The National Geographic hit piece on 9/11 truth aired 2 nights ago. It was called "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" or something similar. I recorded it and will get around to a more rigorous critique at some point.
A few observations of the top of my head -
1. The editing was malicious in the extreme. The "truthers" - Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, and Richard Gage, were barely allowed to say anything. Though I have differences of opinion with Gage on explosive type used, Gage can do a competent job of explaining the evidence for explosive demolition. In particular, I have heard Richard gage point out that the steel floor pans were disintegrated. I am very confident that Richard Gage must have offered a good deal more substantive material than Nat Geo chose to include.
2. The softening beam experiment. Nat Geo built a nice kerosene fire under a loaded steel beam, and got it to sag and fail quite quickly. OK. So what? How could a fire in the twin towers get ALL of the beams in a story to fail at the same time?
Worse, assume all of the support in a story fails at the same time. Assume it melts. Assume it evaporates and disappears, allowing the upper structure to fall unimpeded down onto the lower structure. How does softened support at floor 96 explain how the entire tower exploded into dust? How does it explain the mushroom cloud? How does it explain the dust tsunami? How does it explain the particle size?
3. The projectile experiment. They shot an aluminum cylinder at some walls, and it penetrated, leaving holes roughly in the shape of the projectile. FIrst of all, the holes weren't circular, they were ripped out.
But more importantly, what happened to the projectile? Nat Geo didn't show us. The projectile emerges out the back side after passing through several walls. I suspect the projectile sustained little damage. This makes sense. It was stronger than the walls, so it made a cutout of itself, and went through. On 9/11, we're asked to believe that airplanes made cutouts of themselves, but then disintegrated. It makes no sense.
4. No det cord means no demolition. Nat Geo tried to suggest that because the rubble had no det cord, and it would have taken workers months to rig a standard demolition, and would have needed to cut away walls, it couldn't have been demolished. This simply means it wasn't a standard demolition, which is quite obvious anyway.
5. David Ray Griffin said the twin towers "imploded" and went "into their footprint". This is false, disinformation from David Ray Griffin. The towers EX-ploded, not IM-ploded. The mass of the towers went almost entirely OUTSIDE the footprint, which is one of the best proofs of explosive demolition. Official collapse modelers Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant agree that anything more than 20% outside the footprint rules out a gravity collapse.
April 11, 2009 - David Ray Griffin
ReplyDeleteDavid Ray Griffin speaks at Boston University
http://davidraygriffin.com/calendar/april-11-2009-boston/
Please watch David Ray Griffin’s lecture at Boston University on April 11, 2009 (9/11, Time For a Second Look) . Dr. Griffin meticulously presents the case for a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks–the 9/11 Commission Report on the “official” conspiracy theory is full of contradictions and apparent lies.
Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?
http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/
Griffin is steering people to want a new investigation? Why? Why would a new one turn out any different than the last 3?
ReplyDeletePlease. Griffin does a reasonable job of going halfway. He's a classic limited hangout, and his great conclusion for everything:
Global Democracy. I.e, one world government. I.e. New World Order.
I was always under the impression that the reason David Ray Griffin is fond of describing the towers as having 'imploded' is because of that word's association with controlled demolition. When a building is demolished, it's technically an implosion that occurs, so I figured that was why he says that.. simply to draw those associations in the minds of his audience.
ReplyDeleteNot buying it. The fact that there is very little mass left in the footprint is the single best proof of demolition. Getting the truthers to argue that the towers fell down in their footprint was one of the best tricks ever.
ReplyDeleteIt's a perfect example of asking the wrong question. They got us asking "Why did the towers fall down in their footprints?" instead of asking, "How much of the towers landed inside the footprint?"
Conventional buildings can be imploded because they are a grid of vertical and horizontal structural members. By planning which joints are shattered by cutter charges the intact joints will "pull" sections of the structure in the desired direction to avoid damage to surrounding structures and property. Usually the joints in the center are blown as the building starts to fall to "pull" the walls in and dump the building in its footprint.
ReplyDeleteIn a tube structure, the lightweight trusses between inner core and outer walls do not have the strength to be able to do this, and also the height of the buildings would make conventional implosion impossible even if it were a conventional "cubic" structure.
We see the towers fall apart, however, the steel and other materials in the towers is indeed being imploded at the atomic level. We are left with ash.
The atom is 99.99999% vacuum, so there is plenty of room to implode atoms of steel with the technology based on a more correct understanding of Quantum Physics, which is really no different than Macro Physics if you understand the nature of the vacuum and gravity.
Thanks and Blessings to you.
9/11/9
I've seen this a few times now (it was on again this year), and I can't help but laugh at the way they try to debunk the 'conspiracy theory' by showing highly flawed tests.
ReplyDeleteIn the experiment with the beam across the fire pit, I would have thought that it would be more acurate to have the beam anchored at both ends and then surrounded by concrete, instead of just loosely lying across the fire.
Secondly, In the experiment with the projectile, they showed a cylinder punching it's way through concrete blocks (apparently an accurate portrayal of the pentagon). However, they do not use an accurate representation of the plane. If a plane hit the pentagon, then there should be at least 2 holes in the walls where the engines punched through. To me, what they showed was evidence that a missile or UAV could have caused the hole but did not show that a plane could have.
You're right, the single beam was a poor representation of a WTC floor. The twin tower floors were a corrugated steel pan, filled with steel-reinforced concrete, and held up by steel trusses.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the test was irrelevant. Even if a fire could cause a floor to fail, so what? Even assuming the structure magically disappears at one story, how does a falling top part turn the bottom part into microscopic powder and spread it all over lower Manhattan?