T
thermate2
911 truth is spreading like a jungle fire. If you insist on remaining
an ignorant, un-informed and ill-informed academic, thats YOUR own
choice.
"http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article=1408"
For a full review the best and most advertised videos
on "www.911blogger.com" by the scholar Webster Tarpley are here:
"
"
"
"
"
"
Norway's Le Monde Diplo publishes Griffin's Rebuttal to Cockburn
Submitted by Reprehensor on Wed, 03/14/2007 - 3:24pm.
David Ray Griffin | Le Monde Diplo
Official English translation below, this has not been published in the
French main paper, Le Monde Diplomatique;
The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
[12.03.07] Alexander Cockburn's "US: The Conspiracy That Wasn't,"
which is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement, is faulty in virtually
every respect. He calls me one of the movement's "high priests," as if
it were a religious movement, rather than a fact-based movement that
involves scientists, engineers, pilots, war veterans, politicians,
philosophers, former air traffic controllers, former defense
ministers, and former CIA analysts.
Dr. David Ray Griffin
He calls us "conspiracists," ignoring the fact that in defending the
government's account, he is defending the original 9/11 conspiracy
theory. In claiming that the Bush administration and the military are
too incompetent to have organized the 9/11 attacks, he gives an
argument that could equally well be used to prove that they could not
have organized the military assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq. In
claiming that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, Cockburn appears
not to be aware that in the video on which this claim is primarily
based, the man playing Osama bin Laden is heavier and darker than the
bin Laden of all undoubtedly authentic videos, or that the FBI's "Most
Wanted Terrorist" page on bin Laden does not mention 9/11---because,
an FBI spokesman explained, "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting
Bin Laden to 9/11." Although Cockburn says that members of our
movement are "immune to reality check," he endorses the official
theory of the collapses of the Twin Towers, which can be held only by
ignoring an enormous number of facts. He says the towers were poorly
built, whereas in reality they were built to withstand virtually any
eventuality, including being hit by large airliners. He says the
towers collapsed because of being struck by planes loaded with jet
fuel, but WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane, also collapsed. In
rejecting the claim that explosives had been planted, Cockburn ignores
the fact that 118 members of the Fire Department gave testimony
indicating that explosives had gone off. (I quoted 31 of these, along
with journalists and WTC employees, in an essay entitled "Explosive
Testimony.) The official theory about these buildings, which Cockburn
defends, is contradicted by all prior history, in which total
collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused by
externally caused damage plus fire, even when the fires were much
bigger and lasted much longer.
The idea that explosives were used is further strengthened by the many
features of the collapses:
1. They were symmetrical, straight-down collapses, meaning that all
287 columns in each of the towers (47 massive core columns and 240
perimeter columns) and all 81 columns in WTC 7 had to collapse
simultaneously. To believe that this could have been caused by fire,
which was not spread evenly throughout any of the buildings, is to
believe in a miracle.
2. The collapses were total, with each skyscraper collapsing into a
pile of rubble only a few stories high. Accordingly, each of the steel
columns had to be sliced into many pieces---which is what explosives
do in controlled implosions.
3. Virtually all of the concrete and furniture was pulverized into
extremely fine dust particles (which created huge dust clouds). Fire
plus gravity would not have provided nearly enough energy to do this.
4. At the beginning of the collapse of each of the Twin Towers, which
started near the top, steel beams were ejected out horizontally as far
as 600 feet. Gravitational energy, which is vertical, cannot begin to
explain these massive horizontal ejections. (In his companion essay,
"Conspiracy Disproved," Cockburn suggests, incredibly, that nothing
was ejected other than "puffs of smoke." He also seems unaware that
signs of explosions occurred near the impact point, not simply 20 to
60 floors lower, and falsely assumes that the timing of the explosions
would have to be determined beforehand.)
5. All three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning
that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, were
providing no resistance to the upper floors. Cockburn says: "There is
not the slightest need to postulate pre-placed explosive charges to
explain why the towers collapsed at near free-fall speeds." But that
claim violates basic laws of physics.
5. For many weeks afterwards, pools of molten metal were found under
each building. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about
1,540°C, whereas the fires could not have been over 1000°C.
In "Conspiracy Disproved," Cockburn endorses the report put out by the
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). But this
report by this Bush administration agency is completely unscientific,
announcing conclusions that radically contradict the data provided in
its supporting volumes. Although I have focused here on the World
Trade Center, there is strong evidence against every other dimension
of the official conspiracy theory, which I have presented in The New
Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions. In the latter book, I showed that the Commission's report
contains at least 115 lies of omission and distortion. Cockburn
appears to be unwilling to look at such evidence because he is
convinced that the effort to show 9/11 to have been an inside job is a
distraction from really important matters. However, if 9/11 was indeed
an inside job, then what could be more important than exposing this
fact? The idea that America was attacked by foreign terrorists on 9/11
has been used to justify the war in Iraq and virtually every other way
in which the United States has made the world an uglier, more
dangerous place since 9/11. It has also been used to distract
attention from the problem of global warming, which is the really
serious threat to human civilization. The official conspiracy theory
about 9/11, in other words, is the true distraction.
an ignorant, un-informed and ill-informed academic, thats YOUR own
choice.
"http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article=1408"
For a full review the best and most advertised videos
on "www.911blogger.com" by the scholar Webster Tarpley are here:
"
"
"
Norway's Le Monde Diplo publishes Griffin's Rebuttal to Cockburn
Submitted by Reprehensor on Wed, 03/14/2007 - 3:24pm.
David Ray Griffin | Le Monde Diplo
Official English translation below, this has not been published in the
French main paper, Le Monde Diplomatique;
The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
[12.03.07] Alexander Cockburn's "US: The Conspiracy That Wasn't,"
which is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement, is faulty in virtually
every respect. He calls me one of the movement's "high priests," as if
it were a religious movement, rather than a fact-based movement that
involves scientists, engineers, pilots, war veterans, politicians,
philosophers, former air traffic controllers, former defense
ministers, and former CIA analysts.
Dr. David Ray Griffin
He calls us "conspiracists," ignoring the fact that in defending the
government's account, he is defending the original 9/11 conspiracy
theory. In claiming that the Bush administration and the military are
too incompetent to have organized the 9/11 attacks, he gives an
argument that could equally well be used to prove that they could not
have organized the military assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq. In
claiming that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, Cockburn appears
not to be aware that in the video on which this claim is primarily
based, the man playing Osama bin Laden is heavier and darker than the
bin Laden of all undoubtedly authentic videos, or that the FBI's "Most
Wanted Terrorist" page on bin Laden does not mention 9/11---because,
an FBI spokesman explained, "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting
Bin Laden to 9/11." Although Cockburn says that members of our
movement are "immune to reality check," he endorses the official
theory of the collapses of the Twin Towers, which can be held only by
ignoring an enormous number of facts. He says the towers were poorly
built, whereas in reality they were built to withstand virtually any
eventuality, including being hit by large airliners. He says the
towers collapsed because of being struck by planes loaded with jet
fuel, but WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane, also collapsed. In
rejecting the claim that explosives had been planted, Cockburn ignores
the fact that 118 members of the Fire Department gave testimony
indicating that explosives had gone off. (I quoted 31 of these, along
with journalists and WTC employees, in an essay entitled "Explosive
Testimony.) The official theory about these buildings, which Cockburn
defends, is contradicted by all prior history, in which total
collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused by
externally caused damage plus fire, even when the fires were much
bigger and lasted much longer.
The idea that explosives were used is further strengthened by the many
features of the collapses:
1. They were symmetrical, straight-down collapses, meaning that all
287 columns in each of the towers (47 massive core columns and 240
perimeter columns) and all 81 columns in WTC 7 had to collapse
simultaneously. To believe that this could have been caused by fire,
which was not spread evenly throughout any of the buildings, is to
believe in a miracle.
2. The collapses were total, with each skyscraper collapsing into a
pile of rubble only a few stories high. Accordingly, each of the steel
columns had to be sliced into many pieces---which is what explosives
do in controlled implosions.
3. Virtually all of the concrete and furniture was pulverized into
extremely fine dust particles (which created huge dust clouds). Fire
plus gravity would not have provided nearly enough energy to do this.
4. At the beginning of the collapse of each of the Twin Towers, which
started near the top, steel beams were ejected out horizontally as far
as 600 feet. Gravitational energy, which is vertical, cannot begin to
explain these massive horizontal ejections. (In his companion essay,
"Conspiracy Disproved," Cockburn suggests, incredibly, that nothing
was ejected other than "puffs of smoke." He also seems unaware that
signs of explosions occurred near the impact point, not simply 20 to
60 floors lower, and falsely assumes that the timing of the explosions
would have to be determined beforehand.)
5. All three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning
that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, were
providing no resistance to the upper floors. Cockburn says: "There is
not the slightest need to postulate pre-placed explosive charges to
explain why the towers collapsed at near free-fall speeds." But that
claim violates basic laws of physics.
5. For many weeks afterwards, pools of molten metal were found under
each building. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about
1,540°C, whereas the fires could not have been over 1000°C.
In "Conspiracy Disproved," Cockburn endorses the report put out by the
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). But this
report by this Bush administration agency is completely unscientific,
announcing conclusions that radically contradict the data provided in
its supporting volumes. Although I have focused here on the World
Trade Center, there is strong evidence against every other dimension
of the official conspiracy theory, which I have presented in The New
Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions. In the latter book, I showed that the Commission's report
contains at least 115 lies of omission and distortion. Cockburn
appears to be unwilling to look at such evidence because he is
convinced that the effort to show 9/11 to have been an inside job is a
distraction from really important matters. However, if 9/11 was indeed
an inside job, then what could be more important than exposing this
fact? The idea that America was attacked by foreign terrorists on 9/11
has been used to justify the war in Iraq and virtually every other way
in which the United States has made the world an uglier, more
dangerous place since 9/11. It has also been used to distract
attention from the problem of global warming, which is the really
serious threat to human civilization. The official conspiracy theory
about 9/11, in other words, is the true distraction.