28-01-2011, 03:21 PM
David Ray Griffin's Response to UN Watch's Article: "NGO Says Richard Falk Has "Zero Credibility," Urges UN Chief to Fire Him"
"Yes, Richard Falk's comments are "preposterous" except for the enormous amount of evidence supporting those comments. It is unfortunate that the Secretary-General chose simply to "condemn" Falk's comments instead of using the UN's resources to investigate the relevant evidence. Surely such an investigation is justified by the fact that the official account of 9/11 has been rejected by more than a dozen professional organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400 professional members), Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth. Given the fact that the official account of 9/11 is now rejected by virtually all professionals who are independent (of the US government) and have studied the evidence, it is this official account that is "preposterous," not Mr. Falk's comments."
David Ray Griffin
January 26, 2011
Source url
"Yes, Richard Falk's comments are "preposterous" except for the enormous amount of evidence supporting those comments. It is unfortunate that the Secretary-General chose simply to "condemn" Falk's comments instead of using the UN's resources to investigate the relevant evidence. Surely such an investigation is justified by the fact that the official account of 9/11 has been rejected by more than a dozen professional organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400 professional members), Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth. Given the fact that the official account of 9/11 is now rejected by virtually all professionals who are independent (of the US government) and have studied the evidence, it is this official account that is "preposterous," not Mr. Falk's comments."
David Ray Griffin
January 26, 2011
Source url