Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False

[veracity]

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN on TVNL RADIO LIVE!

David Ray Griffin - The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/radio-show/58-broadcasts/13672-david-ray-griffin-the-mysterious-collapse-of-world-trade-center-7-why-the-final-official-report-about-911-is-unscientific-and-false.html

Live Broadcast: Wednesday, March 31st, 2010 at 8 PM ET.

Join our special guest, David Ray Griffin, as we discuss his latest book about the collapse of WTC7, and other disturbing aspects of the events of September 11th 2001.

Following the September 11 attacks, David Ray Griffin moved his focus from questions of philosophy and religion to ones of politics and history, specifically American expansionism and imperialism. He as authored some of the most informative works on the events of 9/11 including, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions."

Join us as our esteemed guest helps us focus on one of the biggest mysteries of 9/11, Building 7! And as usual your calls are welcome.

[LARED]

1. It's always fascinating to have theologians declare

the NIST report is unscientific.

[veracity]

2. and your point is?

Have you read his books? Are you aware of his scholarship and research? Just asking...

[LARED]

3. I am aware that when it come to 9/11 science Griffin

is somewhere between "out of his league" and kook.

[veracity]

4. and you can document that...

.. instead of name-calling? Yeah, right. Tell you what. Listen to the broadcast and call in. Challenge Jesse Richard and Dr. Griffin with your brilliant expose of their kooky wisdom...and prove that Griffin is out of 'his league' - which means what? What's the league? Who's in it. What do you need to qualify for 'the league.' Could you be specific, instead of offering the usual denier's sound bytes. Just once. It would be so refreshing. What has Griffin said that shows he does not qualify for your league. Geez.

You know you don't have the guts to call in. I'll see to it that, if you call and use the name LARED, I will make sure you are the first caller to get on the air. Let me know here... and we'll all listen to hear what you know that Richard and Griffin do not. Waiting, waiting...

[LARED]

5. Sorry, not going ot happen. I have a very important date with

a treadmill at the gym. An I don't call into shows to debate kooks.

[veracity]

7. What a shock!

... I'm soooooooooo disappointed. LOL

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. oh, don't kid yourself

If you were serious about this, you'd put Griffin's critics on the air, instead of calling out pseudonymous DUers.

[veracity]

9. open invitation...

...to anyone wishing to seriously debate this issue on TVNL.... contact Jesse Richard or me. We'll use your real name. Call in and make your point. It's not a moderated call. Do it. Monksmedia.com Call in number is on the site.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. (on edit) I think you missed my point

Hey, have fun.

ETA: Oh, you probably actually missed my point. My bad. Let me clarify: if you were serious, instead of just promising to put people on the air if they call in, you would actually invite Griffin's critics, not just Griffin.

It's 2010, and you're posting arguments we've all seen before, and you aren't mentioning any of the rebuttals that we've also all seen before. It all seems very very familiar.

[greyl]

14. Invite Griffin here to have a nice discussion without time limits.

You'll find he isn't interested in discussion or debate. He only wants to sell more books.

[William Seger]

16. Seconded (n/t)

[William Seger]

20. "seriously debate this issue on TVNL'

If Griffin ever gets serious about debating scientific issues, surely he can find a more appropriate venue and format?

[SDuderstadt]

8. Are you involved with that bullshit show?

Figures.

[veracity]

10. ah, another intelligent response...

... and, of course, you can counter the 'bullshit' with information to validate your classy remark? So childish. And yes, I am involved in the show. Glad you listen often enough to form an opinion. That's so good for ratings.

[SDuderstadt]

18. What's childish is ignoring all the evidence that...

contradicts Griffin's foolishness. It's going on 9 years now and you guys have got dick. No smoking gon' nothing that will convince the vast majority of structural engineers, at most a handful of peer-reviewed papersn, if even that.

The only thing that keeps your "cause" from being more of a spectacle is that the JFK assassination CT bullshit has a nearly 40 year headstart.

[veracity]

21. wrong again

You know very well that this is a taboo topic... not permitted on msm. That's the ONLY reason we guys (and gals) have hit a dead end so far as public knowledge is concerned. Sigh, still waiting for evidence that shows the official story has ANY validity. Another link from the bullshit site:

Second article is for you. Myth huggers abound. Keep ignoring the evidence and claiming that it's the truth seekers who are ignoring what Bush told us. That's a laugh and a half.

9/11 Myth Huggers: 8 Years of Ignoring the Evidence
http://www.tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48-911-commentary/4137-911-myth-huggers-8-years-of-ignoring-the-evidence.html

[veracity]

22. And...where the hell is your proof

http://tvnewslies.org/html/where_the_hell_is_your_9_11_pr.html

just in case you're back from the gym...or la la land.

[William Seger]

44. That's an absurd article, BTW

> The Kean Commission, with which most Americans are familiar, was based on the Bush/PNAC version of events.

A statement like that could only come from someone who hasn't even read the Commission report, or someone with a mental block against understanding what it says. Most of what we know about the events of that day come from eyewitnesses, as told by independent news sources, not "Bush/PNAC," and it rules out perfectly idiotic theories such as "no planes." The story that the planes were hijacked comes from passengers on the planes, via the people they called, none of whom (with the exception of Barbara Olson) were "Bush/PNAC." The story of who the hijackers were comes from the airlines on which they booked their flights, which are not owned by "Bush/PNAC." The story of them being Islamic jihadists comes from many of those hijackers themselves, via their own "last will and testament" videos, from bin Laden's and other al Queda operative's videos, and from many sources outside of "Bush/PNAC" such as Al-Jazera news and intelligence from other countries. Even the part of the story that we know from government agencies comes from career civil servants, and you insult them as a bunch of amoral stooges to call them "Bush/PNAC" just because they work for the government.

I don't blame you for trying to put the shoe on the other foot, but you fail by being disingenuous: You've deliberately set up an impossible condition to be met -- to provide you with evidence that you can't simply claim to have been faked by "Bush/PNAC," regardless of how ridiculously implausible that is -- and then you try to pretend that the "truth movement" has come up with extraordinarily convincing evidence, when in fact "truthers" haven't come up with enough evidence to even convince each other what happened. And as I pointed out below, what evidence and claimed evidence it has come up with has certainly not been ignored; it's been scrutinized rather thoroughly. Many years ago, I read a characterization of the evidence of a JFK assassination conspiracy that seems to fit every conspiracy theory I've heard of since then: The credible evidence isn't conclusive of any conspiracy, and the conclusive evidence just isn't credible.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. weird that you invoke the MSM

Your real problem is that you can't convince competent experts.

[veracity]

25. amazing

that in all these posts... not a single piece of evidence to show that the questions raised by the truthers are invalid. Just which part of the official story has convinced you of its great truth? I'll bet it's the amazing vaporization of 4 airplanes for the first time in the history of aviation. Oh no...not that... it's the confiscation of all the tapes taken from 80 cameras focused on the Pentagon that have never been seen again.... Nah, it's the accidental destruction of the traffic controller tapes...uh... no....it's the real coincidence that Cheney's drills were being held on that SAME morning...simulating attacks by hijackers on buildings in lower Manhattan. So much more that proves you're right and any of us who question this nonsense is wrong. Never mind... too much to bother with. I take it all back. Please, don't listen to the show. Please...

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. good golly

You've posted almost no substance in this thread, so there hasn't been anything to rebut -- with the exception of your deleted post, to which KDLarsen did respond, and you've offered (on edit: no response only a bizarre ad hominem response) to that. So, at this point, your meter is on zero.

Oh, wait. Here's an argument: "the amazing vaporization of 4 airplanes...." That would be astonishing, especially in light of all the debris that was reported to have been recovered. Just how far does the cover-up extend, I wonder?

As for the rest of this, I think that every point has been addressed repeatedly, and you aren't even going through the motions of citing evidence for any of it. You may think it's reasonable to demand that I should care more about these issues than you do, but I'll just note that your meter is still on zero.

So, if you want to demonstrate that you care about the facts about 9/11, go do some research and present what you find here. Don't just promote your pet theologian. He doesn't need you, really.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Amazing how everything you cite...

are myths that have been debunked over and over. Yet, here you are again rebunking them.

This is why people don't take you seriously, dude.

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. is "dude" gender-neutral?

Just curious.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Someone cited the "Urban Dictionary" as saying it is....

but I would be glad to address her as "dudette".

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. Wikipedia to the rescue!

Dude

A dude is an individual, typically male, particularly somebody well dressed or who has never lived outside a big city. The female equivalent, which is used less often, is "dudette." However, "dude" has evolved to become more unisex to encompass both genders, and this was true even in the 1950s....

1985 - Less Than Zero (a novel by Bret Easton Ellis) includes the first published usage of the now-common phrase, "No way, dude!", and the first mainstream display of "dude" having crossed the gender barrier. In a noteworthy scene, a young woman tells her mother, "No way, dude."

Thanks. I can't remember the last thing I learned anything about 9/11 here, but at least I'm learning something.

[SDuderstadt]

24. The only reason this is a "taboo topic" on the "MSM"..

is because you guys have dick for evidence. I'll take:

Purdue
Mete Sozen
Zdenk Bazant
Frank Greening

over Griffin anyday, dude.

When are you guys going to bust this thing wide open? What are you waiting for?

[SDuderstadt]

19. What's childish is ignoring all the evidence that...

contradicts Griffin's foolishness. It's going on 9 years now and you guys have got dick. No smoking gon' nothing that will convince the vast majority of structural engineers, at most a handful of peer-reviewed papersn, if even that.

The only thing that keeps your "cause" from being more of a spectacle is that the JFK assassination CT bullshit has a nearly 40 year headstart.

[William Seger]

13. Yes, it's documented

http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ryanmackey

In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors.

Griffin won't respond to Ryan MacKey's paper, nor will he debate any qualified scientist.

"Scholars" and "architectural and engineering professionals" should know how scientific and technical issues are debated and resolved, and it ain't on radio call-in shows. The world still awaits the flood of "truth movement" papers to be published in real peer-reviewed journals.

[KDLarsen]

11. If I could be bothered

I'd call in and ask DRG why he's lying about the hijackers still being alive (as per his recent appearance on Russia Today).

And ask him why he's lying about Ted Olson not recieving a phone call from his wife on 9/11 (even the truthers' disagree with him on that: http://911blogger.com/node/22214 )

And ask him why he's citing Christopher Bollyn, a well known anti-semitic kook. It's not the only time he's gotten into bed with anti-semites (Hesham Bahari for one)

And finally ask him what he thinks of Osama bin Laden, his previous comments in mind (my bolding):

Beside the fact, that this picture, and you know you can't go much by a picture, but I read a lot about him, and he was known as a very remarkable young man. As a student at school, when people would say, have a bet or something where they needed people to hold money, it was always bin Laden that they would give it to, because he was the one person that everybody could trust. He was known as a very pious, honest person. And the fact that we have made him into this demon is probably a terrible thing that we have done to his memory.

I mean, wtf :eyes:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KDLarsen]

17. Might as well debunk the whole thing now..

1) The BBC news item was from within 2 weeks of the attacks, and the BBC has subsequently withdrawn the story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html Of course, it wasn't helped by the fact that there WAS a screwup in the beginning, where the wrong photo was used to identify one of the hijackers. The BBC news piece was regarding the person who was depicted, who had come forward and claimed not to be involved in any way. And of course, it didn't help that he was in fact a pilot himself.

2) I never claimed that Barbara Olson had used a cell phone, I merely pointed out that Grifter is lying about there not being any airphones on AA77 (there were). The whole 'cellphones can't be used on planes' theory have been debunked several times over: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Cellphone_calls_faked

3) bin Laden is already indicted for the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, what would the point be to add more? And then of course, there's the Justice Department's Rewards for Justice website, where bin Laden is clearly charged with being involved in the 9/11 attacks: http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/index.cfm?page=Bin_Laden

I'm not sure what TVNL's page rank has to do with anything, so I'll skip that rant.

4) Fires on floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28 != "Minor fire". Oh, and you might want to check up on the AE911Truth list, you see, they had to change the name on that list, so it's now "Architectural and Engineering professionals". In reality there's only a handful of architects and engineers with highrise experience on that list. Incidently, one of the most famous of the people on the list, Jan Utzon, has openly stated that he haven't read a single report regarding 9/11.

5) Appeal to authority noted.

6) 19 adults, armed with knives, boxcutters, mace and with the threats of bombs. Remember, they killed a passenger on each of the flights, to show that they meant business.

[veracity]

26. okay.... you win

You must be joking... so I'll just concede that your responses make sense and just admit that the Bush version is absolute truth. I'll ignore that everything you posted is gatekeeper nonsense. What are you so afraid of? What are you protecting? No...I don't really want to know.

Stay safe in your fantasy that Richard Perle's need for a New Pearl Harbor needed to get into Iraq came true. Stay safe, believing that the greatest defense system in the world could be bypassed by a bunch of kids led by some guy in a cave in Afghanistan. Keep on believing the lies.

The hate us for our freedoms. God Bless America. Bring 'em on.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. "my God... it's full of fail" n/t

[Make7]

32. The truly comical part is that she probably thinks she is well informed. ( n/t )

[SDuderstadt]

30. "greatest defense system in the world"

Why don't you lay out for us how NORAD worked on 9/11? Let's see how close you come.

[KDLarsen]

31. *blinks*

I make no claims that the 'Bush version' is the absolute truth. However, the evidence offered by the FBI, FAA, NEADS, NIST, FEMA etc. etc. provides a narrative, that makes far more sense than anything the 9/11 truthers have bothered to provide.

'a bunch of kids led by some guy in a cave in Afghanistan'
Racist much? The pilot hijackers were all well-trained persons, one with a FAA commercial pilot's license, and the others with university degrees and private pilots license. Hardly 'a bunch of kids'. And you're clearly ignoring everything we know about Osama bin Laden, if you chose to refer to him as 'some guy in a cave'.

[William Seger]

40. I think we need a contest...

... to come up with a new handle for veracity.

[SDuderstadt]

41. I have an idea....

what's the opposite of "veracity"?

[veracity]

35. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Just to set the record straight.... the architectural and engineering professionals ARE architects and engineers. Video at the right of the home page screen lists the signatories, along with their credentials. http://www.ae911truth.org/#front_right_WTC7

More than seven thousand others signed the petition.

Take it or leave it. I commend you all in your total inability to offer a single credible argument to accept the official version of 9/11. I especially loved the hijacker's passport that survived the immolation of the initial crash into Tower 1 - and floated, unscathed to the top of the rubble.

And, while you're putting them down, check out Fire Fighters for 9/11 truth. They're really kooks. We had the founder on the show two weeks ago. What a fantasy life he has about that day. I'm amazed that he's allowed to fight fires. I won't link. You can google...or not... nah, don't.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Bullshit, again.....

If you'd bother to actually go down the list, you'll find a number of people who are "architectural and engineering professionals". Hint: that means they aren't licensed architects or engineers.

This is the first line of the signatories:

"1149 architectural and engineering professionals"

If they were all actually registered as engineers and architects, why would you list them as "architectural and engineering professionals"? Hint: it's a great way to bolster not only the number, but also the credentials because most readers won't know the difference (like you, for example). I'd be willing to bet the actual number of architects and engineers isn't even half that number. Look at anyone listed on the right hand side of the architects and engineers subsections. NONE of them are registered or licensed architects or engineers. That's what you get for just swallowing what Gage tells you.

[AZCat]

38. Those numbers don't really mean anything.

What I and the other engineers would rather see from AE911Truth is some credible engineering arguments, which have been absent so far.

[William Seger]

39. "total inability to offer a single credible argument "

LOL, I take it that you don't read much that might upset your belief system. As far as I know, the "truth movement" has yet to advance a single argument that hasn't been rebutted with very credible argument. But hey, maybe I missed something, so let's take a few of your favorite things:

> Just to set the record straight.... the architectural and engineering professionals ARE architects and engineers. Video at the right of the home page screen lists the signatories, along with their credentials. http://www.ae911truth.org/#front_right_WTC7

Just to set the record really straight, Gage himself proves that architects don't necessarily know anything about structural mechanics unless they've specifically studied it, which Gage has certainly not, and in fact he seems to have spent most of his own career as a project manager rather than architectural designer. (Even so, there is really no excuse for an architect who claims to have "worked" on steel structures not being aware of why steel structures are fireproofed, and why the fireproofing typical has either a two- or four-hour rating, not indefinite.) He attributes his own conversion to the 9/11 "truth" cult to theologian Griffin, who relies on people like software engineer Jim Hoffman and water tester Kevin Ryan for "scientific" evidence. So, where does even his extremely limited experience come into the picture? In fact, very few of the engineers listed at AE911truth are structural or civil engineers or in any other relevant field. Richard Gage starts every presentation by deceiving people about his own qualifications and then invites his audience to buy an "argument to authority" fallacy by telling them how many "architects and engineers" have signed his petition. Well, a rational person knows that if we're talking about factual assertions and technical issues, it doesn't matter at all how many people have signed his petition; the only thing that matters is why they believe what they believe. And that's where we come to the important facts that not a single AE911truther has yet managed to come up with a single technical refutation of the NIST conclusions that would come anywhere near being acceptable to a peer-reviewed journal, and no one in any of the various 9/11 truth sects has come up with anything approaching credible "inside job" evidence. Gage makes an appeal to extremely dubious authority -- a double fallacy -- and then expects his audience to completely ignore not only the evidence we have but people who actually know what they are talking about. It's absurd.

> And, while you're putting them down, check out Fire Fighters for 9/11 truth.

No problem: Eric Lawyer attributes his conversion to "truthism" to being suckered in by Richard Gage's nonsense! And if you want to see how well he does trying to resell it to FDNY firefighters who were there, you can see it here. This is just another appeal to authority fallacy, and if that wasn't bad enough you can't even find any actual authorities.

You should get out more.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. one more thing about the petition

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Signing that is a long way from endorsing controlled demolition. Heck, I wish I had a buck for every time I've seen someone say (some variation upon) "How could anyone possibly oppose an investigation?"

I think it's safe to assume that many of the signatories have been sucked in by Gage's presentation -- but it's a pretty vacuous statement, really.

[defendandprotect]

42. Agree -- MIHOP --

[Ohio Joe]

45. oh... This post is just another commercial

Man, I hate it when posts don't actually contain what the title says.