David Ray Griffin has some sage advice (and a great new book)

[mhatrw]

http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/nice-little-david-ray-griffin-interview/

Do you have a personal theory of what really happened on Sept. 11?

No, and I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this. Because insofar as there are antagonisms and disputes within the movement, they’re related primarily to those things, where people say, well, here’s what hit the Pentagon, and others say that’s not true. I put my focus on the evidence that the official story is false, and the evidence is so abundant and overwhelming that to make the case you don’t have to prove what really happened and who did it and so on. It’s like if you had a murder trial, and Jones is accused of murder. The defense attorneys can prove that Jones didn’t do it without having a theory about who really did. All you have to do is have a good alibi and lack of evidence and so on. The critics say, you’ve got to have a theory. No, you don’t have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that’s what the debunkers love. They want to say, “That’s nonsense,” and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false.

A great excerpt from Griffin's newest book concerning Bush's and The Pet Goat on 9/11:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/07/02080.html

[Grateful for Hope]

1. He is right

So many debunkers have demanded that questioners provide a theory about what DID happen. I don't think that we, as citizens, will ever know what really happened unless we have a whole new investigation.

[didact]

90. Yes, he is right...and I don't even believe in a 911 conspiracy*

[LARED]

2. That's a brillant strategy

Develop no alternative theory whatsoever, just keep repeating the story that you have evidence the "official story" is false. Of course there is no material evidence the official story is false, but hey what difference does that make? You don't have to prove what really happened anyway.

Griffin is a truth giant I tell you.

[mhatrw]

5. In what logical world are internal contradictions not a measure of falsehood?

And, no, the object of OCT skepticism is not to prove what happened on 9/11. That is nothing but a trap that you, every other OCTbot, corporate media and the architects of the bullshit Global War on Terror (tm) have set for anyone who has very reasonably become highly skeptical of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.

The 9/11 OCT stinks to high heaven.

The story of what Bush was doing that day stinks. The story of what Rumsfeld was doing that day stinks. The story of what General Myers was doing that day stinks. The story of what the FAA, NORAD, NEADS and the rest of the USAF were doing that day stinks.

The story of all the cell phone calls made from planes flying 500+ mph at 30,000+ feet stinks. The story of Flight 93's debris field stinks. The story of Flight 93's crash happening three minutes before a documented, measured seismic event in the vicinity of Flight 93's crash site stinks. The story of why there was no comprehensive NTSB investigation of the crashes of any of the flights (especially Flight 93) stinks.

The story of the aborted anthrax investigation stinks. The story of why everybody in the Whitehouse went on Cipro days before the anthrax attacks stinks.

The story of war games happening on 9/11 stinks. The story that the FAA couldn't be bothered to contact the military about confirmed hijackings even after two planes had crashed in the WTC stinks. The story that turning off transponders makes planes invisible stinks. The story of how publicly available Flight Explorer and FlyteComm software easily tracked the hijacked planes while the FAA and US military could not stinks. The story that no traces of the black boxes from the planes that crashed into the towers were ever found stinks.

The story of the almost immediate destruction of over 98% of all the WTC metal stinks. The story of NIST ignoring the physical evidence of the WTC metal in preference for backwards engineered computer models stinks. The story of how and why everybody was so sure WTC-7 was about to collapse (starting 5 hours before it actually fell) even though no steel framed highrise had ever collapsed before 9/11 stinks. The story of why the only two pieces of metal ever recovered from WTC-7 were exposed to unusual high temperature sulfidation stinks.

The lack of physical evidence (like terminal security camera footage, for instance) produced about the hijackers stinks. The story of the evidence that was obviously planted in Atta's trunk and various hotel rooms stinks. The story of the magically recovered passport stinks. The story how the hijackers got their visas stinks. The story of how a shitty pilot supposedly knocked down a bunch of street lamps before plowing into the Pentagon less than 10 feet off the ground stinks. The story of the hijackers' FBI informant handlers stinks. The story that 19 stripper chasing, coke snorting, liquor loving operatives all willingly went on a suicide mission for Allah stinks. The story of Jeb Bush and federal agents seizing records from Huffman Aviation - the Florida flight school of Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers - in the middle of the night on 9/11 stinks. The story that the same FBI that still has no clue about who did the anthrax attacks 7 years later was somehow able to positively identify all 19 hijackers correctly with 48 hours stinks. The story of the FBI promoting the same individuals who thwarted the pre-9/11 terrorist investigations stinks. The testimony that convicted Moussaoui stinks.

The story of PTECH stinks. The story that "nobody could ever imagine planes flying into buildings" stinks. The story of the Pentagon brass being warned not to fly on 9/10 stinks.

The story of why the victims' families were stonewalled on any 9/11 investigation for so long stinks. The story that investigation of the millions made on suspicious financial transactions led nowhere (but we can't see it) stinks. The 9/11 Commission's conclusion that the question of who funded 9/11 "is of little consequence" stinks.

The explanation for why the chief of the Pakistani ISI wired Mohammed Atta $10,000 stinks. The story of why this same guy was meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham on the morning of 9/11 stinks. The story of why the Bin Ladens were allowed to fly around the country when nobody else was right after 9/11 stinks. The story of why FEMA set up shop near the WTC in NYC on 9/10/01 stinks.

The story of how Bush's 9/11 telephone logs somehow "disappeared" stinks. The story of the tape of the NYC's air traffic controllers testimony from 9/11 being cut into little pieces and put in dozens of garbage cans stinks.

All of these stories stink to high heaven and the fact that certain people think the best use of their precious time is to defend this fetid pile of shit is probably what stinks the worst. When your lover comes home drunk and sweaty at 3:00 AM and tells you some obvious bs about where she's been, you don't have to know exactly what happened to know she's lying. It is not incumbent on you to develop a complete theory of her whereabouts that night. It is incumbent on her to come up with a consistent explanation and convincing proof.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

10. Add any more red herrings to that list...

and you could qualify for some "No Child Left Behind (by the Rapture)" funds, as you will officially have a "school".

[mhatrw]

11. Cute.

I challenge you to challenge me on any and all of my supposed "red herrings."

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

79. I will point out a couple.

The story of what Bush was doing that day stinks.

That may be so, but it is irrelevant to the attacks themselves. If a bank gets robbed and the robbers escape while the police chief is giving a press conference about a narcotics bust from the previous day, would you blame the police chief for their escape or would you place the blame on the subordinates that were at the scene? Also keep in mind that the pResident is C.I.C. of the military, not law enforcement. Prior to 9/11, hijackings were considered criminal acts and therefore they were the responibility of law enforcement agencies. Precedents are reflected in policy, without one, there usually isn't a policy to deal with many specific acts.

The story of what Rumsfeld was doing that day stinks. The story of what General Myers was doing that day stinks.

Again, prior to 9/11 hijackings were considered crimes. Preventing crime and investigating criminal acts are the responsibility of law enforcement agencies, not the military. Law enforcement agencies can only use the tools that they are given. Prior to 9/11 if a police department had made a request for its own jet to chase hijackers, it would have been summarily rejected for it would have been seen as a waste of taxpayer's money.

The story of the aborted anthrax investigation stinks.

Yes it does, but the anthrax attacks were not a direct part of the "9/11" attacks, those were, according to the OFT and most other theories, hijackings.

The story of war games happening on 9/11 stinks.

There is some military unit or another having a 'war game' many days of the year. Do you think all of these people just stand at attention in their barracks waiting for deployment all year long like Unisols?

[mhatrw]

81. Do you even know what Rumsfeld & General Myers were supposedly doing on 9/11?

Bush:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/07/02080.html

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

Rumsfeld:

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

General Myers:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040814220906511

The 9/11 Commissions' cover up:

http://motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

83. Why are you concentrating on military personel...

seeing as prior to 9/11, dealing with hijackings was the responsibility of LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Must be the fact that the only thing you can 'hook' with your bait is red herrings.

The military and law enforcement are 2 different and seperate entities. Trying to place blame on the one that had the lesser responsibility for the shortcomings of the other is not going to help you make your 'case', it will most likely be used to dimiss your frivolous argument.

I have some 'sage' advice for you, stop believing that everything that a moneygrubbing 9/11 Conspiravangelist™ tries to $ell to you is true and ask yourself why Mr. Griffin is so intent on misdirecting his congregation.

[AZCat]

14. More recycled crap from mhatrw.

Nice copy and paste job.

[mhatrw]

26. Where did I cut and paste that from, AZCat?

Feel free to find the original source for all of us.

[AZCat]

33. You're right, you didn't cut and paste.

You actually went to the trouble to change the wording in this post so it doesn't quite match up to this one. Congratulations, you've proved me wrong.

[mhatrw]

49. Nope. The second post was plaguarized from this post.

Look at the posting times.

The post you accused me of "cutting and pasting" on this thread is 100% original. I wrote it from scratch myself yesterday.

[AZCat]

61. Serves me right for not checking post times.

For some reason I read the other one before this one and thought it was the original.

[elias7]

22. "Red herrings" and "recycled crap" is not helping LARED from his slap-down

[LARED]

57. Slap down? -- "snort" - nt

[LARED]

56. What a big stinky straw man you've erected

First off internal contradictions are a measure of falsehood if you are speaking about logic in a legalistic sense. This is clearly not the case. The contradictions you believe proving a falsehood are are no different than the slightly different stories a policeman gets when interviewing four different people that witnessed the same accident in the intersection. It's a simple matter to scrutinize the statements and find inconsistencies. Yet no one equates these inconsistencies with falsehoods.

Your basic problem is that most of the things you claim "stink" are either born of your ignorance of the subject, or a steadfast refusal to recognize the complexity of the days events will without doubt never be completely rationalized because stupid fallible people are the one's recording and narrative of the day. Actually a nice consistent 9/11 story would be the thing to make me think there are falsehoods.

If you want to claim a particular story stinks without providing any evidence of why it stinks that's up to you. But don't be surprised when you are not taken seriously.

Like Griffin.

[mhatrw]

74. Do you wish to challenge me on any of the stories that I say stink to high heaven?

Feel free to take up the cause. I would be happy to go on and on about each one. You can start by explaining Bush's actions on 9/11 to us all.

Or perhaps all you really wanted to do here was wave your hand around dismissively?

[LARED]

76. Sure, lets try number 1

"The story of what Bush was doing that day stinks. "

Do you have a shred of evidence that Bush's actions or inactions are material to an inside job?

[mhatrw]

80. The story of what Bush did on 9/11 stinks to high heaven.

Read all about it:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/07/02080.html

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

Now please explain all of this away for us with a few waves of your hand.

[elias7]

87. Like actors lost without their scripts on opening night...

Once more, my OCT-labeled "lack of critical thought" skills lead me to conclusion that, far from incompetence and chaos, something very organized within elements of our government was being played out that day. Something is so rotten here...

[SDuderstadt]

88. Okay, Elias....

I'll show you what I am talking about. You're claiming that "something very organized within elements of our government was being played out that day". If, in fact, that is the case, you should have, at the very least, some concrete evidence of it nearly 6 1/2 years later. Where is it? All you seem to have is supposition and conjecture. That's not critical thinking. If your claims were true, there would be very specific evidence or, at the very least, one of the "plotters" would have broken ranks.

In any large scale catastrophic event there are invariably unanswered questions, anomalies and even conflicting accounts. It takes critical thinking skills to sort through the chaff and see what makes sense and what doesn't. The lack of critical thinking skills prevents a CT from understanding the level of proof necessary to conclude something and leads to unwarranted conclusions. I suggest that is what is happening here. I call it "connecting the dot", i.e., one's inability to recognize that one does not have enough data points to draw a particular conclusion.

Have you actually ever studied Logic? If not, is it possible that you don't know what you don't know? I'm curious. For example, is it possible for an argument to be valid yet not true? If you don't know the answer to that, I would suggest that you enroll in a Logic class and the answer might surprise you. If you're interested in learning more about Logic and critical thinking, I can suggest an excellent learning site:

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html

[elias7]

96. connecting the dot

I'm claiming that given an arbitrary dichotomy of incompetence and chaos versus the orchestration of the appearance of incompetence and chaos, I choose the latter. Rules of logic applied to existing publicly accessible information do not support my conclusion, but it would be a fallacious for me conclude that they can support the former. We are all dealing with incomplete information and all we have is what we are told.

Although I cannot prove my assertion, I believe that the links provided by mhatrw provide ample evidence that there are serious inconsistencies and contradictions in what we have been told. So who is committing the greater error in logical reasoning? Me, for questioning the premises given to me by those who, evidence shows have lied to me, or you, unable to poke an ample logical hole in the limited facts that we have access to, that are provided by those very liars? Who is the greater fool?

Not to be a jerk, but I believe you made a deductive fallacy when you stated, "If your claims were true, there would be very specific evidence or, at the very least, one of the "plotters" would have broken ranks". You are claiming the necessity of the conclusion for the premise to be true, when I can't even claim probability. I don't have any special powers or connections or time for that matter outside of my field of medicine to gather any evidence referable to 9/11. All I have is what I read online. Secondly, I don't know why it is necessarily true that a plotter would have broken ranks; in fact, I find that to be a dubious assertion after only 6 1/2 years.

I understand that it takes, "critical thinking skills to sort through the chaff and see what makes sense and what doesn't". Did you read mhatrw's links. My god, it shouldn't take a logician much effort to be dazzled by the inconsistencies that are clearly a matter of public record. Perhaps a nice exercise would be to map out this tangled maze in some sort of syllogistic diagram; perhaps you might come to a different conclusion.

I appreciate your appeal to me to study logic. I did take one logic class in college, reading "Possible Worlds" or some such titled book, and I have over several years browsed logical fallacies websites (including the one you linked to me) in an effort to try to poke holes in what I deem as fairly illogical statements by my spouse that still tend inexplicably give her the upper hand in arguments, stymied as I often am.

I will say that from a logical standpoint, the available evidence does support the conclusion that: sufficient inconsistencies and contradictions in the public record exist that would merit further investigation into many facets of 9/11, especially given the fact that much available data we have has been served up to us by those who have clearly lied or misled us about many things in the past 7 years. If you haven't carefully read mhatrw's links, I beg you to do so with an open and critical mind (I hope my tone does not convey any condescension; it's merely a plea).

If you can point out any holes in my reasoning from a logical fallacy standpoint, I would, as ever, be grateful to improve my mind.

[jberryhill]

8. That's what "creation science" is

Same approach.

[MarkyX]

84. DRG doesn't bring evidence, only accusations

Just like the nazis, the bolsheviks, the grand inquisitors, the puritans, etc etc.

When are we going to see debunkers accused of Witchcraft? Should be fun.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Griffin has yet to deal with the detailing debunking of his last book by Ryan Mackey.

Yes, he knows about it. He has a copy and requested a copy of the revised version.

Since then, nothing. Griffin's sage advice for dealing with people who show you wrong on every page is evidently, "Stick your fingers in your ears and go NANANANANANANANA."

[mhatrw]

4. Griffin has very intelligently changed his strategy.

Debunkers grasp onto any nit and then try to discredit each nit with any of the ten versions of the OCT that are floating around, chalking up any contradictory reports (until they need them to invoke them to "debunk" something else) to error or incompetence. Debunkers blithely ignore official statements and findings and make up whatever alternative limited hangouts suit their purposes whenever and wherever this strategy can effectively cast doubt on 9/11 OCT skeptics.

Rather than engage the infinite number of keepers of the official mythology in an endless and fruitless battle (which is exactly what you and every OCTbot desperately wish him to do), Griffin has very intelligently limited himself to discussing the internal inconsistencies of the official conspiracy theory.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. "Debunkers grasp onto any nit" -- Ryan Mackey demolished every argument DRG made

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

Griffin's "intelligence" is pointing feebly at imagined sparks in the forest while his house burns to the ground. I that's intelligence, you can keep it.

[mhatrw]

12. Aye, aye, that's intelligence, matey!

And Ryan Mackey is full of shit.

[AZCat]

13. Oh?

You wouldn't happen to have a coherent argument why "Ryan Mackey is full of shit" or should I just expect that you're playing games again?

[CrawlingChaos]

16. coherent argument?

Care to point out any one particular point contained in Mackey's paper to make me reconsider what ordinary common sense tells me is a steaming pile of horse dung? Please be specific. It should be compelling and persuasive when weighed against the enormous body of evidence suggesting the use of explosives in the destruction of the three WTC buildings.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Old news, Crawling Chaos.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=172126&mesg_id=172126

[CrawlingChaos]

42. That's it?

That's really your choice for the most compelling point from his paper? Normally the image of massive steel columns ricocheting around lower Manhattan would make me chuckle, but there's nothing funny about any of this. On video and in still photos, you can see material being blown away from the buildings as they come down, and you can see with your own eyes the mass of the building being reduced to powder in mid-air. Clearly, you can make an strained argument for all kinds of bizarre scenarios on paper, but to defend the 9/11 OCT, you have to do it over and over again, to the point of extreme silliness. You could never sell that to a jury in court of law.

So that's what you consider a high point of Mackey's paper, and Mackey's paper is about the best "debunking" available, is that right? And you call 9/11 Truth laughable?

[Bolo Boffin]

50. I notice you don't do any of that "showing what he said to be wrong" stuff

Perhaps you can spare a few minutes and attempt it.

[CrawlingChaos]

54. I considered his argument...

...and found it unlikely in the extreme and not remotely persuasive. Taken cumulatively, the number of extremely unlikely events Mackey suggests occurred simultaneously makes the probability of his hypothesis being correct a virtual infinitesimality. Not plausible.

Factor in the mountainous evidence of a cover-up and it all adds up to one great big steaming pile of dung.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Bullshit.

Quote from the section in that link, and show specifically how he got things wrong. Show his math to be wrong. Explain how physics doesn't work like that. Show that the beam couldn't get that kind of a ricochet.

Your personal incredulity means squat.

[CrawlingChaos]

63. I beg to differ

I wouldn't get very far in life without my personal incredulity. If you go through life without a fully engaged BS detector, things will not go well for you.

I understand why it's very important for you to frame these questions just so, because your position is weak, but I explained to you why I think Mackey is full of crap. Once again, I said: the number of extremely unlikely events Mackey suggests occurred simultaneously makes the probability of his hypothesis being correct a virtual infinitesimality. How is this statement incorrect?

Can we discuss theoretical possibility vs. probability? Do you routinely reject DNA evidence because of the remote, theoretical possibility of a misleading result? Surely not. Similarly, it would be irrational to accept such an outrageously unlikely hypothesis as the 9/11 OCT.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. More bullshit.

List out the number of extremely unlikely events Mackey suggests. Stop playing stupid games.

[CrawlingChaos]

69. Now that is what they call...

..projection. I mean seriously, what do you call what you're doing? Sad little game, fooling no one.

You keep demanding that I repeat myself, and yet you don't answer any of my questions. If you don't like this, why not consider a new hobby?

[Bolo Boffin]

70. "Sad little game, fooling no one." As a description of your stalling, I couldn't agree more. n/t

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Feel free to bring back an example of his error, mhatrw.

Funny, when I started to type that subject header, it popped up as something I'd typed before.

Word for word.

There's the entire whitepaper, mhatrw. Surely you can find one single error, since Mackey's so full of shit and all.

[mhatrw]

27. I started reading that crap, but my eyes glazed over.

Ryan Mackey must be the most annoying, boring and long-winded OCTbot ever invented. And that's saying a lot, as anyone who reads this forum can attest.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. "boring to mhatrw" doesn't equate to "incorrect."

I would think the chance to make me eat my words would provide a strong enough motivation for you to get through a bit of Mackey's work in enough time to find something factually incorrect...

...since he's full of shit and all.

[mhatrw]

47. Normally, it would. But Mackey's arguments are so dense and nit picky

and his style is so lugubrious that wading through his "white paper" is torture. I couldn't get through a single page.

Maybe Mackey is the be all and the end all of debunkers, but nobody will ever read anything he writes without getting paid to do so. I guess that's the whole idea.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Methinks the mhatrw protests too much. n/t

[mhatrw]

60. Look, I just tried to read that utter crap again.

I got all the way to page 7 this time. In all those pages, Mackey managed to say nothing except to take nit picky exception with the manner in Griffin makes his arguments. And the damn thing goes on and on and on like this, discussing just a single cherry picked chapter of Debunking 9/11 Debunking for 230 pages!

I'm probably the first person who has ever gotten as far as page 7 without falling asleep, and it took half a pot of coffee. I give up. You win. Mackey is the James Joyce of debunkers and this is his Ulysses.

Here is an example of Mackey's "debunking" for anyone with the patience to read it:

"2. Frank DeMartini’s comment that “the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it” <17> (emphasis added) is incorrect. While such an impact was considered by the designers, this consideration was not in response to an ordinary design requirement and aircraft impact did not appear in any ordinary building code, as explained in NCSTAR1-1 <18>. Any such requirement would be a special customer requirement, and without documentation describing this requirement, we cannot evaluate it with any clarity. Mr. DeMartini’s comment is also unsupported by any calculation, and thus should be considered as speculative. Perhaps his belief was simply mistaken."

To summarize: Griffin quoted Frank DeMartini to make a point, and Mackey says he doesn't believe Frank DeMartini in order to "debunk" Griffin. And Mackey goes on like this for another 200 pages.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. At least you provided an "example"

Of course you mangled it.

Mackey says there is no documentation of this requirement and DeMartini's claim cannot be evaluated. At best, it's speculative. That's reasonable. It's DRG that clings to the DeMartini statement as if it were holy writ.

[mhatrw]

73. No, it's nitpicky. All Griffin did was supply a quote that supports his

contention. And the quote supports his contention. The fact that Mackey takes five sentences to say he doesn't believe the quote does not constitute debunking. It constitutes ridiculously pedantic nitpicking.

Mackey takes issue with just about every word Griffin writes in every imaginable nitpicky way as in this example for 230 pages.

I know exactly why this guy is your hero. You can say "he's destroyed everything Griffin wrote" and nobody will ever have the stamina to evaluate your claim. For someone to take Mackey to the same task he took Griffin would take 2000 pages of drivel similar to Mackey's own tripe. If you can't baffle them with bullshit, muddy the water with a mountain of monotonous minutia.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. "Ryan Mackey writes a bunch of stuff!" Time to call the...

The quote Griffin uses as if from Mount Sinai cannot be evaluated. No calculations, no examination of the building's performance after an airplane strike has ever been presented. It is not the kind of support Griffin needs for his fantasies.

And no amount of your reframing Mackey's direct and methodical style will counter this.

[quicknthedead]

77. Wrong! Mackey's deception borders on...

In the instance found in the link below, Ryan Mackey is either so lazy he doesn't check his detail, or he simply makes stuff up as he goes along (also known as "lying"). How will we ever know which it is?:redbox::boring:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=199338&mesg_id=199495

[quicknthedead]

62. Mackey is proven wrong here...

I challenged Ryan Mackey on a fallacious error (if not outright lie), and he ended up in silence because he was wrong.

It was about the paper Gordon Ross and I did:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

Mackey provided a dishonest "debunking" by writing absurd misinformation about our paper in regards to the definition of seismic "origin times" on page 79 in his work:
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf

Mackey wrote:
"As it turns out, the seismic event times quoted by Ross and Furlong are inaccurate. Returning to the November 2001 Vibration Data article <111>, Table 1 on page 5 lists the same times as Ross and Furlong, but it lists them as the origin times. This is a critical detail. The “origin time” refers to the start time of an individual seismic record, and not the time of an event located within that record precise to the second, as they assumed."

I recently ran across this deception of his regarding the simple definition of seismic "origin time"; so, I posted the following at JREF that explains from authorities the exact definition. This refutes his gross error (and attempt to mislead):
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3400115#post3400115

The truth be told, the "origin time" of a seismic event is exactly that: the precise time that an earthquake rupture occurs.

Or in the common vernacular, "It is what it is."

Not surprisingly, Mackey once again responded to my post with yet another of his attempts to turn the truth "on its head", so I responded with this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3400485#post3400485

With his duplicity exposed, he never responded after this.

So, yes, mhatrw is right about him...and 9/11 was an inside job.


BY LOVINGKINDNESS AND TRUTH INIQUITY IS ATONED FOR
AND BY THE FEAR OF THE LORD ONE KEEPS AWAY FROM EVIL

[AZCat]

78. Yes, that's right Craig.

He ignores you because you've managed to bring down the entire NWO apparatus with your diligent work (or something).

Or maybe he ignores you because you're never going to shut up about your claim, regardless how wrong it is.

[quicknthedead]

97. You are as wrong as Mackey is,...

and can't face the facts either.

"Origin time".

Look it up and learn (if that is still possible; OCT's don't like to look at facts, or the truth).

[AZCat]

98. While I am honored that you would compare me...

to Ryan Mackey, I am in no way as smart as him. If I am as "wrong" as he is, then I'm in a pretty good place. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Stubborn, aren't you?

&caption=Seismograph%20readings%20by%20Lamont-Doherty%20Earth%20Observatory%20of%20Columbia%20University/Won-Young%20Kim%20%28senior%20research%20scientist%29/Arthur%20Lerner-Lam%20%28associate%20director%29/Mary%20Tobin%20%28senior%20science%20writer%29/%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%22%20target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%3C/a%3E

The origin times are at the 0 mark for each of those signals, Mr. Furlong. The actual seismic events happen about 16 seconds in. Anyone who can read a graph can see this.

ETA: Another link showing this:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

The seismograph record begins at 8:46:30 for the first impact, and the event begins at about 8:46:43. The 9/11 Commission time is 8:46:40.

The record begins at 9:02:55 for the second impact, and the event begins at 9:03:08. The 9/11 Commission time is 9:03:11.

It's RIGHT THERE ON THE CHART.

[quicknthedead]

99. Too bad you don't know what seismic "origin time" is...

You are as wrong as Mackey.

"Origin time" is the time a seismic rupture occurs (which is why they use UTC, down to the second).

Or are you right and the US Geological Survey wrong?
http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/glossary.html
Time and Date
"We indicate the date and time when the earthquake initiates rupture, which is known as the "origin" time. Note that large earthquakes can continue rupturing for many 10's of seconds. On the individual text page for each earthquake we provide time in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time)."

This does not include run-up time provided on a seismic graph before a seismic event occurs. LOL

Mackey's claim is not only wrong, it is ridiculous, just another OCT deception, except this one is ludicrous.

Enough with this, boloboffin. Mackey is deceitful in this instance, since one can not believe he is so stupid as to engender such a ridiculous claim. Mackey is anything but dumb. On the contrary. I believe he made it up hoping no one would notice or care about the truth on this little item.

Do not continue with your claim any further for I will not respond to either you or AZcat. I will not waste time arguing givens with those who would, if they could, stand the truth on its head.

Instead, I will end with what I ended writing to your illustrious Mackey. It says enough:

The seismic origin time compared to the radar time is what this is about. Your paper is fallacious on this (you failed to take a moment to determine the definition for this term).

No one has dismissed the radar times as being inaccurate, and no one has dismissed the seismic origin times accepted by NIST as being anything but accurate. You can not overturn these facts, Mackey.

AA Flt 11 impacted WTC1 at 8:46:40, but the NIST seismic origin time for the same event (supposedly) is 8:46:30 (plus or minus one second).

That's a 10-second UTC difference. Got any ideas on that?

And while you're thinking, try taking your wrong definition for seismic "origin time" and replacing it with the right one. It is what it is.

"Origin Time" is exactly that--the precise moment for when the seismic event occurred.

Adios

[AZCat]

101. Ahh, if only you saw it from our perspective.

Do not continue with your claim any further for I will not respond to either you or AZcat. I will not waste time arguing givens with those who would, if they could, stand the truth on its head.

And yet, you're pissed at Ryan Mackey for not responding to you over at the JREF. How ironic.

[AZCat]

39. I bet it is annoying...

reading something that doesn't jibe with your precious theories. That's why you have to stoop to ad-homs.

[mhatrw]

48. LOL!

Mackey is annoying to read no matter what one believes, I don't have any precious theories, and you are the one who is dismayed by this fact.

[seemslikeadream]

7. Great vid here about the book

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBD36MHmawQ

[SidDithers]

9. DRG? A new book to sell?...

Shocked. Shocked I am.

Sid

[CrawlingChaos]

15. an important point

Thanks for starting this topic, as I agree DRG makes a very important point here. No doubt about it, if you go to any so-called "debunking" site, the main tactic used is to keep pressing the 9/11 skeptic to produce an absurdly detailed alternate theory so the "debunker" can pounce on "lack of proof" for the very speculation they insisted be produced. What exists is a veritable mountain of evidence the OCT is pure crap. And once you know the OCT is a lie, you have to ask yourself, who benefits? Who had the means to cover the crime? Supporters of 9/11 Truth have a common goal: a real investigation into the crimes of that day. It must be particularly hard for "debunkers" to continue to toe the line in support of the OCT, now that Phillip Shenon has revealed the 9/11 Commission Report was essentially co-written by Zelikow and Karl Rove. I expect they're going to get increasingly desperate and ever more irrationally vicious.

[MarkyX]

18. So you guys don't have a hypothesis or a proper narrative..

And you think this is a good thing? This is the same shit we've seen from holocaust deniers, moon land hoaxers, flat earth societies, and creationists.

You need to have some sort of story with evidence to be taken seriously. Instead, I'm seeing guys with no experience dealing with the topics at hand talk like they know everything; nevermind the tiny fact that none of these people stepped on ground zero. Even so, the scenarios they raise have no evidence to back it up (i.e no bombs found in the debris). Whenever someone likes me brings this up, we are already labelled as a shill, an agent, or sometimes even threatened. Or better yet, they have to make something up to cover the fact that they have nothing.

Besides, doesn't DRG give around 10,000 dollars a speech and a shitload of books to sell?

[mhatrw]

28. The OCT narrative is full of holes big enough to fly a 757 through.

I don't need my own narrative to know the OCT is full of shit. If you don't want to take me seriously because of that, feel free.

[CrawlingChaos]

44. Straight to that tired old tactic, I see

You seem to be struggling, as evidenced by the absurd statements above. I think you do yourself a disservice going straight for the old holocaust denier/creationist/moon hoax tactic. It makes you appear desperate and irrational.

The contention is that the 9/11 OCT cannot be true, and an independent investigation is needed to discover the truth. Can you present compelling evidence to the contrary (other than "the government told me so, and they would never lie to me")? Can you present a rational argument against the need for a new investigation?

[MarkyX]

19. A point I forgot to mention

About the lack of narrative. If there was so much evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job, why do you people with conflicting scenarios? We have theories like hijackers don't exist to space beams destroying the towers. With proper evidence, people could at least agree on something. We can agree the sky is blue and gravity exists, thanks to proper science. Yet we can't say the same about 9/11 deniers with their theories.

[elias7]

21. don't you understand the point of the OP?

[MarkyX]

24. So accusation is fine without evidence?

I declare DRG to be a pedophile. Prove me wrong.

[BeachBaby]

25. Hi MarkyX.....

I can only surmise, from my own POV, that what non-believers of the 9/11 Commission Report want is an independent investigation, because there are too many issues of the event that aren't credible.

We, as "the little people" of America, don't have a whole lot to work with. We just know that what we saw, versus what we're being told, isn't matching up. Unprecedented collapses; "vaporized" airplanes; incompetent military; "hijackers" with no jet flight experience pulling off feats that own very own best pilots, admittedly couldn't achieve; the list goes on. There were way too many "lucky breaks" for the so-called terrorists - and the story, in my opinion, is an insult to my intelligence - I HATE being lied to.

Until we have the same resources that the govt has access to, we can only brainstorm, network, and research with what we've got, which ain't much.

Wasn't it Andrea Yates who claimed that the reason she killed all 5 of her kids was because God told her to? While we can all sit here and find more "rational" excuses for why she did what she did, can we PROVE that God didn't tell her to do it? No. All we can do is find specialists who are experienced in this kind of behavior, and go with their research. Maybe that's a poor analogy, but if all we've been told is that Bin Laden and al Qaeda did it, and yet later on, FBI and Cheney both admit that they don't have enough proof, well......they got some explainin to do.

Like I've said before in other threads.....if our govt had nothing to do with 9/11, they sure fought an investigation into it, didn't they? And even when they gave in, it had to be on their terms, investigated by their people, and they got to call all the shots on what documentation would be handed over, and what documentation would be "classified". The only people I know of that try to fight the truth, are the ones trying to hide it.

[MarkyX]

32. Oh yeah?

"I can only surmise, from my own POV, that what non-believers of the 9/11 Commission Report want is an independent investigation, because there are too many issues of the event that aren't credible."

What's stopping them from having their own independent investigation?

[BeachBaby]

35. I think I already explained that.

As much as we scream FOIA, they will only give us what they want to, and take advantage once again, of their executive power by using the age old phrase "In the interests of national security....."

Nobody is telling you what to believe. I have to wonder why, though, the people who believe the official story get so defensive. What do they care? If the believer is satisfied with the story, then move along, right?

I don't believe in aliens, but I don't jump into alien forums and tear them up - so I don't understand why official story believers feel this need to trounce on those who feel that we are being lied to, as we have been so many times before, by this rogue administation.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Is there an "alien forum" here at DU?

No?

The reason that has been explained time and again to conspiracy theory advocates is that we are defensive because we are defending DU from this 9/11 Truth nonsense. Get this through your head, JGD. Your 9/11 theories are laughable and damaging to causes I care about -- healthcare, the Iraq war, and many other progressive issues.

The extent to which your fantasies are not countered here is the extent to which DU is crippled as an effective tool for change in this country. If we were not here showing just how far off your fantasies, factual inaccuracies, and bullshit were, DU would be seen as actually advocating this crap.

So deal with it.

[BeachBaby]

41. OMG - now THAT is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today.

You're defending DU?????

Uh, I think DU will be just fine.

OMG - I'm crying, I'm laughing so hard.

Now get THIS through YOUR head, bolo. You are choosing to believe an administration, and its faithful constituents, while they serve you the biggest batch of lies I've ever seen on one platter. Get THIS through YOUR head, bolo - they can't even point the finger at OBL anymore. Get THIS through YOUR head, bolo - they fought the investigation. Get THIS through YOUR head, bolo - you're more scared of what happened on 9/11 than I am. It's alot easier to sleep at night when you just trust your govt to smoke those mean, zealous brown people out of their holes, isn't it?

Christ - if "Rebuilding America's Defenses" doesn't clear it all up for you, nothing will.

And I would just LOVE to know how my questioning the govt about 9/11 is somehow damaging to healthcare, the war and "many other progressive issues". I can't wait to hear this one.

Now go back to sleep, bolo, while we grown-ups figure this whole thing out.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. I wear your insults and derision as a badge of honor.

It is an honor to be laughed at by someone posting the bullshit that you do, JerseyGirlDem. You are your own worst enemy.

[mhatrw]

59. Yes, you are doing a great service to the world, boloboffin.

Propping up the Global War on Terror (nt) is God's work!

[Ghost in the Machine]

64. "Propping up the Global War on Terror (nt) is God's work!"

Would you expect anything less from a jesus college graduate?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harding Graduate School of Religion
Christian Theology 1992 — 1994

Heritage Christian University
BA, Bible, 1987 — 1990

School was known as International Bible School at this time.

Activities and Societies: WBHL Radio, IBC Quartet

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/6/a6/143
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gawd & the Gubmint would never lie to anyone, would they?

[jberryhill]

85. This may come as a shock to you, but

...people change.

And people who have been fooled in the past, and/or exposed to fault-ridden propaganda, tend to be pretty good at recognizing it when it comes around again.

Two of the best books that take apart Evangelical Christianity are written by ex-Evangelical Christians.

So, by "jesus college graduate", you are suggesting that David Ray Griffin is not to be believed, yes?

[Ghost in the Machine]

89. To be quite honest, the only thing I know about DRG is what I've read here...

.. but if memory serves me correctly, he speaks out against the government's official story, doesn't he? To me, that is different from bolo's strict adherence to the official story, and he seems to be obsessed with DRG and making him out to be a liar. I notice this pattern with him whether it be discussion of 9-11, JFK or UFOs... strict adherence to the government stories and nothing but contempt and/or ridicule of anyone who believes otherwise. He keeps pushing the "fault-ridden propaganda" from our government, not exposing and denouncing it, thereby sticking to his fundamental beliefs...

There's a big difference, don't you think?

[mhatrw]

102. Yep. People change. Just like Adam Pearlman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x189778

[number6]

93. bravo JerseyGirlDem

:bounce::thumbsup::hi:....:dem::yourock::applause:

more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullit SUPER bolo

able to debunk a tall building in a single bound ..

[Twist_U_Up]

43. "we are defending DU from this 9/11 Truth nonsense."

You can get on with your life now.
We "truthers" will surely survive.
btw...........
This isnt anyone you know by chance is it ?

:rofl: :patriot: :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Craig or Aldo, whichever one you are

Isn't there a Pentagon witness that needs insulting somewhere? Why spend your time on little old me?

[noise]

66. Nonsense?

Is this the 'one size fits all' authoritarian debunking method? There are no unresolved questions with the official account? Have you read Philip Shenon's book?

[BeachBaby]

71. Hey, noise....

:hi:

I bought the book as a gift to myself for my birthday a couple weeks ago, and just started reading it the other night, so I didn't get very far yet. I have to admit that I was surprised that it starts with the Sandy Berger story. While I knew what the intent of the book was to be about, I never thought that the Clinton Administration's part in all of it would be included. It will be a good read, no doubt.
After I finish it, I'll be off to Barnes and Noble for DRG's new book. I think I need to start a book budget. :)

[number6]

92. bolo this is the biggest pile you

ever posted ......


"....The reason that has been explained time and again to conspiracy theory advocates is that we are defensive because we are defending DU from this 9/11 Truth nonsense. Get this through your head, JGD. Your 9/11 theories are laughable and damaging to causes I care about -- healthcare, the Iraq war, and many other progressive issues."

911 truth is going to damage healthcare....:crazy::rofl::rofl:

"The extent to which your fantasies are not countered here is the extent to which DU is crippled as an effective tool for change in this country."

bolo your one of the best comedians ever

............................:rofl::rofl::rofl:.......................

[Bolo Boffin]

94. *yawn* n/t

[number6]

95. hey bolo

.............drum roll :hi:

[noise]

65. It's easy for Bill Clinton

to mock '911 truthers' because he knows much of the evidence is classified. I guarantee he would not be so self righteous if all the Bin Laden/al Qaeda evidence from his time in office was declassified.

The public has never heard from Dave Frasca, Rod Middleton or Rich B. (chief of Alec Station from mid '99 until some point after 9/11). All three had MAJOR roles in the lead up to 9/11. It's as if the corporate media was given STAND DOWN orders in regards to these officials.

[mhatrw]

30. I'm accusing the OCT account of 9/11 of being contradictory and incredible.

I have mountains of evidence that support this accusation.

[AZCat]

34. No you don't.

You have what you believe to be mountains of evidence. Others think it's just a steaming pile of debunked crap.

[mhatrw]

45. Debunk away. All these OCT stories still stink to high heaven.

And anybody trying to defend them is infected by their stench.

[AZCat]

46. Why?

Because you've rebunked them? Shouldn't once be enough?

[Sweet Pea]

38. What is it?

Stop the verbal posturing and show us. Between you and Jerseygirl you should be able to have a "slam dunk" case, if the amount of digital jawing amounts to anything.

Unless its all bullshit and you can't produce valid "evidence" of what you speak of.

All this is is more "I have evidence!" bullshit from people who lack the balls/cojones/backbones/whatever to do anything about it but spout off on an internet forum - because that's all they CAN do.

[mhatrw]

58. Here is just part of just one chapter.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/07/02080.html

Would you care to explain these OCT contradictions away for us?

[Sweet Pea]

72. THAT...

is your "evidence"???

THAT? The fact that Bush "dawdled", as you and Bill Sammon, called it, in Florida that morning? THAT?????

The fact that they did not, as you seem to think they should have, have perfect knowledge of everything happening in the first hour to hour and a half of the events? There are many reasons why the delay could have been in place - are you serious? You are just as screwed up as Griffith. Not being a secret service agent or a member of the staff that morning this is what I would speculate, and note that I said "speculate": They knew they were secure in the school. They had the immediate, surrounding area secure. They were in immediate contact when needed with Air Force One and airport officials at Bradenton. MacDill Air Force Base was 30 miles away - anyone know if there was any contact with them? Perhaps there was a thought that the Prez motorcade was going to be flushed into an ambush. Perhaps the route back to the airport was being changed and cleared. Perhaps THE FOG OF NOT KNOWING AND UNCERTAINTY was present and they needed some time to ensure the best and safest actions were taken. Perhaps they were just screwed up and didn't know what was happening.

Any number of things could have been going on that you know fuck all about. Again, you have this idiotic fallacy of the perfectly functioning government. Get off the drugs, man. Grow up.

Go ahead and take that "evidence" into a court. Let me know when you do because I'd like to be there to watch the festivities. Definitely be good entertainment.

Where did you find that newspaper, btw? Looks like a Canadian National Enquirer. Is Alien Man featured in it? "I Loved Sasquatch!" editorials?

That is your evidence?

[mhatrw]

82. It's aint just Bush and it ain't just because his entourage was criminally negligent in putting

the safety of all the little kids at the school he was meeting at risk unless they knew for sure that he wasn't a target.

Bush:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/07/02080.html

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

Rumsfeld:

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

General Myers:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040814220906511

The 9/11 Commissions' cover up:

http://motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html

This information alone builds a better circumstantial case than the ones the US DOJ used to convict either Padilla or Moussaoui.

[Sweet Pea]

86. I took a quick look at one of your links...

specifically the Rumsfeld link and you don't get a third of the way through it before the bullshit and poor reporting begins:

"One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."
It seems to be the only department which re-entered the building after renovation.

Remember this p
Specificity is the soul of credibility. Without it, you're simply not credible.

That excerpt, above: bullshit. The Navy Command Center had moved into the renovated spaces, as well, as did some Marine organizations on the second and third floors.

Next, the "This is what should have happened" picture shows a couple of F-4 Phantoms, which haven't been flown in the Air National Guard since 1996, and those were reconnaisance aircraft.

The rest of that article is some impressive snarking at things the author or others didn't think happened or could of happened - as if they were there.

Again....this is your evidence of "war crimes"? Better head back out and get the CSI team with you, sport, cause what you got ain't gonna convict squat.

[mhatrw]

100. Yes, one of the links slightly overstates its case.

That doesn't make Rumsfeld's own story of what he supposedly was doing on 9/11 any more credible or reasonable.

[elias7]

36. No, but appeal of conviction is, if facts don't support the conviction

Consider the Siegelman case, I don't have to know the specifics of what happened to know that the broad strokes of the pieces I read did not make a sensible case for conviction. Five reasonable people can have five different theories of how justice was subverted, but until his appeal, we won't know for sure.

If you think people haven't tried to open investigation into facets of 9/11, you haven't been paying attention. No one in power wants this investigated. Why do you think the dungeon exists?

[mhatrw]

29. That's the nature of disinformation.

All you can tell for sure is that you have been fed contradictory lines of shit.

[Sweet Pea]

23. Where's the sage advice?

And what's the evidence he speaks of?

[elias7]

37. I'm guessing...

that the advice is for both OCT and CT sides. For CT'ers, he makes a "point of not developing a personal theory, and encouraging members of the movement not to do this."
For OCT'ers, the sage advice is to avoid the trap of using the lack of a cohesive CT theory as evidence that the OCT is true. Not saying that you use that tack, but I have seen it played out here often.