[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably: More mainstream coverage, more ignorance of the facts 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 sites hot spots. 3. The reason 7 World Trade Center collapsed straight down was most likely the large amounts of diesel fuel stored in the buildings 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#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.
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|