See other 9/11 Articles
Title: NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably: More mainstream coverage, more ignorance of the facts
Source:
http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/170507NYT_fails.htm
URL Source: http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/170507NYT_fails.htm
Published: May 17, 2007
Author: Steve Watson
Post Date: 2007-05-18 19:44:23 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 288
Comments: 35
NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably: More mainstream coverage, more ignorance of the facts Steve Watson http://Infowars.net Thursday, May 17, 2007 In a report detailing Rosie O'Donnell's confirmed plans to have 9/11 truthers debate the attacks on The View before she leaves in June, The New York Times has responded by penning an extremely poor attack piece which cites previous shoddy debunking efforts while completely ignoring key evidence often referred to by the many scientific experts, ex government officials, whistleblowers and truthers in general that have declared the event an inside job. Skipping over the fact that some guys in a cave in Afghanistan were able to coordinate a total stand down of US air defenses, and completely ignoring the mountains of evidence of prior knowledge, the Times makes four main points in an effort to debunk solely the controlled demolition aspect of the 9/11 truth movement's assertions. Here are those points with our counter points: 1. The buildings collapsed from the top down and because controlled demolitions are carried out from the bottom of buildings they were not controlled demolitions. Many witnesses, including WTC janitor William Rodriguez and firefighters, reported explosions at the base of the buildings and white smoke was also seen emerging from the base of the north tower immediately prior to its collapse and after a boom shook cameras and registered on microphones. Initial reports cited FBI statements which suggested they believed some form of explosion had occurred at the base of the towers in addition to the plane impacts above. I posted videos of these reports in this recent article. The Times also ignores the fact that all 3 buildings fell at almost free fall speed with no resistance whatsoever, a feat which defies the laws of physics. 2. The steel did not melt, it was weakened by fire which caused the buildings to gradually collapse. Molten steel was found under all three collapsed buildings. Firefighters described "rivers of molten steel, like flowing lava". According to, among other experts, former Brigham Young Physics professorSteven Jones buildings not destroyed by explosives would have insufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted melted that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots. 3. The reason 7 World Trade Center collapsed straight down was most likely the large amounts of diesel fuel stored in the building’s lower levels. The fuel was meant to power emergency generators. The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by a New York Times article in 2002 and is pure speculation. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on 9/11, “No diesel smells [were] reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas” of WTC 7. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. In any case raging fires could still not cause simultaneous and symmetric damage needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second. 4. Explosives would have had to have been pre-placed in the buildings and no witness has ever reported such suspicious activity taking place. Yes they have. Power downs of both towers were reported the weekend before 9/11. In addition rescue workers, EMT's and witnesses on the ground were warned WTC 7 was going to be intentionally brought down by explosives. The Times article, like any other poorly researched piece, cites Popular Mechanics, the now infamous Hearst Publishing yellow journalism rag that is edited by a tabloid TV critic as their bastion of credibility for standing up to 9/11 truthers, despite the fact that the magazine's 9/11 hit piece has been debunked over and over and is the target of Professor David Ray Griffin's new book , Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Although it is easily countered, the Times exposure highlights the fact that 9/11 truth movement has exploded into the mainstream. It also underlines the fact that the debunkers are losing the battle to quell the public's desire to uncover the lies and discover what really happened on 9/11 as their line of argument becomes more diluted and weakened with each ill informed and poor researched attack piece they produce.
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info. Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
This is good to hear. I hope it explodes all over the neocons.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Hand waving aside, the towers collapsed from the top down. False. All 3 buildings took many seconds more than that corresponding to "free-fall speed" to collapse. A free fall collapse for the towers would have been 8 to 10 seconds. Both towers took about 15 to collapse. The *truth* movement posts videos of the WTC 7 collapse claiming it took 6.5 seconds ... the free-fall time. They deliberately ignore video proof that the east mechanical penthouse was observed to sink into the structure more than 6 seconds before their videoclips begin. And who is to say that molten steel couldn't be produced after the collapse? Not one real expert in fire or steel claims that. Not one. Anywhere in the world. Deformation of the towers and WTC 7 ... tilting in the case of both and sagging floors in the case of the towers ... was observed well before the actual collapse. Furthermore, while real experts in fire and steel seem to think the high temperatures in the rubble were explainable without bombs or thermite, truthers like Jones can't adequately explain what kept the steel molten for 6 weeks if bombs or thermite or thermite melted it in the first place. Is a sub-atomic particle physicist ... and that's about it. The NYTimes is wrong. It didn't collapse straight down. It clearly toppled towards the south. And diesel fuel isn't needed to explain the collapse. False, they were on many floors and from throughout those floors. False. From the video, that clearly isn't what happened. Clearly the south face and east side began to collapse first then the rest of the structure toppled over to the south. False. David Griffin is a deceiving charlatan who takes as much as 20 dollars a pop from suckers who attend his lectures and buy his books.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
[BAC] Hand waving aside, the towers collapsed from the top down. Explosives can do that. The explosive squibs are quite visible leading the collapse. ----- [BAC] [Steven Jones] Is a sub-atomic particle physicist ... and that's about it. BAC is a government liar... and that's about it. The only question is which government. ----- [BAC] The NYTimes is wrong. It didn't collapse straight down. It [7WTC] clearly toppled towards the south. You can believe BAC or your own lying eyes. ----- [BAC] And diesel fuel isn't needed to explain the collapse. Correct. Explosives explain it better. ----- [BAC] Clearly the south face and east side began to collapse first then the rest of the structure toppled over to the south. Clearly, BAC hallucinates that 7WTC annihilated whatever was to the south of it. You almost wonder how 6WTC, across the street to the south remained standing after it had first been pulverized by debris from 1WTC. Indeed, 7WTC was tall enough that had it flopped to the south, it could have engulfed 6WTC and flopped into the footprint of 1WTC. You can believe that or your own lying eyes that it did a dead vertical drop into its own footprint. ----- [BAC] David Griffin is a deceiving charlatan BAC is a government LIAR. The only question is which government. ----- Watch the building fall. Does it go straight down or flop on its side? ----- Observe the explosive squibs just prior to collapse. ----- http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html 7WTC rubble pile * its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building. What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7? ----- collapse video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk ----- squibs video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pTsecDzsyg -----
Everyone knows that BAC is a shill ... so why even communicate with "it".
RON PAUL or REVOLUTION
BAC, I already ruined this argument on LP. You can't use it as those who write books, make feature films and television documentaries, and give lectures supporting the official story would then be subject to the same logic--"Only those who want to make money write books, make feature films and television documentaries, and give lectures defending the OFFICIAL POSITION." Those who denounced Mark Lane for "writing books" about the JFK assassination had no problem with Gerald Posner doing the same thing, for example. If Lane is a money grubbing exploiter, so is Posner for doing the same thing. Likewise, all of those "official position" coffee table commemorative books about the 9/11 attack were only "doing it for the money." Same thing for all the souvenirs, such as coffee mugs, key chains, special 3-D coins, commemorating 9/11 and the official position by inference, are only doing it for "the money." Did Eager spout his hypothesis for money, fame, or attention/acclaim from his colleagues? Sauce for the goose, BAC.
George W Bush is a devcieving charlatan who takes as much as $10,000 a pop from tyrants who wish to overturn the Constitution and rule of law.
"Be just and if you can't be just, be arbitrary." - William S Burroughs
"It" can post the same spam on multiple threads. A rebuttal on each thread diverts the thread, and the lurker who might otherwise read the threads encounters the same argument and rebuttal over and over and over, gets bored, and leaves. Upon failure to say anything, it appears that an effective statement has been made and none can offer any rebuttal. I suppose a standard response could be developed, such as: The first one to see one of his posts can just stick the standard notice on up there until BAC gets tired of that being his only "interaction" on the board. Lurkers would get the message that his posts are so meritless they do not warrant a response. The threads would not be diverted by his spam and rebuttals to his spam.
You'll never see Ron Paul babbling about remote-controlled airplanes and explosives in the WTC. He's too smart to fall for all that nonsense.
Freeper motto: I read, but do not understand, I write, but make no sense, I think, but nothing happens.
OMG!! $20.00!!?? Man he's gonna be livin' large soon .. gawd you are so ridiculous
what a great idea!
while evil treasonous transvestites like rudy ghouliani make 9 million dollars for on the circuit speeches. that was just last year, mind you. i believe bill clinton made 12 million for his last year. peas in a pod.
There was a huge gaping, 20 story high hole in the south side of WTC 7 according to the firemen who were there. Here is a photo during a view through the smoke that appears to show such a hole: This is what that side looked like before the collapse of the towers whose debris clearly hit WTC 7. Keep in mind that the east mechanical penthouse (one of the structures on the roof in the above view) sank into the structure more than 6 seconds before the *truth* movement claims the WTC 7 collapse began. Now with the above in mind, note the following: **************** From http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Now here is what the WTC 7 debris pile looked like: Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..". And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now? "But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings. This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down. ... snip ... To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. (Building 7 is pile in the upper center-left of the photo. The white building is at the top center-left of the photo.) That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below. Here is another photo from over Building 7. The white building is on the left. Note the debris from building 7 which crossed the street and landed on top of the white building. ************* In short, WTC 7 did NOT fall straight down. That's just another myth promoted by the 911 CT community and disinformationists like nolu_chan. NC like many of the member of the *truth* movement seem unable to make sense of visual material. It's a very strange phenomena. Thesis material for some would be psych major.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Are you still counting logic angels on the heads of pins? You misunderstood me, roughrider. I'm not saying Griffin is discredited BECAUSE he takes money from the suckers who attend his lectures and buy his books. That's just an observation worth noting. No, he is a deceiving charlatan because of all the lies and disinformation I've pointed out time and again that are in his writings. I'd do so again here, except christine would threaten me with banning for spamming the forum with that material. But you're a bright fellow. I'm sure you can do a browser search and find the posts here and at LP where I dissected the claims of Griffin and showed many of them to be unsupported and even outright lies.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
But you are having trouble ignoring me, aren't you nolu? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
NOTICE: Because BeAChooser has been shown to repeatedly post spam and falsehoods, continued substantive response to his posts, including this one, is considered a waste of time. This NOTICE is the standard response to all BAC blather.
OK. Works for me. Once a thread should suffice, or perhaps a few times on very long threads.
ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Bump for a nice neat round steaming pile being sold as something else.
I'm never for banning posters, but the one above deserved it here. It makes the typical "debate" that wtc 7 didn't fall entirely into its own footprint. Maybe 5% spilled into the sidestreets, but it was laid down so well, it barely damage the Verizon and Post Office.
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
I had said before I will give the Truthers 10,000 years to prove their conspiracy, and they will never do it. That aside, Truthers themselves are engaging in a conspiracy: band together to promote their viewpoint and attack, ridicule and slander anyone who disagrees with them. Sorta like the neocons, another "conspiracy" of like-minded people with common goals, who slander anyone who disgrees with them.
"Life is short, break the rules, forgive quickly, kiss slowly, love truly, laugh uncontrollably and never regret anything that made you smile."
Sorta like the neocons, another "conspiracy" of like-minded people with common goals, who slander anyone who disgrees with them. Since about 99% on 4UM don't believe the government theory, we are now neo cons, That is some spin.
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
I like it. Good idea.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
"NOTICE: Because BeAChooser has been shown to repeatedly post spam and falsehoods, continued substantive response to his posts, including this one, is considered a waste of time. This NOTICE is the standard response to all BAC blather."
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Q: What's straight, long and dark, and hangs down the middle of a building? A: A 20+ story non-smoking sign that doesn't work.
This one is very artistic, it almost looks real.
Some even say it could've been a "late hit" by the north tower.
This "photo" has been shopped.
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
It looks like a shadow.
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
He was eventually banned from 4um. Title: BAC's Gone? http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=54018&Disp=14#C7
Hi Chooser, all is well with you. Tom
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
It appears to me to be clouds of debris masking part of the corner. The shopped photo appears to have had its colors manipulated.
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/ I'd link to some of near-ground-level SW corner damage (well below the NIST "photo" field of view) at this page, but not sure they'd display. They seem real enough. Lots of smoke emerging and apparently some exterior pieces of the N. tower hanging off, anyway.
Posted: Aug 25 2007, 05:22 PM MTV Generation Teletubbie Group: Admin Posts: 2,328 Member No.: 2 Joined: 17-October 06 The following footage was broadcast on ABC News, 9/11/2001, 12:29 PM EST. It was recorded in Tennesee, hence the one hour time difference. http://loosechange911.c om/download/wtc7_lobby.mov (10M MPEG-4 Quicktime) A cameraman comes up to the South side of WTC7. Notice the circular "7" logo on the door. It's hard to see in the compressed version but I uploaded a still which should show it: He sees a man running around the corner, inside WTC7. Look in the top right corner; you can see the pedestrian bridge that was on WTC7's south side. And the cameraman goes inside WTC7. The first floor lobby? Intact. The main lobby? It's hard to tell...they don't run enough of the footage. Can somebody please explain to me how anyone can get away with qualifying the WTC7 as "25% scooped out"?
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
Good to see you post. Where have you been? BAC has been posting very heavy at the jref/randi forums. All topics from 911, Iran, Iraq, global warming. He gets all the attention he needs.
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
I've posted a little on FU but not a great deal anywhere. I've been mostly MIA.
Although it is easily countered, the Times exposure highlights the fact that 9/11 truth movement has exploded into the mainstream. It also underlines the fact that the debunkers are losing the battle to quell the public's desire to uncover the lies and discover what really happened on 9/11 as their line of argument becomes more diluted and weakened with each ill informed and poor researched attack piece they produce.
#2. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
Many witnesses ... snip ... this recent article.
all 3 buildings fell at almost free fall speed with no resistance whatsoever
Molten steel was found under all three collapsed buildings.
Steven Jones
3. The reason 7 World Trade Center collapsed straight down
was most likely the large amounts of diesel fuel stored in the building’s lower levels.
Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building,
In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.
EMT's and witnesses on the ground were warned WTC 7 was going to be intentionally brought down by explosives.
Professor David Ray Griffin's new book
#3. To: BeAChooser (#2)
Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building
Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features.
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.
#4. To: nolu_chan (#3)
#5. To: BeAChooser (#2)
David Griffin is a deceiving charlatan who takes as much as 20 dollars a pop from suckers who attend his lectures and buy his books.
#6. To: BeAChooser (#2)
David Griffin is a deceiving charlatan who takes as much as 20 dollars a pop from suckers who attend his lectures and buy his books.
#7. To: noone222, ALL (#4)
Everyone knows that BAC is a shill ... so why even communicate with "it".
"NOTICE: Because BeAChooser has been shown to repeatedly post spam and falsehoods, continued substantive response to his posts, including this one, is considered a waste of time. This NOTICE is the standard response to all BAC blather."
#8. To: Kamala (#0)
#9. To: BeAChooser (#2)
David Griffin is a deceiving charlatan who takes as much as 20 dollars a pop from suckers who attend his lectures and buy his books.
#10. To: nolu_chan (#7)
"NOTICE: Because BeAChooser has been shown to repeatedly post spam and falsehoods, continued substantive response to his posts, including this one, is considered a waste of time. This NOTICE is the standard response to all BAC blather."
#11. To: Zipporah (#9)
#12. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#3)
"Clearly the south face and east side began to collapse first then the rest of the structure toppled over to the south."
You can believe that or your own lying eyes that it did a dead vertical drop into its own footprint.
#13. To: roughrider, ALL (#5)
"David Griffin is a deceiving charlatan who takes as much as 20 dollars a pop from suckers who attend his lectures and buy his books."
BAC, I already ruined this argument on LP.
#14. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#7)
Unless everyone ignores "it," "it" may appear to score some points.
#15. To: BeAChooser (#14)
#16. To: christine (#10)
what a great idea!
#17. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#16)
OK. Works for me. Once a thread should suffice, or perhaps a few times on very long threads.
#18. To: Kamala (#0)
#19. To: nobody (#18)
#20. To: Kamala (#0)
#21. To: robin, Christine, Honway, SkyDrifter, ziporrah, critter, *9-11* (#20)
That aside, Truthers themselves are engaging in a conspiracy: band together to promote their viewpoint and attack, ridicule and slander anyone who disagrees with them.
#22. To: nolu_chan (#7)
"NOTICE: Because BeAChooser has been shown to repeatedly post spam and falsehoods, continued substantive response to his posts, including this one, is considered a waste of time. This NOTICE is the standard response to all BAC blather."
#23. To: BeAChooser (#12)
#24. To: Kamala (#19)
#25. To: Kamala (#19)
#26. To: Kamala (#21)
#27. To: nobody (#25)
#28. To: nobody (#24)
#29. To: richard9151 (#22)
I like it. Good idea.
Published: June 6, 2007
#30. To: BeAChooser (#2)
#31. To: Kamala, nobody (#28)
It looks like a shadow.
#32. To: nolu_chan (#31)
#33. To: nobody, nolu_chan (#32)
Here is a small clip inside wtc7 right after wtc1 collapsed.
#34. To: nolu_chan (#31)
#35. To: Kamala (#34)
Good to see you post. Where have you been?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest