See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 and the Evidence
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070326_evidence.htm
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2007-03-27 12:26:54 by Peetie Wheatstraw
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 3021
Comments: 178
Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story. Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is a person who is sensitive to evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. There is no counterpart on the official side of the story who is as fully informed on all aspects of the attacks as Griffin. At the outset, Griffin points out that the reader’s choice is between two conspiracy theories: One is that Muslim fanatics, who were not qualified to fly airplanes, defeated the security apparatus of the US and succeeded in three out of four attacks using passenger jets as weapons. The other is that security failed across the board, not merely partially but totally, because of complicity of some part of the US government. Griffin points out that there has been no independent investigation of 9/11. What we have are a report by a political commission headed by Bush administration factotum Philip Zelikow, a NIST report produced by the Bush administration’s Department of Commerce, and a journalistic account produced by Popular Mechanics. Various scientists who work for the federal government or are dependent on government grants have issued speculative statements in behalf of the official conspiracy theory, but have not produced meaningful evidence in its behalf. The relevant skeptics of the official story are approximately 100 independent researchers consisting of experts and professors whose careers have required them to deal with evidence and its analysis. Their individual contributions to 9/11 analysis can be found online. Griffin has undertaken to absorb the arguments and evidence for the official account and the arguments and evidence against it. In his latest book, which has just been released, he presents the case for the official account and its evidential failure. Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official story. Setting aside the 25% of the public that is so uninformed or uninvolved as to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack, leaves 39% of the public who believe the official story. However, this 39% is essentially relying on the mainstream media’s endorsement of the official story. Griffin believes, perhaps naively, that truth can prevail, and it is his commitment to truth that has motivated him to shoulder the enormous task. Everyone who believes in the integrity of the US government or the Bush administration will find Griffin’s book to be disturbing. Readers will have to confront such issues as why US authorities seized the forensic evidence resulting from the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, the attack on the Pentagon and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania and prevented any forensic examination of any part of the 9/11 attacks. Despite widespread belief that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack, the evidence we have is a suspect video declared to be "bogus" by Bruce Lawrence, perhaps the leading American expert on bin Laden. The US government has never produced the promised report on bin Laden’s responsibility. When the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on presentation of evidence, the US government had no evidence to deliver; thus the invasion of Afghanistan. The fragility of the NIST report is astonishing. The report succeeded because people accepted its assurances without examination. Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men, and internal contradictions in the report itself. There is not space in a review to present the evidence Griffin has mustered. A few highlights should suffice to alert readers to the possibility that the Bush administration has lied about more than Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below. Damage caused by airliners and short-lived limited fires cannot explain the disintegration of the buildings. The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced. NIST’s final report stated that of the steel available to it for examination, "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius" (482 degrees Fahrenheit). The self-cleaning ovens in our home kitchens reach temperatures higher than this, and the ovens do not melt or deform. Steel begins to melt at 1,500 degrees C or 2,800 degrees F. Temperatures of 250 degrees C would have no effect on the strength of steel. The explanation that the buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel is speculative. Open air fires do not produce temperatures sufficient to deprive steel of its structural integrity. Steel framed buildings have burned 22 hours in raging infernos, and the steel skeletons remained standing. The WTC fires in the towers lasted about one hour and were limited to a few floors. Moreover, it is impossible for fire to account for the sudden, total and symmetrical disintegration of powerfully constructed buildings, much less at free fall speeds that are obtainable only with controlled demolition. Griffin provides quotes from firefighters, police, and tenants, who heard and experienced a series of explosions prior to the disintegration of the towers. Such witness testimony is generally ignored by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Molten steel was found in underground levels of the WTC buildings weeks after the buildings’ destruction. As everyone agrees that the fires did not approach the melting point of steel, a possible explanation is high explosives used in demolitions that produce 5,000 degree temperatures. The possibility that explosives were used remains unexamined except by independent researchers. Contradictions in the official conspiracy theory leap off the pages and hit the reader in the face. For example, the evidence that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon is the government’s claim to have obtained from the wreckage enough bodies and body parts to match the DNA for each person on the passenger list and flight crew. Simultaneously, the absence of passenger luggage, fuselage, wing and tail sections--indeed the absence of a 100,000 pound airliner--is attributed to the vaporization of the airplane due to the high speed crash and intense fire. The incompatibility of vaporized metal but recovered flesh and blood stood unnoticed until Griffin pointed it out. Another striking inconsistency in the official conspiracy theory is the difference in the impact of airliners on the Pentagon and the WTC towers. In the case of the Pentagon, the emphasis is on why the airliner caused so little damage to the building. In the case of the WTC towers, the emphasis is why the airliners caused so much damage. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine’s editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated. In his conclusion Griffin reminds us that the 9/11 attack has been used to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to plan an attack on Iran, to curtail constitutional protections and civil liberties in the US, to radically expand US military budgets and the power of the executive, and to enrich entrenched vested interests. Griffin is definitely correct about this regardless of whether a believable case can ever be made for the government’s version of the 9/11 conspiracy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 148.
#11. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#0)
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. ******************
Rather than the dishonest nonsense of a philosopher and theologian. Oh, fuck you; BAC!
I think there should be a maximum # of times that someone can post the exact same copy/paste. Also note, that Griffin's new book has not yet been released. Once again (for those of you in Rio Linda - or who just act like it), the title of Griffin's latest book is: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Paperback) by David Ray Griffin (Author) List Price: $20.00 Price: $13.60 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details You Save: $6.40 (32%) Pre-Order Price Guarantee! Order now and if the Amazon.com price decreases between your order time and release date, you'll receive the lowest price. See Details Availability: This title has not yet been released. You may order it now and we will ship it to you when it arrives. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.
yeah, i was JUST thinking the same thing.
You going to try and censor the truth, christine? That should be interesting. And what do you think all these articles posted about Griffin recently are other than copy/paste? Just because they are in the form of a thread article doesn't make them anything other than that. It took NO effort on the part of the poster to post the articles. Someone else already did the work of writing them.
Chooser, I got it. Why don't you post ten pages of black spam that no one will read. Down at the bottom say something about the world being unfair to you. Then, two weeks from now, when Christine calls you on your bullshit, you can claim you have already proven her wrong in a prior post. Ask her if she remembers it and go ROTFLOL!! That should change reality and make things go your way.
This should answer your question: ********** From my first post here at 4um ... *************** http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45230&Disp=75#C75 Hello everyone! In my first post here at Freedom4um, I wish to set the record straight regarding my recent banning at LibertyPost by that forum's owner. Post #293 of the following LP thread, http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=175627&Disp=327#C327 , is where Goldi-Lox kicked me off her forum. She stated I was "disruptive" to the thread (and it's "important message"). Her banning post was a response to a post I made to samcgwire. Goldi deleted, in its entirety, the post I made to samcgwire (#235), calling my post "UNCIVIL". Now you can decide for yourself whether I was disruptive (at least, any more so than scores of other folks have been on thousand other threads at LP). Before you do that, however, keep in mind that she responded to a post I'd made nearly 12 hours earlier, and between that time and her post, I posted nothing further to the thread (and there were another 60 posts added by then). I'd hardly characterize that the massive disruption she claimed it to be. And my response was a response to a very hostile post directed at me. Was I supposed to be the only one at LP to just turn the other cheek? Just as I was the only one not allowed to post the word KOOK? Furthermore, to single me out and ignore countless other examples of folks disrupting the forum in other threads says, I think, something about the consistency of Goldi's management of the forum. Many of these other cases have been pointed out to her (not just by me) and she took no action. So perhaps my banning just shows that only HER "issues" matter at LP. LP'ers take note. But that's ok. She is the owner and can do what she wants. And a final bit of irony. Note that the assertion being made in the thread by Goldi and others apparently turned out to be more hysteria and rumor, than actual fact. I'm not saying those in Washington aren't above trying to slip something by us, but in this case it appears her concerns were a little overblown. But that's ok. She is the owner and can do what she wants. Goldi-Lox chose to ban me ... permanently ... and without a real warning ... but that is her right as forum owner. She can do what she wants. So here I am, on Freedom4um. The same is true of this forum's owners. Should they decide I'm no longer welcome, they can ban me and I will make no effort to return. And for the record I have not posted at FR since Jim tossed me nor have I posted (or will I) at LP (unless, of course, invited to do so by Goldi). But, I do intend to give this forum's owner no legitimate cause to cancel my access. More on that later. First, I do feel that Goldi's pulling my comment #235 and labeling it UNCIVIL is a naked effort to hide the hypocrisy of her own actions. So here are the facts regarding that deleted post (and you know how I love facts). My post (#235) was a response to this post by samcgwire: **************** 228. To: BeAChooser (#218) Quite honestly, you Quisling POS. I hope you freaking choke on yourself. This might be my last night on LP. Chooser, you and everyone like you will hang before this is over. You sorry SOB. You can't cover for the treasonous bastards any longer. The jig is up. Game over. It's time for all quislings to pay the fiddler and start to reap the whirlwind. You and your ilk have done enough damage. samcgwire posted on 2007-02-05 21:07:36 ET Reply Trace ******************** To samcgwire's statement "Quite honestly, you Quisling POS. I hope you freaking choke on yourself.", I wrote (in #235) "What a civil, family oriented forum." How can Goldi find that comment uncivil, yet not consider calling someone a "POS" and an "SOB" uncivil? Does she not know what POS and SOB stand for? Or are they okay because they are abbreviations of foul language? And she must think that a death wish is civil, too. I hardly see the logic in that. But it's her forum. Next, in response to samcgwire's statement "This might be my last night on LP", I wrote "Why? You folks own this forum. I'm one little voice. What do you fear?" Again, does Goldi think that's being uncivil? There's no foul language. No labels. Just the simple truth. Folks like samcgwire do seem to dominate her forum. And I was just one little voice of rationality (IMO). What did she fear? Finally, in response to what I perceive to be a highly uncivil death threat, "Chooser, you and everyone like you will hang before this is over", I wrote "This is the sort of person you are associating yourself with, Goldi." I see nothing uncivil in that observation, either. And it was the truth. She was associating herself with that individual. Later, she even went out of her way in the thread to tell samcgwire to not quit the forum but just take some time off and come back. And samcgwire wasn't the only problematic individual she was chummy with in that thread. In my opinion. So here was a thread with it's very important topic (and I do think stopping illegal immigration is important) and Goldi willingly associates herself and the topic with an extremist who utters death threats and foul language at the drop of a hat, and others who I had shown (on other threads Goldi was pinged to) have a propensity for lying. I warned her in two emails after my banning that such associations are not going to get her views about this issue any favorable response from anyone who matters. Nor is allowing liars to corrupt a forum going to do that. My emails to her said quite a bit about the topic of liars. She ignores what I said at the risk of her own forum's future. But then it is her forum and I'll say no more on that matter unless asked to do so by her. I'm not holding my breath. Now, as to my presence on THIS forum, I'd going to try something different. I will not be calling anyone any names or labels (you know ... kook, liar, 5th Columnist, anti-American). No matter what you call me or uncivility you post to me. I won't bozo you (don't believe in that). I'm simply going to turn the other cheek. And we will see who comes out looking the worse in the long run. I'm also not going to engage in long debates, taking apart posts line by line. But I will be posting linked sources that will allow any open minded visitor to FD4UM to see that a claim made by a poster or a claim made in an article is false. They can draw their own conclusion from that. One last comment. I appreciate this forum's owners giving me the opportunity to join, despite our past differences. I sure this will be interesting. Now let the games begin ... *********** See ... I even addressed to you at the end. Guess you weren't paying attention. ROTFLOL!
This was the reason I was banned at FR some time ago, because shortly after the war against Iraq got started I had the nerve to say that that our military would not be greeted warmly by the Iraqi people, that we would not win over their hearts and minds, that in fact they would resent it. The posters at FR thought that was a terrible thing to say, so JR booted me off for being a disruptor. I'm sure you were considered disruptive on LP in another way though.
I'm curious Diana. Why do you think Goldi LIED about the content of my post? It clearly was not uncivil as she claimed (and then deleted). My message to her is the same as my message to you folks. You will not find the truth or a better world on a foundation of lies. That message goes out to the posters championing Griffin in this thread. He's a liar ... and you will not find the truth on a foundation of lies.
That message goes out to the posters championing Griffin in this thread. He's a liar ... and you will not find the truth on a foundation of lies. BAC, you're the resident LIAR, wherever you go. You're "clever" about it, but the LIAR, in any case. Your definition of "truth" is that which the Bush Cabal (read: "Israel") dictates to you. You're the human epitome of un-truth, lies and deceit! You were "banned" as an excuse to send you groveling over here - nothing more. Eat shit, and die; BAC!
Or you have posters like SKYDRIFTER. Meanwhile, NONE of you have challenged the details of the post I made about Griffin. Interesting ...
Or you have posters like SKYDRIFTER. Griffin has his facts together! Your ability to cut and paste bullshit articles doesn't alter that! A stopwatch says that three WTC buildings free-fell onto their own footprint; nothing alters that - as in "controlled demolition." Eat shit, and die; BAC!
The two towers did NOT freefall.
They sure as fuck did! A stopwatch says it all! What bullshit are you using, as being anything but a freefall? C'mon, asshole, let's hear it!
And what do you claim the collapse times of WTC1 and WTC2 are?
Close enough to freefall for the 80 or 90 stories below the impact zlone to have put up little or no resistance. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second. Let's say it took 15 seconds to collapse a tower. And lets say that 10 seconds is freefall in a vacuum. So it took 5 seconds to overcome 90 floors worth of resistance? So your contention is that it took on average less than six one hundredths of a second to overcome each floor? Are you really that ignorant, that you can believe that a gravitational collapse had the energy to overcome 90 floors (INCLUDING core and perimeter columns) in less than 6/100ths of a second for each floor? The actual figure would be 55/1000ths or 5.5/100ths. I'd really like to know what kind of drugs you guys take. Oh yeah, you official fairy tale believers like to say that the ejection of the debris up to 300 feet or more to the side of the buildings was the result of trapped air being compressed and then released as the floors came down. So not only does the collapse have to overcome the resistance of the floors, but also compress the air and blow out the debris in that same 55/1000ths of a second. At this point, any sane person would be feeling really dumb for believing the fairy tale to begin with, so are you sane and feeling dumb, or are you a shill?
You don't have to give me the benefit of the doubt. All you have to do is look at pictures that have been around for 5 YEARS. Well first of all, portions of the core were actually still standing after those 15 seconds. And secondly, "are you really that ignorant, that you can believe" all the structural engineers and macro-world physicists in the world haven't noticed by now what you claim is *obvious*? I suspect they understand something you do not. Same drugs as all those professional designing every structure we use in the world. http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html "How fast would it have to be thrown to cover this 390 foot distance? If the beam came from the 90th floor of WTC1, that would put it 1119 feet up. The debris hit around half way up WFC 3, we’ll call that 369 feet for convenience: that’s a fall of 750 feet. Freefall from that height gives the debris around 6.83 seconds to travel through the air, meaning it would need to average a horizontal velocity of 57.1 feet per second, or 38.94 miles per hour. Is this possible? The following analysis, emailed to us, suggests so, even though later comments suggest it originated with someone sceptical of the official story." Now you'll have to visit that site to see that analysis. Will you? Are all the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world? Because they apparently agree with ME.
Hey dipshit, you still haven't addressed the fact that I showed you a demolition expert that thinks building 7 was a controlled demo. You going to pretend that he doesn't exist now?
Of course not. He exists. He said WTC7 was a controlled demolition ... based SOLELY on watching a few video clips that a conspiracist like you provided him ... without telling him the event took place on 9/11, that the building was on fire for many, many hours before it collapsed and that the building was leaning long before the collapse. Now are you going to pretend that his theory isn't that Silverstein decided AFTER the planes hit the towers to bring down WTC7 rather than have to repair it? Are you going to pretend that he didn't say WTC 1 and WTC 2 looked nothing like controlled demos? If you agree with him about WTC7, do you agree with him about the towers too? Hmmmmm, critter?
If one building was a controlled demo, they all must have been demos.
Yet your demolition expert said WTC1 and WTC2 were definitely NOT demos. So is he now a moron too, critter?
If one is, they all are. He may mean that that the towers weren't a "controlled" demolition in the classic sense. They weren't. They couldn't be without it looking way too obvious. But 7 was a classic controlled demo, and all I have to do to prove that the official fairy tale is a lie, is prove that one of them was controlled demo.
Is that a new law of nature? Shall we call it Critter's Law? So you think he was parsing his words when he said that? ROTFLOL! And he just failed to mention the word explosives in the context of what collapsed the two towers? Yet for so long the conspiracy movement INSISTED they show the classic signs of a controlled demo. In fact, I believe many in the movement still do say that. One of them being Griffin. So are you disagreeing with Griffin now too, critter?
They may show signs, but the towers weren't "classic" controlled demos. I have always said that, or at least since I realized how words can be misconstrued.
David Griffin published an article insisting that you are wrong ... that the collapse of the towers has all the characteristics of a classic "controlled demolition". http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=2 Are you saying Griffin is wrong, critter?
#149. To: BeAChooser (#148)
No. He is right. I did a quick scan of the aricle since time is tight right now, but I didn't find the exact quote that he said it contained "all" of the characteristics. However, there are only two characteristics missing from the towers collapses: Starting from the bottom, and containing the debris field to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. The characteristics he does mention were indeed part of the tower collapses.
I'm involved with a group setting Griffin's upcoming appearance in Seattle; anything you want me to ask him, BAC?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
#13. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#11)
#16. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#13)
#17. To: robin (#16)
I think there should be a maximum # of times that someone can post the exact same copy/paste
#19. To: christine, robin, ALL (#17)
I think there should be a maximum # of times that someone can post the exact same copy/paste
yeah, i was JUST thinking the same thing.
#23. To: BeAChooser (#19)
#25. To: ..., ALL (#23)
By the way chooser, I never got a chance to ask you, did Goldi ban you for being a kook or for just being a butt hole?
#44. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, christine, Red Jones (#25)
She stated I was "disruptive" to the thread (and it's "important message").
#53. To: Diana, ALL (#44)
I'm sure you were considered disruptive on LP in another way though.
#58. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#53)
You will not find the truth or a better world on a foundation of lies.
#62. To: christine, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#58)
SKYDRIFTER - Eat shit, and die; BAC!
#71. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#62)
#73. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#71)
A stopwatch says that three WTC buildings free-fell
#74. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#73)
The two towers did NOT freefall.
#79. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#74)
The two towers did NOT freefall.
They sure as fuck did!
#82. To: BeAChooser (#79)
And what do you claim the collapse times of WTC1 and WTC2 are?
#94. To: Critter, ALL (#82)
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second.
Are you really that ignorant, that you can believe that a gravitational collapse had the energy to overcome 90 floors (INCLUDING core and perimeter columns) in less than 6/100ths of a second for each floor?
I'd really like to know what kind of drugs you guys take.
Oh yeah, you official fairy tale believers like to say that the ejection of the debris up to 300 feet or more to the side of the buildings was the result of trapped air being compressed and then released as the floors came down.
At this point, any sane person would be feeling really dumb for believing the fairy tale to begin with, so are you sane and feeling dumb, or are you a shill?
#125. To: BeAChooser (#94)
#132. To: Critter, ALL (#125)
Hey dipshit, you still haven't addressed the fact that I showed you a demolition expert that thinks building 7 was a controlled demo. You going to pretend that he doesn't exist now?
#133. To: BeAChooser (#132)
#134. To: Critter, ALL (#133)
If one building was a controlled demo, they all must have been demos.
#135. To: BeAChooser (#134)
#136. To: Critter, ALL (#135)
If one is, they all are.
He may mean that that the towers weren't a "controlled" demolition in the classic sense.
They weren't.
#138. To: BeAChooser (#136)
#148. To: Critter, ALL (#138)
Replies to Comment # 148. Are you saying Griffin is wrong, critter?
#156. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#148)
Are you saying Griffin is wrong ......
End Trace Mode for Comment # 148.