The following poem is dedicated to David Griscom – A one-word-wonder producing 9/11 truth genius:
One Word To The Wise
One word to the wise should be sufficient
But they can’t even take a hint
Their brains are totally skint
Minds of scum –
Like they’re drunk on rum
And I ain’t just sayin’ this for fun
Don’t bother to run
Your game’s bust!
Steel’s turnin’ to dust
And not just ‘cause of rust
I got the data ya can all now trust
But ya all best just think – ya really must!
My name’s Dave
I’m causing a shockwave
Old 9/11 theories are goin’ to their grave
My new theory’s the new rave
So run to your cave
‘cause truth is on ma side
And da tide’s ‘bout to turn
So ya all best just learn
Or you’re gonna burn
I’m gonna beat that Morgan down
Like he’s a ‘Punch and Judy’ clown
He sure makes me frown
Thinkin’ he’s a king wearin’ a crown
But I got da truth to bring renown
And I’s be shoutin’ it all over dis town
I got da vision of a wise owl
Jim Fetzer’s gonna scowl
His nuke theory makes me howl
And stinks real foul
I’m gonna start to growl
‘cause ya think ya know all
But you’re headin’ for a fall
It’s like I’m speakin’ to a brick wall!
Your talk is cheap
It’s like you’re goin’ “bleep, bleep”
Like a stinky wordy rubbish heap
Evil’s what ya reap
It’s enough to make a grown man weep
One word is all I’m gonna say
The word’s “love”
So don’t delay
Use your wisdom and start to pray
Come what may –
We gotta change the world today!
About David Griscom – the “wise owl” of 9/11 truth:
Since 1965, I’ve personally presented 233 talks at national and international scientific gatherings and university colloquia, among which 85 were officially INVITED lectures. Many had questions, and a few had criticisms which they presented politely and I answered civilly either accepting their criticism with a thank you or explaining politely how my evidence proved what I had claimed. Nevertheless, there were a few cases of (figuratively) butting heads, like when my colleagues and I at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) were dueling scientists at Bell Laboratorys doing the same sort of work.
Jump to 1976. A beloved senior expert in glass science who had read a number of my papers and listened to a number of my talks finally managed to cajole me against my gut resistance to write the better part of a book (which finally came out to 139 pages) covering all of the different experimental methods used by the top scientists studying the structure of borate glasses and their relative importances. Then I was required to give the Plenary Lecture at a conference dedicated to this very subject, where most of the top experts in the world in their respective sub fields were in the audience and had already read my chapter! Needless to say I was shaking in my boots. Of course at the end of my lecture I was subjected to answering their various comments and questions. To my surprise the questioning was going O.K. But in the next moment the guy from Bell Labs who was the most combative against our group at NRL literally jumped to the stage and grabbed the mic. Oh shit, I was thinking. However, he immediately stated that he had come prepared to debate me, but that I had covered Bell Lab’s work so nicely that it turned out not to be necessary!
I’ve published 195 peer-reviewed papers, 113 of which I am the principal author. And back in 2005 a new method was devised by a person by the name of Jorge Hirsch to assess the quality and quantity of a scientist’s work. The basis of this method is the index h, defined as the number of papers with citations numbering h or larger. And it turned out that the mean and median h values for Nobel Prize winners in Physics for the 20 years before 2005 were 41 and 35. My present h number is currently 52, with still larger numbers possible because many more of my papers are now approaching 53.