Even More Lies from David Ray Griffin

Continuing from my previous article, I will now point out some more lies in David Ray Griffin’s book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.   My last article dealt with claims 11-15, so I will now deal with claim16 ( I have to stop with claim 16 as so far, the article stops there) as provided by Andrew Burfield’s “Distortion of Facts.”

            Claim 16 from pages 33 and 34 of the aforementioned DGR book, “16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).” (reference ). First of all, as Burfield  points out, the report does not indicate how likely each side of the building was to get hit.  When you take into account that the Pentagon has five sides ( which is why it’s called the Pentagon),  that means that each side had a 1 in 5 chance of being hit, which is the same chance.

            Second, David Ray Griffin is contradicting himself. Burfield reminds us that David Ray Griffin does not believe that Al Qaeda carried out the attack, yet he also claims to know Al Qaeda’s intentions when the attack was carried out.  Anyone else see the problem here? 

            Go just past halfway down the page here  and you will see that the terrorists simply aimed for the first side of the Pentagon they saw- simply put, they took the path of least resistance.

            Burfield  points out that Griffin is using a logical fallacy known as the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy,” which is found here: “The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning. The name comes from a story about a Texan who fires several shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.”

            Also, as we see here,  David Ray Griffin contradicts himself yet again as he thinks Hanjour would hit the Pentagon right where he wanted to, when a few pages previously in his EXACT same book, he says Hanjour was such a poor pilot that he could not have hit the Pentagon in the first place.  Which one is it?  As you can see, Griffin is clearly contradicting himself, which means that he is, by definition, LYING.

 

 

Advertisements

Posted August 4, 2011 by Victor Chabala in Mocking Truthers, Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: