Talk:David Ray Griffin

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Toolbox: I have reversed your DRG addition. The reason is that, in light of the WS editorial policy and other Project documentation, it is beyond unreasonable to devote well over half of any article to attacking the credibility of someone whose reputation is based on wide-ranging detailed research that throws considerable doubt on what is probably the most important 'official narrative' of any major modern world event and one which is self-evidently absurd in so many ways.

I have read all of DRG's books. The quote you use puts words in his mouth and assigns unwarranted opinions to him. It is perfectly reasonable to confine one's use of the scientific method to demonstrating the falsity of a hypothesis, theory or narrative without the necessity of proposing any alternative.

Ryan Mackay may well "Believe he can confirm that Dr. Griffin is deliberately and willingly avoiding the Scientific Method, and that he does so because he fears being discredited". Others believe the moon is made of green cheese. If he does "believe he can confirm...", then he should do so and stop flying kites.

Your Israel/Palestine/Wikipedia-Hasbara work is valued here but not at the expense of core site propositions --Peter P 07:58, 5 September 2011 (IST)

The Wonkypedia is outrageously biased and often wickedly untrue on the I/P topic.
However, it remains useful partly because of the "Controversy" sections. These sections are often full of lies too, but they do allow one to quickly discover some of what's been going on. For instance, if you didn't know of Norman Finkelstein and wonder whether the things he writes can possibly be true, one finds (three!!) sections Controversies, Criticism and Critics of Finkelstein and replies which give his critics ample space. This airing of these important areas of dispute almost make that particular article worthwhile.
Similarly, anybody coming across the works of David Ray Griffin needs to know that his body of work has been attacked on numerous occasions eg "Critics of Griffin's thesis, such as Chip Berlet, say that many of the claims in the book are refutable.[10] Griffin has rejected these criticisms [11] and debated Berlet.[12]" Toolbox 12:33, 5 September 2011 (IST)

Proposed new section

This proposal is not intended to be used in its entirety, it is almost certainly too long and may be marginal (eg it is "web-only").


In a web-only article entitled "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation" Ryan Mackey claims that:

Upon reading Debunking 9/11 Debunking, the author was surprised to learn that nowhere in this book - and, to the best of the author’s knowledge, nowhere in Dr. Griffin’s previous books - does Dr. Griffin articulate his own hypothesis. His entire position can be summarized in two sentences, "9/11 was an inside job" (understood to mean that Dr. Griffin believes that the United States Government was responsible) and "The World Trade Center buildings were destroyed in a controlled demolition."

Dr. Griffin has also clarified[1] that he does not know whether explosives or incendiaries, a combination of the two, or what particular types were used.

Despite Dr. Griffin’s rumination over this theory for nearly five years, personal contact with numerous like-minded thinkers, and an assemblage of facts and arguments that, in his mind, are sufficient to refute the whole of the NIST investigation, there is no additional detail. This hypothesis falls well short of the basic standard of journalism - the six questions of "who, what, where, when, why, and how" - and as such is not a viable alternative to any complete hypothesis, let alone one as meticulously researched as that put forth by NIST.

... The author therefore repeats his challenge to Dr. Griffin to propose a coherent hypothesis. The wait, however, may be a long one, as Dr. Griffin has recently stated in an interview with the Ventura County Reporter that he actually discourages those who would define a working hypothesis:

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

[Dr. Griffin] 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. [...] There is a sketch of a theory, that it was an inside job, that explosives were used in the buildings. But what kind of explosives exactly? When they were they put in there? How many were there? All those things some people want to get into. Or 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 marshalled to show the official story is false.[2]

On the basis of this comment alone, Ryan Mackey believes he can confirm that Dr. Griffin is deliberately and willingly avoiding the Scientific Method, and that he does so because he fears being discredited.[3]


  1. David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Chapter 3 Note 16, page 351
  2. "Conspiracy Theologian: David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Truth Movement and Bush-Cheney’s ‘Stupid’ Imperialism," Ventura County Reporter, 27 March 2008.
  3. On Debunking 9/11 Debunking Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation, Ryan Mackey, last update Version 2.1, 24 May 2008.

Not intended to be used without further work, this suggestion is an attempt at improving the article with an important section that will undoubtedly assist the reader. Toolbox 12:33, 5 September 2011 (IST)