OffG’s Tribute to David Ray Griffin
Friends and colleagues remember him in their own words.
OffGuardian has been privileged to feature the work of David Ray Griffin several times in our history. So when we heard the sad news of his passing we decided to organize a small tribute to his life.
We asked his close colleague Elizabeth Woodworth to say some words and to name the colleagues and friends she thought David would most have wanted to leave a remembrance of him.
Here, with one or two additions of our own, is that remembrance.
Elizabeth Woodworth – David Gapp – David Chandler – Steve Jones – Ted & Nelisse Muga – Kevin Ryan – Richard Falk – Richard Gage – Dwain Deets – Massimo Mazzucco – Ed Curtin – Matthew Witt – Fran Shure – Niels Harrit
*
Elizabeth Woodworth
As an author and a former librarian, I was able to help Dr. David Griffin by proof-reading about a dozen of his books, and assisting with his research.
David’s 9/11 work made him famous through two Nobel Peace Prize nominations, through being named among “the 50 people who matter today” by the New Statesman, and through “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,” which was among the top 51 Publishers Weekly picks for 2008.
David’s life (before his involvement with 9/11 began in 2003) was mostly focussed on the Process Theology of Alfred North Whitehead, who was a close colleague of Bertrand Russell. Based on Whitehead’s work, David and Dr. John Cobb Jr. co-founded the Center for Process Studies at Claremont School of Theology in 1973.
Since then, many such Process Theology centers have started around the world, most notably at Chinese universities.
While teaching at Claremont David wrote many books on the philosophy of religion, which included books on theodicy (the defence of God against evil), and parapsychology.
It was at retirement in 2004 that he became aware of the false flag evidence about 9/11, then engaging in a cat-and-mouse game with the purveyors of the official 9/11 narrative, who continually adapted their story to cover up the weaknesses that David tracked and revealed as their tattered narrative eroded.
In 2011 David and I founded the 9/11 Consensus Panel, comprised of more than 20 professionals expert in various aspects of the 9/11 attacks. In 2018, the 51 consensus points that were developed during this unique evidence-based reviewing project were published under the title 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation (2018).
Meanwhile, David wrote his encyclopaedic 2015 reference, Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? and in 2016 we co-authored the civil action book, Unprecedented Climate Mobilization: A Handbook for Citizens and Their Governments.
David then turned his attention to the ravaging effects of US imperialism upon the world, writing the incredible work of scholarship, The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic, in 2018.
In 2019, he finally got around to completing his magnum opus, his long-planned The Christian Gospel for Americans: A Systematic Theology, and shortly before his death, David left us the beautiful and crowning reflections of his maturing theology, in James and Whitehead on Life after Death.
It was a wonderful privilege to have worked so closely with such a great mind for nearly 15 years. I am glad that he was able to finish his forthcoming book, America on the Brink, during the final week of his life.
RIP, David. You’ve certainly earned it
Elizabeth Woodworth, professional Librarian & writer
*
David Gapp
David Ray Griffin was an inspiration to all of us in the 9-11 Truth Movement.
He spearheaded the 9-11 Consensus Panel, of which I was proud to be a participant. His factual analysis of major facts and also major inconsistencies of the 9-11 Commission’s Report was a tool to be used by people from around the world who were interested in this major event of the 21st Century.
When I first met David Ray Griffin at a speaking event in San Diego in 2009, and realized that someone from such a prominent and educated background was willing to “speak out”. it gave me a bit of courage to do likewise.
Since I had a background as an Air Force pilot and also as an Aircraft Accident Investigator, I had long harbored doubts about the ability of untrained hijackers to fly passenger jets with such precision. David Ray Griffin was able to point this out to the public, and doing so gave a voice to many of us that had similar questions.
His dear San Diego friends Ted & Nelisse Muga introduced us to David at many events held in their home and at San Diego venues. We all came to know David as more than an academic – a Regular Guy who had questions that were never fully explained by the 9-11 Commission.
He will be sorely missed by those that knew him, and my thoughts are with his family, friends and fellow academics. May they all find the strength to speak out to injustice as David Ray Griffin did so well throughout his life.
Sincerely,
Lt Col (Ret) David W Gapp
Tucson, AZ
*
David Chandler
I think a lot of people may be wondering why a theologian is a prominent figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have a little insight into this question because after graduating with a degree in physics, I spent a year in seminary. I was actually considering going into the ministry at the time.
One of the topics we studied was something called “Process Theology.” David Ray Griffin and his mentor, John Cobb, have been the preeminent advocates for this view of theology.
For them, God is not some distant omnipotent being who rules over the world like a monarch. In Process Theology God literally inhabits our world and ourselves. As we go through our earthly struggles, God accompanies us in those struggles. He literally rejoices when we rejoice and He feels our pain and anguish. Our world is where God works, through us and alongside us.
Knowing where David was coming from, it is understandable that shining the light of Truth on a major turning point in history was consistent with his theological perspective.
His most significant contribution to the 9/11 Truth movement was to become an interpreter of the 9/11 events.
Interpretation is critical. If we were to buy into the framing of 9/11 as a “terrorist attack” our impulse would be to go find the terrorists. That’s exactly what motivated so many young people to join the military after 9/11.
However, if we interpret those events as a “New Pearl Harbor,” the title of his premier book on 9/11, and especially with the understanding that the original Pearl Harbor event was an attack that was allowed to happen to create a rationale for war, our response would be very different.
David’s insight re-framed 9/11 as a war crime that needed to be investigated. In a real sense it was his framing of 9/11 that created the 9/11 Truth Movement.
David Ray Griffin has passed on, but the movement to shine the light of Truth on the events of 9/11 continues.
David Chandler, physicist
*
Steven Jones
David Ray Griffin has had a major impact on my life, and I wish to give credit and thanks to him.
My 9-11 journey began in Spring 2005, when a few friends persuaded me to look into the events of 9/11/2001 with a scientific eye. I soon found videos of the rapid collapse of WTC 7 on that day. I had not seen this footage before. I was astounded, since this building collapsed nearly straight down and completely yet it had not been hit by a plane.
I pulled out my stop watch and timed the collapse. I got 6.5 seconds. Then I found out the height of the building did a straightforward physics calculation: the building fell at nearly Free Fall Acceleration. Yikes! The implications of this were enormous. (Free fall behavior was later confirmed by detailed analysis with students and with David Chandler.)
I showed the WTC7 video to my Physics Department Chair (I was a Full Professor of Physics by this time) and he affirmed that I had academic freedom to study this if I wanted. And so I did.
Around September of 2005 I talked to David Griffin by phone and received further encouragement. He became a thoughtful mentor to me.
With his encouragement, I began writing down my results, and I put these on my faculty web-page.
Opposition mounted and I was placed on Administrative Leave in September 2006. My main options at this point were: 1- try to fight it, and be fired. 2- Step down from my full Professorship. 3- Accept an offer of early retirement with a stipend.
David encouraged me to accept option 3. He helped me see how BYU had supported my research and peer-reviewed presentations for over a year, and now they must be feeling great external pressure.
His analysis of the situation mitigated any bitterness I felt, and after BYU declined my request for a hearing in my presence, I did follow his advice and took the offer of early retirement in January 2007.
Three months later in a highly-publicized event on BYU Campus, VP Dick Cheney was given an honorary Doctor of Philosophy, and he was the keynote speaker at BYU Commencement that Spring.
So yes, I recognized at that point that David had been right about some of the external pressure on BYU.
He remained a great friend through the years, and I miss him.
I should note that David and I shared similar beliefs in God and in an after-life existence. I’m totally confident that he is enjoying that after-life even now.
And so I say, thank you, David, my friend!
Steven Jones PhD, emeritus professor of physics
*
Ted & Nelisse Muga
David Ray Griffin will always hold a special place in our hearts. His kindness and his unflappable mind ushered in a golden age of truth seeking for our San Diego community. He contributed to many of our best events, and his presentations were always insightful and reassuring. The highlight of his visits, however, was always his presence in the community gatherings in our living room. Sharing a home-cooked meal (and a well-chosen Zinfandel), he inspired us to a higher conversation and encouraged us to be optimistic.
We sincerely appreciate his many contributions to truth.
We are grateful for his friendship.
We miss him.
Nelisse & Ted Muga
San Diegans for 9/11 Truth
*
Kevin Ryan
When I first spoke out publicly about 9/11, in a 2004 message to a government researcher, I copied in David Griffin as he had recently published the seminal book The New Pearl Harbor.
David asked if he could forward the message and my agreement to do so led to my working closely with David and others for many years.
David and I presented together a few times starting with talks in Berkeley in 2006, for a book we had written together with Peter Scott and Peter Phillips, that were recorded and aired nationally on C-SPAN.
That event made a favorable impression on many people who were just beginning to question the 9/11 events.
We also presented together at The Toronto Hearings on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, along with others. As one of the four primary organizers of the Hearings, I was glad that we were able to accomplish so much with that event and hear from some of the victims’ family members and some of the best 9/11 researchers including David.
In September 2008, David and I had dinner in Bloomington, IN, where he came to speak at an event sponsored by my local 9/11 Truth group. It was probably the only one-on-one time I had with David in our years of working together for 9/11 truth. I remember that my order of a glass of Pinot Noir led him to remark that I should try a more manly wine, maybe Zinfandel.
Although it was a trivial comment, it helped me understand that David, like all of us, was not a Christian saint but was a person with the same kinds of opinions and weaknesses as everyone else. And for the next year or so, I enjoyed some Zinfandel.
David was so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement and did so much for us that it is hard to describe the impact he had. Through his carefully laid out presentations, his calm and thoughtful guidance on pressing issues, and of course his ability to get books published, he was a great mentor for many of us.
He will be missed and remembered as a powerful and effective voice for truth and justice.
Kevin Ryan, Journal of 9/11 Studies
*
Richard Falk
For those who knew David, even if they departed from his assessments of the 2001 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, none doubted his integrity and rigor.
For myself personally, our friendship (which in its early years extended to tennis and was deepened by the affectionate interaction of our families and by a variety of political and intellectual affinities), was augmented by our shared status of being ‘controversial’ enough to be sidelined by the mainstream media.
It was a peculiar kind of ‘intimacy borne of exclusion’ that I shared with no one else.
I greatly admired his principled stand on 9/11, especially his perseverance, despite his prodigious scholarship being often dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory.’
As with most such campaigns aimed as discrediting unwelcome views, there was little substantive effort to refute David’s skepticism that was so threatening to the legitimacy of the established order in the country and the world.
What I find most inspirational about David’s scholarly legacy is its amazing display of intellectual versatility that expressed a refusal to be constrained by contemporary academic canons of specialization and propriety.
In the best sense, David was a talented and fiercely independent amateur who was drawn to tackle the most daunting public issues of the day despite their remoteness from his professional training in and influential and illuminating contributions to philosophy and religion.
Over the years David seriously pursued such “fringe” interests as life after death, telepathic communication, and relations between body and mind. David throughout his life was a believer in the liberating potential of knowledge unbounded by conventional epistemologies, an outlook acquired from Whitehead and his mentoring collaborator, John Cobb.
David’s explorations of the post-modern world led him to devote creative energy to such diverse subjects as ecological stability, world government, and American foreign policy, which invariably resulted in published books of high quality.
In the last days of David’s life I had the good fortune of returning from Turkey after five months, enabling several visits at a Santa Barbara hospice where he lay dying. Along with my wife, we became movingly aware of his physical decline, and yet marveled as ever at his abiding commitment to the betterment of all aspects of the human condition.
I still find it hard to believe that at this time, crippled by pain, numbed by painkillers, he completed his final book – America on the Brink: The Ukraine War.
I have little doubt that this extraordinary display of intellectual commitment and spiritual devotion to humanity and nature at the edge of death reflected the love, care, and sacrifice he received from Ann Jaqua, David’s wonderful wife and life partner
Richard Falk, Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University
David Ray Griffin (center), with Richard Gage (left) and Steve Jones (right)
*
Richard Gage
His voice was deceptively gentle on the radio that afternoon.
March 29, 2006. I had by chance turned to the FM station KPFA, on my way back from a construction observation duty in the San Francisco Bay Area. There was a very brave talk show host, Bonnie Faulkner, who was the only one at the station willing to take deep dives into exposing the Deep State, but I didn’t know about that, or her, yet – nor of her mysterious guest that day, David Ray Griffin.
She was asking him to share with her audience his findings, having just discovered Graeme MacQueen’s deep research into the 500 pages of explosive testimonies of the Oral Histories of hundreds of 9/11 first responders – released by New York City under court order in August of 2005.
This professor of theology carefully read many of these eyewitness statements of explosions, one after another. I found myself entering a state of cognitive dissonance. I had never heard any alternative theory about how the Twin Towers came down.
I couldn’t drive and listen to this at the same time. It required all of my brain power to try to process his message. The testimony was powerful – and already contradicting my very world view.
I pulled my car into the parking lot and just sat and listened – in horror actually.
I thought I knew very well what happened on 9/11. I was a Reagan Republican and wanted to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and get those bastards who did this to us.
But here was this very well-spoken, seemingly objective, elderly gentleman, telling me about beams flying out of the towers laterally, dripping with molten metal, impaling themselves into buildings hundreds of feet away.
He even tried to tell me that a third tower came down – one that wasn’t even hit by a plane! “What?! I’m an architect! I would know if a third tower came down! They would have told me!
Either this guy is the biggest con artist – or I had been conned by my own government – and I just couldn’t go there – not yet anyway.
I would prove him wrong.
I went to see him the next night at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, CA. But I was late. And he had attracted a sell-out crowd of 600. I couldn’t get in!
I could listen to him on what they were calling a “livestream” (brand new back then!). What I heard online that night was a deeply moving presentation that covered a whole lot more ground than I had heard on the radio, and it was delivered with a simple logic that I couldn’t fight.
David Ray Griffin stepped aside and let his evidence do the work.
I was in trouble. By the time he was done with me, I felt like I had been turned upside down and inside out. I was confused – raw and vulnerable, yet this had turned to anger in the days and weeks to come, and the anger turned to action, as I independently verified his outrageous insinuations about my government and the media who had lied to me on a colossal scale.
It was his unique unassuming style that had stripped me defenseless and enabled me to see the truth. I learned that millions of others were equally taken apart at the seams by the logic in his 15 books and dozens of presentations around the world.
Looking back on the painful transformation, caused by this innocent man, I have indeed arrived at a state of deep gratitude.
For he, and others inspired by him such as Steven Jones, over the course of the following years, mentored and encouraged me to follow in some giant footsteps and speak my new-found 9/11 truth. He will live in my heart and continue to be heard as long as I am able to speak.
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
*
Dwain Deets
After I retired as Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, David Griffin invited me to serve as a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, which he founded jointly with Elizabeth Woodworth.
At one point in the overall effort by the Panel to develop the 51 Consensus Points, I volunteered, upon a suggestion from Elizabeth, to write the draft deliberation submittal for the point concerning Able Danger.
Able Danger was a US military multi-agency intelligence group assessing threats at the turn of the Millennium by international persons in the US.
As I began with a literature search, I quickly realized the only helpful reference was a book authored by David Ray Griffin, “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the cover-up, and the exposé” (2008) [Olive Branch Press]. A 14-page subsection focused on the hijackers, with 63 footnotes, is titled, “Then who were these men? Evidence from Able Danger.”
This subsection exposed a highly complex situation, mainly political intrigue, where Able Danger had completed a superb job, highlighted in a flow chart showing an early presence in the US of lead hijacker Mohamed Atta.
This proved most unwelcome in the eyes of unidentified higher-ups—and was followed up with a wiping out of all records and demoting of Able Danger’s leaders.
The story did end on an upbeat note however, when Republican Curt Weldon, Vice Chair of the House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees, made it public on the House floor. Rep. Weldon asked, “Why did they not want to go down that direction? Who made the decision to tell our military not to pursue Mohamed Atta?”
In an entirely different matter from 9/11, I attended a conference on Climate Action and one of the breakout groups, notably led by David Griffin. During the opening business of the group, David told the group he needed a secretary. Since he and I had worked so well together on 9/11 research, he knew I would serve the group as secretary.
The highlight was when the late great Tom Hayden was the breakout-group guest speaker. Having just been released from the hospital and looking very frail, Tom told the group a hospital was not going to come in the way of responding favorably to an invitation from his friend, [indicating] David.
Dwain Deets
*
Massimo Mazzucco
I have many memories of David, as during the period 2010-2013 we often exchanged messages and compared notes on different 9/11 issues. I respected his very technical, matter-of-fact approach. Never over-emotional, never polluted by personal opinions. A great lesson for me every time.
One of the last times we spoke is when I wrote to him to ask permission to give my documentary the same title as his most famous book, “The new Pearl Harbor.” David replied that “Not only are book titles no one’s property, but I do encourage you to use it, as it is very appropriate for your film as well.”
One single episode showed me David’s absolute lack of ego and total devotion to the common cause.
Massimo Mazzucco, filmmaker
*
Ed Curtin
My introduction to David Ray Griffin took place in 2004 as I was in my third year of research into the tragic events of September 11, 2001. By then, I had confirmed my immediate suspicion that the official explanation wasn’t true. David’s first book on those mass murders, The New Pearl Harbor, came out that year and confirmed for me that my research was correct. Here was a fellow theologian, who, like me, saw the need to connect the sacred to the secular with an urgency straight from the Christian Gospels: That we are called to be peacemakers and expose the lies of the hypocrites. His work gave me hope, as it did many others.
He was the epitome of the person who, as Harold Pinter said, believes “that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.” A dozen or so meticulously researched books on September 11 followed until he was satisfied that the case was closed and the U.S. government under Bush and Cheney was indicted by his words.
Because he lived in California and I in Massachusetts, we never met in the flesh, but David and I became good friends. I favorably reviewed four or five of his books, even criticizing a few points here and there, but he never let the criticism turn him away from me even when it stung. To me, this confirmed his magnanimity of soul.
His last few books were philosophical and theological and he asked me to review them, which I did, very favorably. In his hands the theological was social. His quest for truth and justice was akin to those of the Biblical prophets and Jesus.
In my review of David’s last book about life after death, James and Whitehead on Life After Death, I wrote about him:
He fits T.S Eliot’s description in The Four Quartets:
Old men ought to be explorers
Here and there does not matter
We must be still and still moving
Into another intensity
For a further union, a deeper communion
Through the dark cold and the empty desolation,
The wave cry, the wind cry, the vast waters
Of the petrel and the porpoise.
In my end is my beginning.
He wrote in that book that he was afraid that many of his intellectual friends and colleagues would think less of him for concluding that there is life after death.
I am not one of them, for I know David lives, and I am so thankful for his witness.
Ed Curtin, author, Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies
*
Matthew Witt
I owe my acquaintance with David Ray Griffin primarily to Laurie Manwell, a Canadian research psychologist and peer who approached David sometime in the summer of 2011 with the journal issue that Laurie and I, along with several others, produced for the American Behavioral Scientist, examining the relevance of the rubric “state crimes against democracy” for scrutinizing the criminogenic tendencies of state institutions.
Laurie was hoping to attract David to the initiative she was helping lead for a 10th Anniversary inquiry that became The Toronto Hearings (formally, The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001).
Following the Toronto Hearings, David and his longtime collaborator, Elizabeth Woodworth, approached me for joining them for the Delphi-process inquiry they were convening, Consensus 9-11, which included some of the panelists from the Toronto Hearings, several other outstanding academic and practicing scientists and jurists from around the world, one accomplished screen, stage and television actor (Daniel Sunjata) and myself.
The consensus process entailed a systematic review of hundreds of pieces of best available evidence stacked up against the 9/11 Commission Report findings.
With support from attorney and Berkeley Law professor, William Veale, David and Elizabeth supervised and summarized the findings, eventually publishing them in 2018 under title, 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation. (Background on the consensus process, best available evidence findings, and panelist information are posted HERE)
Reviewing the evidence was for the most part straightforward. Assembling, arraying, and locating documentary support challenging the mendacious mosaic that was the 911 Commission Report was a Herculean intellectual and forensic task for which David’s protean reasoning and preternatural determination were tailor made.
Along with the Toronto Hearings, I consider Consensus-9/11 to be the greatest truth-seeking inquiry I’ve ever been or likely will ever be affiliated with. I recall once seeing an interview with David by incredulous journalist asking what theology had to do with the “9/11” incident. David’s response was stunning: “Everything.”
Beginning in 2004, David would publish 13 books in total on September 11, 2001, including one with subtitle reference to “state crimes against democracy”, work originating with the political philosopher Lance deHaven-Smith, with whom I worked closely for several years beginning in 2007.
To be cited in a book by David Ray Griffin, from among a dozen other books by him scrutinizing a turning point in US, if not world, history stands as an all-time treasured professional accomplishment for me.
The world has lost a great mind and devotee to truth seeking, wherever that journey leads. The world has gained a corpus of thinking that is astonishing if not unrivaled in scope and perspicacity.
Matthew T. Witt, Ph.D. University of La Vern
*
Philip Roddis
Off-Guardian editor Catte Black asked if I’d write a short personal recollection for a tribute to the late David Ray Griffin.
Why? I never met David; we never even spoke on the phone. We’d had two cordial email exchanges, and I had it from both Catte and fellow editor Kit Knightly that he’d thought well of me, but that’s scant qualification for penning his obituary.
Here’s why.
In the 2018 run up to the seventeenth anniversary of 9/11, Catte had asked me to review 9/11 Unmasked, David’s latest book, co-written with Elizabeth Woodworth as a critical interrogation of the official narrative of that epoch-shaping event.
But again, why me? This too is easily answered.
For the fifteenth anniversary I’d written a scathing piece on 9/11 ‘truthism’. The hornets’ nest it kicked up furnished rebukes too numerous and well informed to be ignored, and I’d promised to return with better arguments or a retraction.
Yet two years later I had, for reasons given in my review of 9/11 Unmasked, done neither.
Now my moment had arrived.
The resultant review I now deem among my most significant writings. Not because it’s a great piece of glittering prose. It isn’t. But the processes of reading 9/11 Unmasked, and organising my thoughts for its review, changed my understanding of what happened that day – and what absolutely did not. More fundamentally it led me to examine
the thought processes and implicit worldviews which had led me to write, in such sneering tones, that earlier attack on 9/11 sceptics.
I don’t know what happened on September 11, 2001 and neither, as far as I can tell, did David. What he and Elizabeth claimed, with a force of evidence and reason that persuaded me, is that the official narrative, its fullest form the 2005 NIST Report, is a mess of shoddy science, evidence-defying claims and logical howlers: hallmarks of a gigantic if clunky cover up.
As to why I’d been so scathing (as had David at first) 9/11 Unmasked revealed to me a radical flaw in my thinking. My broadly Marxist take on how imperialism works had led me to the unconscious non-sequitur (my bad not Karl’s) that since no conspiracy is needed, allegations of conspiracy are a-priori baseless.
David’s lucidity, on a topic where lucidity is often in short supply, challenged me to reassess my flawed logic.
For that I am hugely in his debt.
Philip Roddis, anti-imperialist and blogger
*
Fran Shure
Gratitude sums up what I feel about my personal interactions with David Ray Griffin. My life is immensely richer for knowing this man — yes, for his prodigious writings and lectures that brought our 9/11 Truth Movement into the academic arena, but truly, it is the heart connection that developed over the years that winds up being the most meaningful to me.
David Griffin and I met when I picked him up from the Denver airport for two speaking events: one in Denver (“9/11 and Nationalist Faith”) and one in Boulder, Colorado (“9/11 Contradictions,” based on his book of that title). I was his constant assistant and chauffeur for four days, so we had much time to reflect on his talks and other subjects.
David’s first presentation was on October 19, 2007, at Denver’s Iliff School of Theology. He was hosted by Dr. Vincent Harding, well known for his role in the Civil Rights Movement and speech writer for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. Harding and his wife, Rosemarie, were my friends, so around 2005, I sent to Vincent a personal note along with David Griffin’s book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, but I was taken aback with his curt, “This is an interesting perspective.” I never expected to be blown off by my friend Vincent.
It was actually his son, Jonathan, who convinced his father to look more deeply. So in early 2007 I received an email from Vincent: “I think we need to invite our brother David to speak to us about 9/11.”
So as this event came about, I witnessed these two Methodist theologians connecting like brothers through this terribly disturbing and very taboo 9/11 truth.
David told us that his “9/11 and Nationalist Faith” talk at Iliff was one of his favorite presentations. His words ring strongly in our minds to this day:
“People of faith” are often accused of allowing their faith to override evidence. This is often true. With regard to 9/11, the greatest obstacle to seeing the truth — that 9/11 was an inside job — is not the lack of evidence but what can be called “nationalistic faith” — the conviction that the leaders of our nation simply would not do such a thing. Genuine faith — faith in God the creator and lover of all peoples — can help overcome the insanity created by 9/11.
Fran Shure
*
Niels Harrit
We can all point to people who changed our lives in a decisive way.
More than most, David Ray Griffin has bent the trajectory of many peoples lives into a more honest, dedicated, uncompromising and fearless direction.
I became one of them after I discovered the realities of 9/11 in 2006.
Or – rather – 9/11 came to me.
Nobody goes out to look for 9/11.
9/11 comes to you as a revelation.
And for some, there is no way back thereafter.
Truth is a one-way street.
It becomes a categorical imperative to speak out. And like Galileo almost 400 years ago,
David Ray Griffin took the lead.
He was blessed with an enormous capacity for collecting evidence, evaluating it and transforming it into highly readable, meticulous prose which was received by a huge audience. In his presentations we saw a man of ultimate integrity, laying out the facts and the consequences with great clarity.
From the beginning, Griffins books served as the eyeopener and a source for factual evidence for many.
Thus, Griffins book on 9/11 ”The New Pearl Harbor” became the first book of reference for so many people at that time. For me too. It was even published in Danish, which is a tiny speech area.
Immediately, the publisher went broke.
So we sold the book at a nominal prize out of the trunk of my car. And gave it away to some.
I met David Ray Griffin for the first time in 2009 in Switzerland.
And the famous, respected, awesome, academic giant became a down-to-earth, warm, humorous man.
He became David, a friend.
It turned out, that he had played the trumpet in his youth. And since I have a sidekick playing the saxophone, we talked about playing together one day when our mission was accomplished.
It was not to be.
From then on, I have had the honour to cooperate with David on many projects and in my service as member of the panel on ”The Consensus Project”.
We talked on the phone occasionally, but met in person only a handful of times – fewer than I could have wished for.
But simply by being there – somewhere – as the man he was, he remained – and remains – a constant point of reference, a perpetual, shining beacon in the fight for truth.
The man is gone.
But the light still shines.
Thank you David
Niels Harrit PhD, associate professor of chemistry (retired)
*
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
I didn’t read his book, I kind of got it on the first day. I was on a Computer Training Course – learning tree international near London Euston Station
I had no idea what had happened and I get home to my wife and kids -the other side of London and there was panic in the air, police and helicopters everywhere most trains not working
I had no idea, what had happened, but my wife was in tears. The details made me cry, It was personal, we thought the Grandmother of the Two baby girls my wife eas looking after Childndminder, had died, cos she as actually in one of the twin towers in new York, and phones the mother of the twin girls my wife looking after….
Then the phone went dead
No contact possible for over 36 hours all communications totally flooded between London and New York
She survived…Ran down the stairs as the Firemen were coming up (all died)
And then she ran like hell as New York literally blew up as if it had been nuked (not sure it wasn’t)
So I went back to my course the next day, and had a chat with the lecturer doing the course.
I knew everything had changed.
I had to do my best to try and find who was responsible for this, and try and bring them to justice
Failed.
They are still in power, but we know who they are now
“Heroes & Villains The CoVID-19 Book of Lists” Reid Sheftall M.D. Michael Yeaddon PhD ( guest)
If we don’t RESIST, they will kill us all, including my Baby Grandaughter – who I am looking after later today
I haven’t changed a nappy for over 30 years, but I am going to wear a soft clean shirt
She is still tiny. Not quite bonded with her yet.
But I will
I have got a liitle girl…
My grandaughter should keep me going for at least another 20 years.
If you tell the truth, and still have a memory, they can’t argue with you…
Do you want to see the documented evidence????
Mass worldwide Genocide if you don’t RESist
Tony (Grandad)
One of these days an actual miracle will occur: Judges overseeing legal proceedings exercised by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry (the legal team of which David Ray Griffin considered the last hope for 9/11 Justice) will snap out of their zombified, repulsive adherence to the “official narrative” (conspiracy theory, whitewash, coverup of mass murder), and proclaim 9/11 victims’ families do, indeed, have the requisite “standing” to demand – and receive – a Grand Jury in New York’s Southern District to consider the mountains of evidence presented by the Lawyers’ Committee..
Sad loss, indeed! He was the main reason I started researching after 9/11–after I saw him speakout on C-SPAN!
I have been trying to find out about him after reading this article. It seems to me he was not a scientist. I wonder how much weight one should lend to his opinin on 9/11 therefore?
David was a theologian who collated vast amounts of evidence from many sources. He never claimed to be a scientist, nor did his work require him to be a scientist as he never ventured any scientific opinions of his own.
There are however several scientists cited in his work, and indeed at least three of them have contributed to this tribute.
Massimo Mazzucco
Yes, the title was completely appropriate but not in the way most people think.
9-minute film exposing the fakery at Pearl Harbour including no propeller visible from the cockpit and something unmentioned by the film-makers – the explosives appear to be submerged not airdropped – I can’t find any verified footage of airdropped bombs into water for comparison but there’s certainly nothing saying they weren’t submerged explosives as far as I can tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiaX4jbdeLE
This is the most illuminating 1-hour you’ll spend watching a video on 9/11 in my opinion by Russian couple who call themselves Earthly Fireflies.
http://www.earthlyfireflies.org/911-fraud/
Pearl Harbour and 9/11 both involved bombings but there’s an element to the bombings that they have misdirected us away from seeing, however, when you blow away the magic propaganda dust you can see that crucial element quite easily.
Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan was both a graduate aeronautical engineer and a senior commercial pilot. He was in a good position to evaluate the hijacker tableau that the media set up. He wrote a detailed technical article titled “The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training”. The article explained the intricacies of instrument flight and the numerous other obstacles general aviation pilots would face in flying airliners accurately to their targets and flying into them. He also mentioned the impossibility of flying at 500 mph with the engines skimming the Pentagon lawn. Ground effect would make that impossible. Unfortunately Sagadevan’s article had implications that the limited hangout “truth” movement found unpalatable. The article disappeared from the sites that originally hosted it.
The fact that passengers (a mother and child in my home town) and others known to be on the flight in NYC, have never been heard of again, along with it’s unlikely that these novice “pilots” could have taken these planes and navigated them into the towers, leads to a theory that the “hijacking” was not in the air, but remote ground control.
The buildings as engineers of all stripes have attested could not been brought down by jet aircraft (they were built for such a possibility, and the structures required more than jet fuel to bring them down). So the planes were (could have been a decoy) but assuming the passengers were in fact in the planes (as Dr. Griffin describes) and never heard from again, something had to happen outside of the incompetency of the so-called “Jihadist hijackers”. The latter appears to be the pretext for a false flag invasion into the Middle East planned years in advance.
Whether the buildings were brought down through planted explosive demolition-style or some sort of Tesla energy effect is, for me an open question. David Ray Griffin does a very good job and certainly has the right people on his panel. But the puzzle of what he describes in the planes – the cell phone technology, etc. leads one to ponder what happened to these passengers given what we’re told were hijackers. Only the remote control theory seems to answer this question.
There was no credible wreckage. The videos were obvious fakes. There were no independent credible witnesses to the impossible “impacts”. Many of the alleged passengers did not appear on the social security death index. There really is no hard evidence that aircraft of any description came anywhere near the twin towers on 9/11.
… and if they faked the passenger deaths and their alleged loved ones are actors what says the same doesn’t apply to those in the buildings?
And all the passengers? The ones Mr. Griffin talks about in detail in his book on the event, where are they today or after the event. I had a neighbor who’s wife and daughter were in the flight from Boston and allegedly one of those flights. Never heard of again.
I wasn’t there. I haven’t studied death certificates. But the book Griffin wrote includes these people. He questions the lack of technology that would allow the use of cell phones, but we have no mention of what happened to these passengers. It’s all about the buildings collapsing.
Convenient. This appears to be a psyop/false flag event with planned demotion of these towers, but there are questions, Griffin did not address and it seems those who are focused on the NYC buildings don’t seem to want to address. It’s all physics, math, chemistry, structural engineering and yes, Tower 7 (which is the easiest to explain).
Is it the repetition of the planes hitting the towers that creates the permanent image rather than the reality? Are there on the ground eye witnesses?
I think people address those things because they are tangible, physical, testable evidence, whereas whoever/wherever the passengers were/are, while no less an important, intriguing and (depending what became of them), serious question, is far harder to hang a case on than the raw physics. There’s just so many possibilities and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging things are unknown, or may never be known, as unfortunate as this is. Let’s make a robust case calling for further public inquiry and hopefully more evidence can come to light that way (he says, somewhat optimistically since we’re probably many generations away from this happening, but one has to keep fighting the fight!). A2
I’d argue that what we need is simply the evidence that shows that something is one thing rather than any other thing, that no missing piece of evidence is deemed necessary or even important if we can work out what a thing is as opposed to any other thing with whatever evidence is available. Let’s say we’re given jigsaw pieces and we’re told that the jigsaw will form an image of a river, a lake or an ocean – unless the image is highly restricted in its breadth we won’t need all the pieces to work out what it is, we’ll only need the pieces that say it’s one of those and not the other two. Each scenario generally is highly recognisable despite all scenarios containing water.
You know what my hypothesis is (shared by some who worked it out before I had the slightest clue about 9/11 including Simon Shack of September Clues), namely, that it was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise pushed out as a real event where the only physical realities were damage to and destruction of buildings. Of course, I cannot say there were no deaths or injury but on the whole all the evidence points to staging of death and injury.
Included in my hypothesis is:
it’s all done hidden in plain sight and when I say that I mean both major propaganda streams were done hidden in plain sight whether the nonsense terrorist-hijacked-planes-into-iconic-buildings story targeted to the anticipated believers or the US-government-cold-bloodedly-and-callously-killed-all-those-poor-people-in-the-buildings story to the anticipated disbelievers – all done hidden in plain sight
Where we see the story to the disbelievers hidden in plain sight is in:
— obvious doctoring of photos
— very unconvincing photos of the injured that easily fit “drill”
— deaths in buildings not adding up – despite complete devastation of the WTC, deaths were reported only in WTCs 1, 2 and 3 but not in 4, 5, 6 or 7 which would mean very selective evacuation of buildings, a scenario completely lacking credibility
— miracle survivor stories – DRG’s 15-miracle conceit for the mainstream 9/11 narrative including the unprecedented collapse of high rise steel frame buildings from fire is very clever … but what about the miracles required for the opposition narrative such as Pasquale Buzzelli’s miracle survival of the 12-second collapse of the 500,000 tonne North tower? If we’re going to call out miracles we need to call out ALL the miracles, not just some of them and when we call out ALL of them we see the pieces do not add up to the mainstream opposition narrative. What we see clearly instead is the fake binary spoken of by Catte in her article, https://off-guardian.org/2022/05/16/the-function-of-the-fake-binary/
— masses of “Israel did it” propaganda including the Five Dancing Israelis hinting that outsider Israelis pulled the trigger on the buildings rather than, say, Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) the company tasked with the cleanup which holds world records for the destruction of large buildings and a very good safety record.
Sam, if my hypothesis of “exercise” with a two-pronged propaganda strategy – one stream for the believers and one for the disbelievers – the purpose of which was to stagnate the truth is correct then holding to the bare “inside job” hypothesis or holding to a “we can’t know at this time because we don’t have enough evidence” stance despite the fact that 9/11 could not have been done more hidden in plain sight is doing exactly what the perps want you to do, isn’t it? Do you want to be doing exactly what they want you to do?
Of course, if you have an argument against the exercise hypothesis I’m all ears – so far though no one’s given me one.
The phony narratives for the Great Fire of London 1666 and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 are still going strong. Waiting for others to work things out is not a great plan in my opinion, not when we can work it out right now all by ourselves.
I don’t think it’s possible to give an argument against your hypothesis though, Petra, which is one of my problems with it. It involves no really strong evidence, it’s based on your speculation about the levels of illusion you think the perpetrators were capable of. It smacks of someone attempting to swap one binary certainty with another, a need to explain ALL, rather than be content that some things are beyond our knowing at this point in time.
Maybe we will know more. And I’m not against your idea as soon as I feel the evidence points that way, but right now I think it’s reaching to try and explain it all in one fell swoop. We must be content to emphasise the things we CAN know and CAN prove. The physics is a good place to start. Other speculation may be interesting but if we can’t prove it it muddies things.
I know it’s not very satisfying but it’s the only methodical way to forge ahead that I can see. A2
As I say, Sam, I think the only evidence required is that which tells us that something is one thing and not any other thing – would you agree with that? – and I believe the evidence we have is sufficient for the “exercise” hypothesis.
So, according to the evidence available what other scenario can you posit other than death and injury were staged with the possible exception of a trivial number of deaths and injured people?
I see no speculation in my case. Can you point to what you consider speculation?
The fact that you can’t prove anything. You’re entitled to your hypothesis but it’s not compelling evidence, to my mind.
The subject doesn’t really interest me either. Not to trivialise these deaths, but those who perished on 9\11 were not the motivating factor which launched the war on terror.
US society is a young culture which has grown up with violence in a way that’s hard to understand in some other countries. From frontier settlers to 9mm rounds in Walmart to Vietnam to Ted Bundy to Dirty Harry to the electric chair… death, and specifically civilian death, is a concept never far away, woven into the cultural fabric, a culture born out of trauma.
In someways you may be able to relate in Australia?
However, ever since Pearl Harbour was repaid hundredfold at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it’s been clear that an invasion of US soil is hardwired into the public’s mind as the ultimate transgression. This is what was harnessed to start the War on Terror.
The lives claimed by 9\11 – while dreadful and devastating for those who knew them, and while they do make the perpetrators of 9\11 murderers rather than merely insurance fraudsters (if we forget about all those who developed lung issues and died after inhaling 9\11 dust) – can be placed alongside the lives of countless Iraqis in the ensuing years and lose no significance whatsoever until such time as compelling evidence allows us to either discount some or all of those deaths, or to bring their murderers to justice.
That’s how I see it.
A2
Would you agree that in the first instance the proving needs to be done by those who make the initial claim?
The initial claim is that made by the authorities namely that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured. This claim has not been evidenced to any degree in any shape or form.
It is rather you, Sam, who cannot prove anything. You cannot prove a single death or injury and the onus is on you to prove the death and injury not on me to prove they didn’t happen – what I very clearly prove though is that the claim of death and injury is unsupported by any evidence or reason.
Whether people died or not on 9/11 is important for these reasons:
— 3,000 deaths was the alleged major crime of the day. If no deaths had occurred we wouldn’t be still discussing 9/11, no one would care about it. The lying about how buildings came down is a far lesser crime even though it receives the most attention. You see how they’ve controlled our focus? – away from the most important crime to a far lesser crime.
— If there were no deaths and injury (or only a trivial number) then the vast majority of those who know of the 9/11 event understand it incorrectly in a major way whether those who believe it was terrorists or those who recognise the US government in the main for being responsible.
The importance of deaths on 9/11 is not the alleged deaths themselves but the mind control involved in making everyone believe in them – both those who believe the nonsense story and those who don’t believe it. If no deaths occurred (or very few) then can you see how big the mind control operation was?
It’s all about mind control, Sam. That’s the importance, mind control – making people – both the believers and the disbelievers – believe important things that aren’t true. 9/11 was a psyop of the very highest order.
Also, if you wish to spread the truth isn’t it better if you have the actual truth and not half-truth? Half-truths make great lies. They’ve hamstrung the disbelievers of their story by arming them with a half-truth.
After I awoke to the true nature of 9/11 I checked out Pearl Harbour to see if it was the same kind of deal – sure enough! – the evidence shows it was an evacuated bombing just like 9/11 – so there’s another reason to understand 9/11 better – the illumination it casts on other events.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/pearl-harbour.html
I then learnt that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fire-bombed.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html
The reality of these two events casts WWII in a very different light, doesn’t it, and we really have to wonder about what went on between the US and Japan.
Mind control by those in power of those they rule.
The Great Fire of London 1666 was orchestrated by those in power and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a fake story.
https://off-guardian.org/2019/09/01/the-great-fire-of-london-cui-bono/
https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/04/the-gunpowder-plot-and-second-lockdown-on-5-november/
Mind control by those in power of those they rule.
Yes, of course, the 3,000 alleged deaths is neither here nor there when we consider all the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the deaths and maiming now from the jab … and so many other deaths one way or another. It’s not about the deaths being real or not it’s about the mind control.
So if I decide no Iraqis died in post 9\11 conflicts because those conflicts were all elaborately-staged theatre, even down to manufacturing fake corpses and holding fake funerals, the onus is now on you to prove they did?
That’s just daft.
Actually, it seems to me you’re alleging that no one died and using this in turn as evidence of mind control, which is a massive stretch and therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence of mind control without using a circular argument.
But all in all it’s not relevant for me, I’m afraid. I’m not going to dance a merry jig with you. Sorry. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. Personally I don’t think letting those who planned 911 off murder charges is a very high priority. Sorry I just don’t.
I’m not really interested in discussing it any further. I’m sorry. A2
Unless I have reason to doubt what is stated what reason is there to demand proof? I have no reason to doubt that Iraqis have been killed in significant numbers so I’m not demanding proof.
In the case of 9/11 there is masses of evidence from numerous angles suggesting death and injury were staged so yes in this situation I demand proof – I haven’t even looked at funerals and there is only one corpse that I say is fake because I don’t have access to any other … but there’s tons of other evidence, most notably the propaganda campaign that is obviously targeted to the anticipated disbelievers. Do you see this propaganda campaign, Sam, and can you see the significance of it?
You’re not going to tell me that you believe in the Five Dancing Israelis now, are you, although I certainly did myself for a few years? They are propaganda. We need to be able to identify propaganda wherever it exists. It’s a very important part of analysing how power controls us.
The Five Dancing Israelis is a complete fabrication. You get that, no? What is its purpose? And what is the purpose of all the “Israel did it” propaganda in general? What is the purpose of the “Jews were told not to come to work” propaganda? What is the purpose of the propaganda that Larry Silverstein supposedly had a dermatology appointment the only morning he didn’t go to Windows on the World for breakfast? That’s propaganda right? I’m sure he didn’t go to Windows on the World for breakfast every morning missing it oh so very suspiciously just on the morning of 9/11.
Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda directed at the anticipated disbelievers – directed at you and me, Sam.
What I find so difficult to understand is people’s resistance to the notion that they didn’t kill people on 9/11. It took me four years of study to work out they didn’t but if someone had sat me down and explained the propaganda campaign then I would’ve understood it in an instant.
Just like they don’t want a virus for this psyop, they only want us to believe in one – and a real virus wouldn’t work for their narrative in any case – they didn’t want to kill people on 9/11 – and just as a real virus wouldn’t work for this psyop, real death and injury wouldn’t have worked for 9/11 either.
Why?
9/11 was a massive demolition job. You can propagandise health professionals to inject people with a toxic substance on the basis of fraudulent medical science perpetuated for over a century but you cannot propagandise demolition professionals and the agency staff that needed to be involved to only partially evacuate buildings.
Why are you resistant to the notion that they didn’t kill people? I’m not trying to say they didn’t kill them because they cared about them obviously – they’re killing people by the thousands now – but they didn’t kill them because it worked so very well for them not to kill them while making both the believers and the disbelievers believe they were killed.
They like us to all get it wrong. That makes sense, doesn’t it? Don’t you think they’d prefer the disbelievers not to get the story completely right, preferably getting it as wrong as possible rather than getting it mostly right? I simply fail to understand the resistance to the notion that death and injury were staged because – completely apart from the evidence – it makes absolutely perfect sense to me. They would get such a kick out of all of us getting it so very wrong.
My apologies, Sam, I didn’t read your response properly the first time.
I simply don’t understand where you see the stretch of claiming mind control. I’m not referring to MKUltra type mind control, just your common and garden propaganda which is incredibly effective and what most mind control is achieved by notably currently with the alleged pandemic based on precisely zero reality – no novel virus, no special sickness, no nothing.
If death and injury were staged then the question is: why do the disbelievers – who disbelieve so much else of the 9/11 mainstream narrative – believe they were real?
Propaganda.
In some cases, it’s the same propaganda as directed to the believers (eg, “miracle” survivor stories – http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/) and in others it’s differently targeted propaganda.
That’s all, propaganda and I referred to some of the propaganda in my previous comment although there’s quite a bit more. Here’s three more pieces that are obviously targeted to the disbelievers:
1. Jeremy Rys’s Conspiracy Solved! video suggesting that people in the buildings were targeted – that brilliant piece of propaganda had me totally suckered in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk
2. Claim by “whistleblower,” Richard Grove, that he got caught in a traffic jam on his way to a meeting in one of the towers while his colleagues perished – likewise had me totally suckered in.
https://visibility911.libsyn.com/visibility_9_11_presents_richard_grove_in_his_own_words_part_2
3. April Gallop’s claim that she arrived at work at the Pentagon to be told to take her baby into the office rather than drop him at the Day Care Centre first. Yeah, right! Underneath the propaganda they always let you know the truth due to the fact that the propaganda doesn’t add up very well – likewise had me totally suckered in.
https://gumshoenews.com/doesnt-anybody-care-about-april-gallop-or-attorney-william-veale/
These are simple facts:
9/11 was essentially a demolition job. In demolition jobs they generally successfully evacuate the buildings to be demolished and the surrounding area … although occasionally people do get killed and injured so, a priori, there is no reason to suspect that successful evacuation could not have been achieved.
We have no reason to believe they wanted to kill people on 9/11 … apart from what is suggested in obvious propaganda such as Jeremy Rys’s Conspiracy Solved! video.
Information presented to us is clearly propaganda to make us believe in real death and injury.
No skerrick of convincing evidence has been provided by you or anyone else for real death and injury on 9/11.
The power of mind control
Given the above facts if you still resist the notion that death and injury were staged on 9/11 I rest my case for incredibly successful mind control and I put to you that the reason you resist is that you are emotionally invested in the alleged deaths. Those in power recognise and weaponise against us our human tendency to be emotionally invested in stories so I urge you to try to aim for detachment on the deaths and injury.
As someone who is much more a thinker than a feeler I’m in a better position than many others to analyse propaganda because I don’t get emotionally invested in stories. I’m currently staying with friends, one of whom won’t have a bar of staged death and injury on 9/11 because he’s emotionally invested in the story.
Sam, I know you said you weren’t interested in discussing further but I hope you will respond to this question which is, I suppose, a philosophical question related to how power likes to control us.
Do think that the perps would have preferred to:
1. Murder and injure people for real on 9/11 so that the believers of the story got what happened at least partly correct while the disbelievers got what happened virtually 100% correct (assuming they recognise the fakery of the plane crashes).
2. Fake death and injury while propagandising both the believers and the disbelievers to believe in real death and injury so that the believers got it completely wrong and the disbelievers got it only half-right?
Please give your reasons.
I take your point. I read through your previous reply, and this one, and your POV might provide an interesting insight into the potential mindset of those who perpetrated 9/11. Possibly.
Perhaps huge and outlandish false flags are easier to justify by the perpetrators, to one another and to their consciences, if it’s treated as pure theatre and simulation. Perhaps there’s a certain duper’s delight masquerading as refinement when they convince the masses of imaginary barbarisms. Perhaps fooling the masses becomes like an elitist sport, an expression of their deep seated contempt and a way to affirm their own sense of superiority. Fooling the proles about anything becomes an end in and of itself.
Sure.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that no one was harmed on 9/11, accidentally or otherwise. What those at the top prefer to think and what actually occurs on the front lines, especially when filtered through built-in protocols of deniability, I think are two very different things.
I think you can achieve your objectives in a different way by giving the benefit of the doubt until evidence arises to change our views of 9\11 deaths and also by not over-sentimentalising these deaths, just giving them equal ranking alongside all casualties of the War on Terror – from those who perished beneath the rubble to emergency responders who died of respiratory problems post 9/11 to Iraqi kids blown up by land mines. And moreover we can emphasise and reemphasise the known quantities: the physical evidence which overwhelmingly discredits the official 9/11 narrative.
And really, with your permission, I really have to leave it there, Petra. I have nothing more I can say on the subject. Merry Christmas, A2
Thanks, Sam, for some movement in the direction I push at. It feels like a Christmas present to not have a discussion end at virtually the same place it started which is mostly my experience with friends, family, whoever. Merry Christmas to you too.
The most important work on 9/11 continues to be ignored by the Off-G?
http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Slide51.jpg
https://drjudywood.com
Hmm, well if picture essays, misleading footage of basement levels under towers not at ground zero and a self proclaimed absence of any testable hypothesis could fairly be called ‘important work’ that is debatable. If Wood ever publishes a comparative scientific study on dust deficit, rather than trying to rewrite the scientific method into an extended fallacy of many questions, Offg will probably write about it. A2
Judy Wood spent hours trying to besmirch Griffin’s reputation and honesty. She circulated a hack piece from NASA garbage head Ryan Mackey attacking the truth movement entirely because she found it to be a good attack on Griffin, never mind what the guy was saying. I was glad that she actually got pushback from the other people on the list she had circulated it to. Anything i presented to her as evidence that her theory was problematic was dismissed as “fake,” including the fact that the TV tower on WTC1 and the entire roof began descending before the top portion as a whole did, without any evidence of external damage, quite impossible for a death ray to work its way inside the top portion without making a mark. Her response:: the video showing the descent of the roof was fake.
This phenomenon can be explained quite elegantly by the use of the proven W54 fusion assisted variable yield sub kiloton nuclear warhead. These would have had to be detonated in a top down timed sequence, about four devices per tower.
I think one of the biggest myths/hoaxes is the threat of any sort of nuclear weapon. (Nuclear power plants use enriched uranium to heat the water to produce electrical power. That’s not a bomb. It’s a steam generator.)
This notion of nuclear weapons is built on a theory which was never proven but pushed as a fabrication of global fear and hegemony by so-called “nuclear powers” much like the “pathogenic virus” and it’s subsequent incredulous notion of a “lab leak”.
We’re into deep scientism.
Nuclear reactors don’t “use uranium” to heat water, they use controlled nuclear reactions to heat water.
That is exactly the same process that produces a nuclear explosion – but on a slower & contained scale.
if nuclear reactors work then it’s likely nuclear bombs do too.
You have proof of any of your claims?
What do you think produces nuclear energy? Not enriched uranium? Magic dust?
https://www.nuclear-power.com/steam-generator/
https://radiation.thesocialselect.com/why-is-enriched-uranium-used-in-a-nuclear-reactor/
Come back with some thoughtful research. You can start here if you’re interested.
https://heiwaco.tripod.com/bombpart1.htm?fbclid=IwAR1nTIXNN6rMgmUe8cD6J0kR79RYkJNXMq5L17fNK_epstRk7ZN-_qQki9
Yes of course they use enriched uranium. They use Uranium 235 because it is a fissile isotope that can generate a nuclear chain reaction. It’s the nuclear chain reaction that releases the heat that boils the water that creates the steam to power the turbine.
The point sailing over your head is that this nuclear chain reaction is the same one that is utilized in making a nuclear bomb – it’s just that in the bomb there are no dampers to limit the number of neutrons being released in the reaction – in fact in nuclear bombs they use methods to increase the number of neutrons which enhances the reaction to a point where so much energy is being released the material essentially explodes.
Like, I said, if nuclear reactors work then it’s quite likely that nuclear bombs work also.
First, you said nuclear reactors didn’t use enriched uranium. It appears you skipped over your claim to discuss nuclear theory and chain reactions. No need to use theories, just look at the evidence. (Have you ever spoken to one of these nuclear physicists? They sound just like a freshly minted virologist, or listen to the twerp who created the crypto scam. Same BS.
If you go back to the only supposed use of these weapons you’ll be astonished to find just how identical they were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and other firebombed cities in Japan at that time. There are a host of evidence that such a bomb was never used there.
Here’s one source for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki scam. The psy-op that keeps on giving.
https://theunexpectedcosmology.com/the-atomic-bomb-was-a-hoax-architects-of-hiroshima/
Since it has not been used as a weapon, how do we know that all these years later, those claims have anymore validity now?
I do think they tried and ultimately threw up their hands (as did Germany and Japan). It was a theory, much like germ theory.
Perhaps a better way of putting it is that it’s a “god complex”.
No one is saying anything IS or ISN’T. But if we allow that nuclear power reactors work then we are allowing that nuclear bombs could potentially work too, since they both use the same process, one controlled, one uncontrolled.
Thanks for your links. Let’s let people decide for themselves. A2
One wonders what all the massive uranium mining has been for if nuclear weapons don’t work and if nuclear reactors don’t work. 😀 And one wonders what caused the massive contamination and casualties of military personnel who eyewitnessed nuke tests and civilians who lived downwind from test sites.
One can wonder, but since I don’t know how much “massive” uranium mining represents, I’ll pass on that guess.
Enriched uranium is used for nuclear reactors. That’s a known.
Who may or may not have died from toxins spewed from radioactivity is not the point being made here – i.e., that issue is a red herring you’re free to chase.
The point is a theory and whether it has ever been proven.
We’ve lived through constant threats of “I’m going to blow you and the entire world up if you don’t do what I say” needs to be questioned. Nuclear hegemony has been in play since the 1940s.
Don’t you know by now that those uranium miners are all crisis actors? 😉
😂
Here’s one of a number of evidence based reads by Dr. Michael Palmer. It starts in the beginning. It’s not about pure theory, but what was and wasn’t actually done, and likely can’t be done.
https://mpalmer.heresy.is/2022/12/the-truth-about-the-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/#more-266
Your alternative update on #COVID19 for 2022-12-10. FDA Says IVM Doesn’t Work but only job is to approve. Twitter files: FBI/DHS/DNI interfered in elections (blog, gab, tweet).
Richard Gage’s account was particularly moving, since i was one of the 600 present at the Oakland Grand Lake Theater presentation by David Ray Griffin which Gage had tried to go to but was shut out of, and listened to on livestream instead. One wonders why anyone still believes the official 9/11 account, even some who question Operation “Pandemic.”
First time of commenting, was greatly saddened to hear of David Griffin’s passing. These reminiscences confirm he is a man I would like to have had the opportunity to meet and talk with.
Thank you for this tribute to a very great man, may he rest peacefully after so many labors
I am very impressed you brought together so many of the heroes of the 9/11 movement. Richard Gage’s tribute touched me deeply as did Elizabeth’s & Niels Harrit. And seeing Steven Jones here is a treat! I had no idea his university turned on him and then gave an honorary doctorate to Cheney! Has he ever spoken of that publicly before?
“911. The day the Koolaid Man and Osama bin Laden got together and attacked America.”
“Oh Yeah!”
“Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?”
Well… There he went!
DRG says:
And he kept on going! Talking about it while surrounded by Books!
Pretty much the same mindset with our recent OPERATION COVIDIUS circus…
Glad he didn’t had time to waste more paper writing a book about “COVID-19 Pandemic – A good lesson to tackle Climate Change“!
Every time some [famous] uman animal dies it’s like it was the best uman animal on the Planet!
Have some respect, this isn’t the time or place to pick over differences. The man was a hero and without his work there’d be no serious Truth movement! Let’s honor him for that and leave the points of disagreement for another time.
I disagree. The comments relate to the man and his work. He does seem to have been misguided re global warming. It does not take away from his stellar work in other areas. People not familiar with his work will value knowing that he also wrote a controversial book on climate change.
I regard claiming that the 9/11 mayhem was a “new Pearl Harbor” is misleading. The scumbag neocons used that term, but only as a necessary massive propaganda event to line up the sheeple behind their agenda. Pearl Harbor differs from 9/11 in a very critical aspect. The US had broken Japanese cryptography shortly before the PH attack. FDR was informed and he chose to allow the attack to proceed unhindered, only sending the aircraft carriers out to sea and safety. Battleships were already obsolete and they and their crew were permitted to be destroyed. He along with Churchill were desperate to bring the US into WW2 to complete that leg of the NWO agenda.
The 9/11 mayhem, OTOH was physically and stratigecally conducted by the USA and Israeli Deep State. In that sense, it was a true false flag attack complete with the ObL patsy. I feel that this difference is quite important.
The Peal Harbor terminology wasn’t an attempt to compare the two events. It was a reference to language used by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1996 book The Grand Chessboard and the 2000 report from The Project for a New American Century, both of which put forth the “need” for “a new Pearl Harbor” to justify a much more militarily aggressive US foreign policy.
Please let me know where there’s error in reason or evidence:
For big psyops at least there is more than one layer of duplicity. Propaganda is targeted at both the people the perps anticipate will believe them or at least accept what they say and a different propaganda is targeted at those they anticipate won’t believe their very-low-on-credibility story.
What says that the information that says FDR allowing the attack to proceed unhindered isn’t propaganda targeted at the anticipated disbelievers? What doesn’t say that the bombings happened but they were evacuated bombings?
Similarly, for 9/11 what doesn’t say the bombings happened but they were evacuated bombings?
We are told that at the WTC which was a complete mess after the events of 9/11 that deaths occurred only in WTCs 1, 2 and 3 but not in 4, 5, 6 or 7. WTC 2 came down first and it was flanked by 3 and 4. How would deaths only have occurred in 3 but not in 4?
When they want us (the believers and the disbelievers) to believe something do they have to do it for real? Do they want to do it for real? Can they even do it for real?
Who brought down the buildings on 9/11? Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI), the company tasked with the cleanup or Five Dancing Israelis?
The PNAC guys knew what they were referring to when they said we needed a new Pearl Harbour – but most others didn’t.
I notice Dr Judy Wood wasn’t invited to pay her respects, but Steven “Los Alamos” Jones is invited.
This is a nice tribute – thanks.
As I said before, DRG changed my life. And sometimes a person can have such a huge effect in putting you on a new path and in discovering so many other writers that you are in risk of forgetting that one who gave you the initial impetus. So I must express my infinite gratitude for David and to note how the new path he put me on led – ironically perhaps? – to Karl Marx thereby leading me into that whole Marxist political and economic point of view but through an angle that was immune to the anti-conspiracist propaganda that seeped through what we might call the official academic Marxist thought (much of which would I think be repudiated by Marx himself). It was thanks to the conjunction between 9/11 and David’s brilliant and beautifully written critique of that event that my own position “on the Left” was protected from the castrating mind prison of “official Leftism”.