David Ray Griffin responds to Monbiot

[ianrcrane]

[ianrcrane]

Perhaps a few hundred of us could write to The Guardian, requesting they publish DRG's response?

Meanwhile, let's ensure that this article is published as widely as possible.

Ian R. Crane

[conspiracy analyst]

Brilliant piece by Dr. Griffin,

The 'climate change' OCTers and the 9/11 OCTers are forming a block?

Is that a coincidence?

I mean after all most people still wonder how 'islington man' was in bed with Texan oil mobsters, and set about re-ordering the world?

There might be an answer to the conundrum how Monbiot became such a Bush acolyte. Its found in California not Texas this time.

Its called Arnold. The most 'green' governors in all of the USA.

A member of the Republican party...

[QuitTheirClogs]

Do we know if DRG has asked the Guardian to publish his response to Monbiot?

[Justin]

I have just sent this to the Editor - not holding my breath for a reply:

Sir,

I have just read this piece by Professor David Ray Griffin taking on George Monbiot's criticism of himself and the global 9/11 Truth Campaign. Have you the courage to print it or something else from this widely respected theologian professor? Are we asking too much for a level playing field to debate this hugely important subject - especially as thousands of British troops are in harms way directly as a result of 9/11?

I really would appreciate a reply,

Thank you,

Yours sincerely

Justin Walker
Vice Chair 9/11 Truth Campaign (Britain and Ireland)

Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot

By David Ray Griffin

" -- - In “Bayoneting a Scarecrow The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.” (Guardian, February 20), George Monbiot accuses members of the 9/11 truth movement of being “morons” and “idiots” who believe in “magic.” Having in his previous attack---“A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world,” Guardian, February 6---called me this movement’s “high priest,” he now describes my 9/11 writing as a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense.”

If my books are moronic nonsense, then people who have endorsed them must be morons. Would Monbiot really wish to apply this label to Michel Chossudovsky, Richard Falk, Ray McGovern, Michael Meacher, John McMurtry, Marcus Raskin, Rosemary Ruether, Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of America’s leading civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists?

If anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is by definition an idiot, then Moncbiot would have to sling that label at Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program; Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense; former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney; General Leonid Ivashov, former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; all the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth; and most of the individuals listed under “Professors Question 9/11” on the “Patriots Question 9/11” website.

One of the reasons these people reject the government’s conspiracy theory is that, if they were to accept the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they would need to affirm magical beliefs. A few examples:

The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic.

Monbiot, regarding the 9/11 truth movement’s conspiracy theory as a wrong-headed distraction, fails to see that the obviously false and truly distracting conspiracy theory is the official 9/11 myth, which has been used to justify imperial wars and increased militarism, thereby distracting attention from global apartheid and the ecological crisis. We focus on the 9/11 myth because, until it is exposed, getting our governments to focus wholeheartedly on the truly urgent issues of our time will be impossible.

David Ray Griffin has published over 30 books, including four about 9/11. His next book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, will be out in April.

[blackcat]

[Zabooka]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm
Its on Prison Planet


Link



Link



Link

[Anthony Lawson]

As Joe Friday used to say: “Stick to the facts. I just want the facts.”

The recent pages of discussions and arguments as to whether or not the building behind Jane Standley was WCT7, and what was the exact time of the broadcast became fairly depressing, because the smoke from the real smoking gun is being diluted. At around 5:19 PM on September 11th, 2001, a 47 storey building collaped into it's own footprint, and it has been officially denied that this was the result of a controlled demolition.

Incontrovertible evidence is required to convince doubters about how this building collapsed, but, to my mind, we are always straying away from the visual evidence. I am not about to criticize David Ray Griffin for his rebuttal of Monbiot’s article, but I do wish that the controlled demolition case had been more carefully argued. Here are all of the simple, clear steps that are required:

Incontrovertible Fact: Even if diesel-fuel fires, enhanced by office papers, plastics or whatever, could melt through the structural supports in such a building, they would all have to melt through and give way at exactly the same moment, otherwise the collapse would be uneven and the building would tip over, instead of collapsing in the manner which is there for all to see in the videos taken that day. (For comparison, a failed demolition video can be seen at http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/ )

Incontrovertible Fact: For all of the support columns in such a tall, wide building to have burned through and given way at exactly the same moment, due to any kind of fire, is manifestly impossible.

Incontrovertible Conclusion: It would be impossible for each and every critical support to collapse at at exactly the same moment, due to anything other than the employment of accurately-placed and correctly-sequenced demolition charges.

I do not care where any of the dissenting demolition experts got their experience, or where they studied, the almost perfectly-even collapse of WCT7 could not have happened had the building not been pre-rigged with cutting charges, in advance of September 11th, 2001.

Further, the same simple physics can be applied to the Twin Towers. Had any section of support columns not collapsed at exactly the same moment as all of the others, then the North Tower and the South Tower would have toppled over, instead of collapsing into their own basements.

End of story.

Anthony

[Stefan]

The Guardian has a "right to reply" policy- J7 managed to get an article in the Guardian as they were mentioned.

DRG (if anyone knows how he can be contacted) should be encouraged to send this response direct to the Guardian. As a respected writer and academic that one letter would be worth 100 of us lot writing in to request same.