9/11: Time for a Second Look by Prof. David Ray Griffin
G | 04.04.2009 12:22 | Anti-racism | Education | Terror War | South Coast
Professor David Ray Griffin, renowned author of a series of eye-opening books that recount his painstaking research into the attacks of September 11, 2001, begins his new European tour in London on 14th April. Stressing the fact that the time has come for a second look at the events of that fateful day, the tour will include stops in Paris, Brussels and Madrid, and several other cities.
http://timeforasecondlook.com
![](/img/extlink.gif)
We would like to bring to your attention an important forthcoming lecture by Professor David Ray Griffin (Co-director of of the Center for Process Studies at Claremont Graduate University, California), who is widely regarded as the most scholarly and credible academic to vocally criticise the official narrative of 9/11.
"...the evidence that the official story is false is now overwhelming. The only problem is to get people to look at the evidence. Once they are willing to do this, they quickly see that the official story simply cannot be true"
Griffin, who has published 7 books regarding the events of 9/11, remains a highly respected academic, and has won praise for his work on 9/11 by credible figures such as former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts, British MP Michael Meacher, prominent US historian Howard Zinn, and former CIA officials Robert Baer, Bill Christison, and Ray McGovern.
The view Griffin is forwarding is no longer an extreme minority position. TIME magazine recently described the view as "a mainstream political reality", and a recent poll by World Public Opinion revealed that only 57% of Britons cite a belief that 9/11 was Al Qaeda's sole responsibility. In the US various professional groups have started to pop up, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth. It is in this context that Professor Griffin is asking us to take a second look at these events, which after all were a pivotal event in modern history and surely deserve proper scrutiny.
We hope you can make it along to what promises to be a thought provoking, challenging and enjoyable evening for all who attend. The event and will be comprised of a lecture and a questions and answers session with Professor Griffin, and is the first date of a European tour taking in 7 countries over the next month.
9/11 Time for a Second Look by David Ray Griffin
Tuesday 14th April – 6:30 doors, starts at 7pm
City University
Oliver Thompson Lecture Theatre
The Tait Building
Northampton Square
EC1V 0HB
Tickets are £5 and can be purchased via:
http://www.timeforasecondlook.com/london
"...the evidence that the official story is false is now overwhelming. The only problem is to get people to look at the evidence. Once they are willing to do this, they quickly see that the official story simply cannot be true"
Griffin, who has published 7 books regarding the events of 9/11, remains a highly respected academic, and has won praise for his work on 9/11 by credible figures such as former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts, British MP Michael Meacher, prominent US historian Howard Zinn, and former CIA officials Robert Baer, Bill Christison, and Ray McGovern.
The view Griffin is forwarding is no longer an extreme minority position. TIME magazine recently described the view as "a mainstream political reality", and a recent poll by World Public Opinion revealed that only 57% of Britons cite a belief that 9/11 was Al Qaeda's sole responsibility. In the US various professional groups have started to pop up, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth. It is in this context that Professor Griffin is asking us to take a second look at these events, which after all were a pivotal event in modern history and surely deserve proper scrutiny.
We hope you can make it along to what promises to be a thought provoking, challenging and enjoyable evening for all who attend. The event and will be comprised of a lecture and a questions and answers session with Professor Griffin, and is the first date of a European tour taking in 7 countries over the next month.
9/11 Time for a Second Look by David Ray Griffin
Tuesday 14th April – 6:30 doors, starts at 7pm
City University
Oliver Thompson Lecture Theatre
The Tait Building
Northampton Square
EC1V 0HB
Tickets are £5 and can be purchased via:
![](/img/extlink.gif)
G
e-mail:
timeforasecondlook@gmail.com
Homepage:
http://timeforasecondlook.com
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
Open Source peer Reviewed Paper confirms Thermitic compunds in the dust
04.04.2009 14:16
2%Human
Accompanying articles
04.04.2009 15:26
Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust:
Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments
Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries in Debris From the Twin Towers
by Jim Hoffman
Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives
As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble
by Jim Hoffman
Scientific Method
book selling
04.04.2009 16:21
If his lecture keeps referring to 'his books' then i'd be suspicious about his motivations.
ted
Getting deperate?
04.04.2009 19:27
Big lizard
Hi :)
04.04.2009 20:19
Bank of England 01-04-2009
Popular Mechanics are in it for Truth and Justice and are in no way trying to sell magazines and books
The Comedy Club
Homepage:
http://truthaction.org/
9/11 Truth @ G20 Meltdown
04.04.2009 20:50
2. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"
"A brass band played for several hours. And as the day wore on, protesters peeled away from the knots of angry young men taunting riot police to dance to a mobile disco set up on the steps of the Bank. Above the disco, someone had fixed a large poster which read: “Hundreds of Architects and Engineers Demand a Real 9/11 Investigation.”
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth -
Scientific Method
where the hell ...
05.04.2009 13:01
I mean, who else is going to distract us from the growing consensus for a proper investigation and an emerging truth that is both scientific in its scope and widely read?
Tin foil anyone?
Or is it anti-semitic lizards today, I forget the drill?
jackslucid
Info for Billy Goats Gruff
05.04.2009 19:51
2%Human
Well....
07.04.2009 21:16
1) David Ray Griffen and Professor Steven 'Jesus visited ancient America' Jones are 'respected' scholars only in the minds of 9/11 conspiracy theorists
2) The journal itself is little more than an online version of vanity publishing where 'scholars' appear to pay to get their 'research' published. If this article was peer reviewed, who by, and what were their qualifications in the relevant fields. Are their comments on the article available? Why are so many of the references simply to 9/11 conspiracy sites rather than to independent research? How many reputable journals turned this nonsense down before they stumped up cash to have it published in a journal with no real credibility?
3) For a so called 'scientific' paper why is the sample size used so ridiculously small - four samples, how representative is that?
4) What measures were put in place to ensure the samples were not contaminated from other sources. Surely efforts should have been made to ensure that all samples were collected under the same conditions and this should have been clarified in the methodology. How long were samples kept before being examined and in what conditions? What efforts were made to falsify their own conclusions (as per the scientific method) with dust samples which do not share the same characteristics. Indeed, if so many samples exist, why were only four ever cited in the research?
5) Paint is dismissed as a possible source of the flakes, yet the methodology here is flawed. No allowance is made for the fact that there are clearly different types of paint with differing chemical properties, some of which may exhibit the characteristics they state, others may not. Why was there no reference made to the specific type of paint used in their 'see its not paint' experiment and what were its exact properties? How do other types of paint compare? Later in the article they seem to state that their 'super thermite' was itself painted on to the steel. How was this achieved? How thick did this paint have to be to cause the collapse of the twin towers? How do they explain the fact that over half a tonne of thermite still fails to cut an SUV in half, if it has the devastating properties they intimate?
6) Given that many many tonnes of thermite would have been required to cause the collapse they claim, how come no one ever noticed it piled up in the buildings? Where was it?
7) How did they get the thermite to defy the laws of gravity by burning itself horizontally across the beams to sever them? Why have they failed to replicate the action of these super thermite charges using a steel beam of the same proportions used in the twin towers?
8) What are the exact chemical properties of this so called super thermite which is rather vaguely referred to?
8) How does this article in any way provide any conclusive proof re: conspiracy theories re 9/11. Even if this substance is thermite (which is still open to considerable dispute seeing as thermite itself is little more than iron oxide and aluminum) how can they conclusively prove that these trace elements are not products either the original construction of the towers or the subsequent clearing of ground zero. They themselves concede that only one of their measly four samples was allegedly taken within a few hours of the collapse (again, what conditions was this sample kept in during the intervening years before analysis?)
I remain unconvinced, the 'truthers' are going to have to do a lot better than this.
For those that are interested, there is an in depth discussion of this article here:
Skeptic
What you need to know about "Peer-review"
08.04.2009 11:34
From Prof Steven Jones (
repost from
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper (
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...
Scientific Method
How about a second look at the truthers?
08.04.2009 13:13
They have enough of it to give out millions of free books and professionally edited dvds, yet they are VERY small in numbers. They also have enough of it to pay for flights/hotels and venue hire. Where does it all come from?
Sick of this!