials with Club of Rome member Herman Daly. Griffin, himself, referred to as the "well known theologian", has some unusual ideas about how humanity should think about God and apparently wants us to revert to some type of mysticism on our path to the new world order. Here's an interview of him talking about it:

www.context.org/ICLIB/IC24/Griffin.htm

[Patrick Brown]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Patrick you are changing the subject.

The subject is DRG

[Patrick Brown]

[ian neal]

I'm aware of the questions raised about DRG.

We need to be clear what is being suggested. There is a world of difference between assisting the NWO agenda knowingly and assisting it unknowingly.

Knowingly means DRG is a fraud and liar and is deliberately (but very subtlely) misleading the movement

Unknowingly means very little. It means he has a different outlook, understanding, strategy and worldview to those who raise these questions of him

Given all that DRG has done for this movement those making these accusations should IMO be very clear what they are saying. Are they saying he is a fraud or just someone with differing opinions?

Given that these suspicions originate from people with a particularly suspicious and paranoid approach to life who think just about everyone is a shill except those that agree with them about everything and then think it is nothing to share these suspicions publicly, I say these accusations are false

I say the type of 'evidence' presented here is far too weak to raise genuinbe doubts about DRG's integrity. A whispering campaign based on this type evidence is extremely unhelpful, much as the not so whispered campaign against Andrew Johnson on these boards is extremely unhelpful.

I could go into detail why I think the evidence presented has no merit, but I really don't reckon it warrants it. Ideally just stop all this paranoid nonsense of endless speculating that different people are shills. If there must be such discussions please put them in the 9/11 controversies section

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ok Patrick

Do you not find it suspicious that DRG has connections with the CFR,
and receives funding from the Rockefeller Foundation?

If not, then presumably you would find it acceptable for this web site to be endorsed by a CFR member and accept Rockefeller Foundation funding

[marky 54]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[marky 54]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[marky 54]

your question is meaningless unless you can prove it, i could sit here and accuse anyone of the same thing.

would you endorse the spotted green men from cryton taking over this forum and being funded by the gingerbread man? i have no proof but its true

[ian neal]

TTWSU3

If Richard Falk, Professor [Emeritus] of International Law and Practice, Princeton University wants to write in say what a great forum and website this (unlikely me thinks) I don't really have problem with that

You see just because the CFR is an extremely dodgy organisation that appears wedded to the NWO agenda does not mean that every single one of their members is equally dodgy. The same with Chatham House or World Business Forum.

And then getting Richard Falk's recommendation on your book and then using this for a guilt by association attack. It means nothing to me. If you want me to suspect DRG on the back of this association, you need to show me some real dirt on Richard Falk

Similarly with the Rockefellor Foundation

Sure the Rockefellor's are an extremely dodgy clan at the heart of the NWO agenda. And their foundation supports some dodgy organisations/work. That does mean that every organisation that gets part of its funding from the Rockefellor Foundation is also equally dodgy.

It's a bit subtler than that. Take some other dodgy characters. Bill Gates and George Soros. Are you telling me that all the organisations their charitable trusts fund are also knowingly (and I stress knowingly) working for the NWO agenda

If so, you are welcome to your beliefs. I don't share them and I don't think many others do either.

I suggest these charitable trusts have a more subtle purpose. More about presenting these men as reasonable and benevolent whilst creating vehicles to promote favourable propaganda and offsetting tax liabilities.

But who knows you might be right. DRG might be a major mole in our midsts who for years has been cultivating a quiet calm persona of a studious and grandfatherly theology professor (guffaw) whilst all the while he has just been waiting for 9/11 to happen so he can hijack the inevitable truth movement and corrupt it with his devious ramblings about a new world based on christians (and other people of good faith) standing up against the evil empire. Ah, now you explain it, it is all so obvious

This is not real evidence or real dirt. Until you have proper evidence these are just more highly unhelpful and devisive speculation.

[Thermate]

[Patrick Brown]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[flamesong]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[DDD911]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[flamesong]

[Patrick Brown]

[John White]

If TWSU3 wishes to generate fear inside himself that this site is controlled by the NWO, its within his power to protect himself by simply not logging on here anymore

This is guilt by association character assasination at its worst: the anonomous TWSU3 is calling a proffesor of theology a NWO shill

Unlike criticism of Wood, which is firmly grounded in the paucity of her arguments

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[DDD911]

I’m sorry but this is all sounds silly to me, SEJ & DRG + Loose Change 2 + Dan Rather & WTC7 all provided me with enough visual & scientific evidence to clearly convince me of deception with the official story, thanks to these people & videos my eyes have been opened to the gritty reality of politics, those men opened my eyes to it all and before I was very asleep.

I always though Steven E Jones had strong Christian views (coming from BYU) and so does DRG, I believe what allows them to continue their 9/11 work is simply they believe in right & wrong,

Look if they hadn’t illuminated me I would still be in la la land. Loose Change 2 was never my doorway to enlightenment, in fact I don’t think it should be used as a gateway video, just show any sensible American that Dan Rather CBS clip of WTC 7 and with his voice and that building falling often wakes many up.

Anyway what I’m getting at is that both SEJ & DRG made the case for conspiracy with regards to the attacks of 9/11, to say otherwise is not only dangerous to 9/11 truth its just wrong in the first place, who’s side are you on THETRUTHWILLSETU3? Because looking through your past posts and I can see is a person who attacks very credible people & just stirs up a wild fire of confusion, do your views carry much weight on here because if they do I’ll consider going elsewhere because this isn’t constructive it’s destructive!

I can certainly understand peoples worries about this place, I’ve only just joined and this place is full of in-fighting & arguments, its about time you all got serious about this isn’t it?

[Patrick Brown]