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: 329
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
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.
[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".
#7. To: noone222, ALL (#4)
"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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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)
Replies to Comment # 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."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.