See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Dr. David Ray Griffin's New Book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Available For Pre-Order At Amazon
Source:
http://911blogger.com/node/6791
URL Source: http://911blogger.com/node/6791
Published: Mar 10, 2007
Author: 911 Blogger
Post Date: 2007-03-10 04:52:03 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 129
Comments: 6
Dr. David Ray Griffin's New Book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Available For Pre-Order At Amazon Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 03/09/2007 - 5:17pm. Dr. David Ray Griffin Purchase the book at Amazon Book Description By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11. Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine. He also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications-which one might have expected to be supportive. Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly leveled against critics of the official theory-that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith-actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory. This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim-that 9/11 was an inside job-remains the only explanation that fits the facts. About the Author David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), 9/11 and American Empire (2006, with Peter Dale Scott).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Sounds like the good Dr. Griffin is wise to the ways of the cut and paster antics of gubmint trolls.....LOL.
My ego is curious to see how much of my material Griffin uses. BAC won't like that, of course.
Then the movement is in serious trouble. The following is a rebuttal of claims made by Griffin in his new book "9-11 and the American Empire": ********** From http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47233&Disp=16#C16 False. That's NOT what experts in fire actually say. The WTC fires were very big and very hot. And they lasted as long as they needed to last in order to significantly weaken the fireproofing damaged steel. The Philadelphia fire took 18 hours just to gut 8 floors. That's because it was slowly spreading. The firefighters fought the fire for 11 hours before they evacuated the building fearing a collapse. The building, which was never hit by an aircraft, was structurally unsound and later had to be demolished (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf ). In fact, according to that report, "Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors." Further, "The fire was stopped when it reached the 30th floor, which was protected by automatic sprinklers. As the fire ignited in different points this floor level through the floor assembly and by autoexposure through the windows, 10 sprinkler heads activated and the fires were extinguished at each point of penetration. The vertical spread of the fire was stopped solely by the action of the automatic sprinkler system, which was being supplied by Fire Department pumpers." The fire spread slowly in the Caracas fire too. And it was again fought by firefighters. And again the structure was severely damaged ... so much so that there was fear it would collapse. As always, the conspiracists leave out key details in their attempt to make the notion of bombs in the WTC towers remotely palatable. Also always ignored by the conspiracy crowd is the key difference between these structures and the WTC towers. These structures had a steel frame that looked like this: The WTC towers, on the other hand, had most of the steel in an outer web to increase office space: This made the towers more vulnerable to the type of failure they experienced than most other steel framed skyscrapers. This and other fallacious reasoning in the argument that because the WTC towers were the first steel skyscrapers to totally collapse it must have been bombs are discussed here: http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm Ignoring the fact that no other steel-framed, high rise buildings have been struck by modern high speed commercial jets and burned without firefighting measures, the key phrase here is "total collapse". If one looks at the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid in February of 2005, however, one finds a high rise in which ALL the portions of the tower (from the 18th to the 32nd floor) that relied primarily on steel frames for support collapsed (http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 ). A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 17 floors and they did not collapse. And the collapse occurred solely due to fire with no externally caused structural damage and no jet fuel initiating that fire. And those sections collapsed within about 4 hours of exposure to the fire ... roughly the amount of time fire protection coatings could be expected to protect the steel from the fires heat. This is sheer nonsense. It is such extreme nonsense that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world concurs with this assertion. In fact, numerous, highly respected demolition experts have specifically stated that the collapse of the towers did NOT have the characteristics of a controlled demolition. And pointed out numerous features that prove it was not a controlled demolition. Steel members did sag well before the actual collapse. This is documented on film and in eyewitness statements. The structures were also observed to be tilting well before the actual collapse. The assertion that the collapses occurred out of the blue is simply FALSE. Here is the proof: http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTC1SouthFace1023.html This is more nonsense. Steel framed skyscrapers cannot collapse any way but straight down as they lack the stiffness to topple over. I doubt that Griffin even understands the term. Again, NOT ONE demolition expert or structural engineer has said there was anything unexpected about the structures collapsing vertically. Another dishonesty. WTC 1 and WTC 2 did NOT collapse as *virtually free-fall* speed. That would have been a collapse in about 10 seconds. The towers took about 15 seconds for the collapsing level to reach the ground. In that time, a tower more than twice as high could have collapsed at "virtually free-fall speed". More dishonesty, proven simply by looking at videos and photos of the collapse and its aftermath. In fact, much of the core of the towers actually remained standing for a time after the collapsing level reached the ground. Molten metal does not equate to controlled demolition. It equates to high temperatures or a eutectic steel exposed to somewhat lower temperatures. Or it equates to metals with lower melting points (like Aluminum). And there are other rational explanations for high temperatures besides a controlled demolition. Here is one: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf . The term *explosion* is merely an INTERPRETATION of what was observed or heard. NOT ONE structural engineer or demolition expert has said there were explosions caused by bombs in the WTC towers., They've provided other, more ordinary (and rational) explanations. Are they all evil neocons or morons ... or do they know something lay-people and theologians don't? First of all, there was molten metal observed flowing from one of the towers shortly before it collapsed. The experts said it was aluminum, which melts at about a 1000 F, temperatures that all the experts say were exceeded before the collapse. Second, the conditions in the rubble pile are something entirely different. Temperatures in ordinary fires (especially if there are plastics involved) can in fact exceed the melting point of steel without calling on magic spirits or foul play. This is fully discussed here: http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html Which is why not one expert in fire has come forward to suggest finding molten metal in the rubble was not possible or indicative of foul play. One thing the conspiracists never explain is how thermate would have kept the steel molten long after its reaction supposedly cut the beams and collapsed the building? We are talking WEEKS after the collapse before those steel beams were lifted from the rubble. What source of heat kept the metal molten so long? None of those saying it appeared to be a controlled demolition were experts in such matters. NONE of them. ALL were merely interpreting loud noises and the collapse from the position of a layperson. And LOTS of things in burning and collapsing structures make loud popping sounds. Griffin neglected to mention that Steven Jones is an expert in sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. That's ALL he has worked on for the past 30 years. And suddenly he's an expert in macro-world physics, structures, fire, impact, buckling and steel? ROTFLOL! He also neglected to mention that NONE of the experts in such things at BYU agrees with Jones. NOT ONE. What Griffin dishonestly leaves out is that Mr Jowenko (the demolition expert in question) specifically stated that the collapse of the WTC towers looked nothing like controlled demolitions and were definitely NOT controlled demolitions. And the interviewer who showed him very select video for WTC7 even lied to him about certain facts surrounding the collapse. Mr Jowenko also based his conclusion solely on that video tape. And his theory was that Mr Silverstein jury rigged the demolition AFTER the attack on the towers as a means of getting insurance money. He doesn't suggest for a minute that the government had anything to do with it. And he suggests that 30 to 50 people were needed to do it. ROTFLOL! Now Mr Bachmann's theory is that the terrorists installed explosives in the key supports of before the attack (fundamentally different than Mr Jowenko's theory). In fact, he suggests they rented office space in vulnerable parts of the building to do it. Any documentary evidence of this? No. And again, Mr Bachmann made his assertion about WTC7 after seeing only a few videos of the collapse by a kindly conspiracist. He didn't take time to study the case or research further. In fact, he doesn't seem to want to talk to conspiracists any more. Nor does his friend, Joerg Schneider, the other professor. This one is 73. He's retired. And like Bachmann was only shown a small portion of the video and other evidence ... the part that conspiracists who interviewed him chose to show. His resume would indicate he focused on concrete structures and then, later, the safety and reliability of structures, with special emphasis on human error. Not steel structures, impact or fire. Let's be clear about this. There are over a hundred thousand commercial pilots in the US. And so far, only a handful have made statements or joined 911 conspiracy organizations suggesting that it would have been impossible for a 757 to perform the maneuvers that occurred. Would that make the rest morons or just evil neocons? And this is a good example of the type of pilots they've been able to enlist in their movement. A pilot no longer ALLOWED to fly the planes. Tell them why, SKYDRIFTER. Nothing strange here. A horizontal impact wouldn't impart much energy into the ground. This is completely false. Photographs and eyewitnesses do, in fact, support the claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Which is why noone but KOOKS are claiming it didn't. How good was this eyewitness? Kwiatkowski is also on record stating that "the façade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter." That is completely false as numerous photos already posted to FD4UM several times prove. Here, this is just the LEFT SIDE of the hole: Also, there was considerable debris on the ground outside of the building, a fact captured in photos like this: This is just more dishonesty from Griffin. A quote taken completely out of context. http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/even-more-quote-mining.html "Well let's look at what he says only a minute before this quote (emphasis mine): "And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane." Ah yes, April Gallop. For the rest of the story, folks, read this: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/strange-case-of-april-gallop.html April clearly states that she believes a plane hit the Pentagon and the reason she didn't see any debris is because she wasn't wandering around but being triaged. ROTFLOL! Griffin depending on Omholt as an expert just proves how desperate Griffin is to find ANY *expert* to bolster his assertions. She should be glad that section of the Pentagon had recently been hardened and that the tail of a 757 didn't contain any fuel. Not at the time of 9/11. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24426 "Defense Department officials actually considered a terrorist scenario in which Islamic fundamentalist martyrs crashed planes into the otherwise impregnable Pentagon, but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas, a senior Pentagon official specializing in counterterrorism told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview." There are no structural engineers currently complaining about this. Some were initially unhappy but apparently their concerns were addressed by subsequent actions to allow access and save samples from the site. And they were supposed to just leave the debris (which I thought Griffin was claiming didn't exist) laying where it fell? OF COURSE they gathered it up. More nonsense. Investigators combed the site shoulder to shoulder looking for evidence. There are numerous photos documenting this. And the entire lawn was not covered with dirt and gravel. That's simply FALSE. Gravel was placed along certain paths to allow heavy equipment to get access to the structure so it could be repaired. Sorry, no conspiracy here. Although Griffin should tell his readers what most of the conspiracists who harp about this claim that this burial was done to cover up the DU from the missile used to damage the pentagon. ROTFLOL! As they were supposed to do. I supposed you'd have not collected them? That depends on how one interprets that video. A 757 could indeed be hiding in the shadows of that video. In fact, some see one in the details. But then again, why one would expect a low resolution, low frame rate, narrow field of view security camera to capture a clear image of the aircraft is beyond my understanding. ROTFLOL! In conclusion, here's the sort of sources those who want the truth should read: http://www.911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html Rather than the dishonest nonsense of a philosopher and theologian. ****************** Griffin is one of those who, if the media had reported WW2 the same as they've reported the WOT and Iraq, would have lost us WW2. He'd have convinced half the public (at least the democRATS) that the administration let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and we should sue for peace rather than lose any more lives or spend anymore billions defeating the Japanese and Germans. Wonder what the world would look like today if that had happened?
Hey Douglas Feith, what have I TOLD you. Did I give you permission to ping me or post on my thread? Don't junk up my thread with spam and that C&P nonsense. Reply ONLY when replied to. You are like a 4 year old that doesn't listen. You need to be slapped daily. Now go get your shinebox.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
ROTFLOL! (beware the dot) Pointing out disinformation and lies written by Griffin is nonsense? I'm sure sure you don't see the irony in that sentence.
Sir or Madam, will you just take a good look? Takes man-years to write this stuff, it should be a book. Based on the lies of a man named Bush, BAC needs approval, so he found a propaganda writer, That’s BAC’s crap writer. It's a really dirty story, but BAC’s a dirty man And he doesn’t have a wife who doesn't understand. His 'partner' is working directly for Fox Newsl It's a steady job but he needs a crap writer, BAC found a crap writer. BAC’s own crap writer. He can spam a thousand pages, give or take a few, More can be written in just a day or two. He can make it longer if you buy the style, He can switch the facts around, with his crap writer, BAC’s very own crap writer. If you believe it, you have every right, The crap could sway a million or more overnight. If you have to cite facts, you can waste them right here When BAC needs a break; he has his own crap writer, BAC’s own crap writer - BAC’s own crap writer. BAC’s own crap writer - BAC’s very own crap writer.
No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it.
#2. To: Kamala, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#0)
#3. To: Kamala, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#0)
David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11.
Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot, or long-lasting as fires in steel-frame high-rises that have not induced collapses.
In 1991, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours; in 2004, a fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither fire produced even a partial collapse.
Third, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought about by fire
Fourth, the collapses of these three buildings all manifested many standard features of the kind of controlled demolition known as “implosion,”
sudden onset (whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag)
straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over)
collapse at virtually free-fall speed
total collapse (indicating that the massive steel columns in the core of each building had been broken into many pieces---which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions)
the production of molten metal;
and the occurrence of multiple explosions.
To begin with the molten metal: Many people have been led to believe, by misleading TV documentaries, that the Twin Towers collapsed because their steel melted. But steel does not begin to melt until it reaches 2800°F, whereas open fires based on hydrocarbons such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---cannot get much above 1700°F (even with an ideal mixture of fuel and oxygen, which seldom occurs in building fires). Nevertheless, molten metal was produced, according to many witnesses.
That would be no surprise only if the buildings’ steel columns had been sliced by the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, thermate, or RDX, which are regularly used to cut steel. That this is what happened is supported by reports that sometimes when steel beams were lifted from the rubble, they were dripping molten metal.
With regard to explosions, literally dozens of people---including journalists, police officers, WTC employees, emergency medical workers, and firefighters---reported hearing explosions in the Twin Towers, with some of them explicitly saying that the collapses appeared to be instances of controlled demolition.
Steven Jones, a physicist who long taught at Brigham Young University, has pointed out that to believe the official account is to believe that some very basic laws of physics were violated.
it is not surprising that when a controlled demolition expert in Holland was shown videos of the collapse of WTC 7,[31] without being told what the building was (he had previously thought that only the Twin Towers had collapsed on 9/11), he said: “They have simply blown away columns. . . . A team of experts did this. . . . This is controlled demolition.”
It is also not surprising that two emeritus professors of structural analysis and construction at Zurich’s prestigious ETH Institute of Technology say that WTC 7 was “with the highest probability brought down by explosives.”[33]
Second, in order to get into position to hit Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, the aircraft had to execute an amazing downward spiral and come in at ground level, which according to some pilots would have been impossible for a Boeing 757, even under the control of an expert.
Ralph Omholt, a captain-qualified 757 pilot, agrees: “The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory,” says Omholt, “is simply too ridiculous to consider.”
Fourth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757. Unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon strike did not create a detectable seismic signal.
Also, according to photographs and eyewitnesses, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not produced by the strike on the Pentagon.
With regard to the debris, the eyewitnesses include Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon. She writes of “a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw nothing of any significance at the point of impact---no airplane metal or cargo debris.”
Another eyewitness was CNN’s Jamie McIntyre, who said during a live report from the Pentagon on 9/11: “The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand.”
The lack of the expected debris inside the Pentagon has been reported by April Gallop, who, along with her two-month-old son, was seriously injured. She says:
I was located at the E ring. . . . [W]e had to escape the building before the floors . . . collapsed on us. And I don't recall at any time seeing any plane debris. . . . If I wasn't informed [at the hospital that it was a plane] I would have never believed it. I walked through that place to try to get out before everything collapsed on us . . . . [S]urely we should have seen something.
With regard to damage, Omholt, discussing the photographic evidence,[48] writes: “There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757. . . . There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The expected ‘crash’ damage doesn’t exist. . . . Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged! The geometry of the day certifies the ‘official’ account as a blatant lie.”
Significant testimony is also provided by Army Reservist Isabelle Slifer, whose fourth-floor office was directly above the strike zone between the first and second floors. Even though a 757 has a very large tail fin, her office was not damaged by the impact.
Also, the Pentagon is reportedly protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles,
A sixth reason to be dubious of the official story is that, as at the World Trade Center, evidence was quickly destroyed.
Shortly after the strike, officials picked up debris in front of the impact site and carried it off.
the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up.
FBI agents, moreover, quickly confiscated videos from security cameras on nearby buildings.
The Justice Department, after long refusing to release any of them, finally in May 2006 released one purporting to showing a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon. But it did not.
The New Pearl Harbor
#4. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#5. To: Kamala, ALL (#4)
Did I give you permission to ping me or post on my thread?
Don't junk up my thread with spam and that C&P nonsense.
Reply ONLY when replied to. You are like a 4 year old that doesn't listen.
#6. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#3)
Blah, Blah; blah blah - Blah!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest