• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunking "debunking 911 debunking"

boloboffin said:
The first is the Vanity Fair article about the NEADS tapes. This is a semi-official debunking because the authors had access to the tapes...OR DID THEY?????

Click to expand...
Queue the dramatic chipmunk "da da daaaaaa", that video needs to be used more often on this forum!

:D
 
Yurebiz said:
Was there any other form of temperature assessment made by NIST to determine the temperature of the steel columns, besides the paint test?
Click to expand...

NIST said the only robust method they found to test the temperatures experienced by steel members was the paint test and it was limited to cases that didn't see more than about 250 C.

Yurebiz said:
If so, isn't the whole point of the alleged 1000C fires quite hypothetical and with no physical evidence to rely on?
Click to expand...

Currently, the best method available for predicting temperatures in complex fire situations (like buildings) is to use large-scale, computational fluid mechanics models like those used by NIST in their post event evaluation of what happened. There is a large body of data to suggest such modeling works reasonably well and NIST did attempt to bound the range of parameters when it used such models.

Interestingly enough, the temperatures computed in locations where there were paint sample results correspond well with what the paint sample results indicates. In other words, those paint sample results seem to validate the computer results.
 
I'm thinking about buying it, but only second hand (preferably third, fourth, or fifth hand though), but even then it's like $12, and I refuse to pay more then $8 for anything by DRG. (Though preferably I want it at something below negative infinity dollars, but I don't think I'll ever find that.)
 
The book's just out

Debunked³

David Ray Griffin and The Chamber of Secrets
​
 
Shouldnt that be "David Ray Griffin and The Chamber of Bullshaite"?

TAM;)
 
Debunking debunkers - Isn't that double debunkity? A protection under the 5th amendment. Illegal in most states and Puerto Rico.
 
Though, if I ever did write anything about the book, I'd know what I'd call it:

NiceTryDave.jpg
 
R.Mackey said:
I'm preparing a review of the NIST chapter for pomeroo. ETA is the end of next week.

It's a spectacularly bad book with nothing new. If you've been around here for a while, you will not be surprised by any of its contents, just by the sheer volume.
Click to expand...

After reading it, I was thinking of doing the same, but you've got it covered. Is it finished yet?

The NIST chapter really is astounding. It's very clear from the outset that Griffin must only have read the short FAQ they released last September, plus a few brief critiques of the report, and nothing else. He misrepresents NIST on numerous occasions. For example, when discussing this question:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Click to expand...

...he only left in the bolded section and snipped away the other important paragraphs, and then wrote as if NIST accepted 9 and 11 seconds as total collapse times, which they clearly do not. He edited the text to create a strawman.

He also used garbage quotes from Steven Jones, who reckons that the 'observed events' that NIST used to vet the plane impact simulations were the collapses themselves (thereby implying that NIST eliminated any simulation that did not result in collapse and invalidated the investigation). But clearly neither has read the report, as the observables were damage to the outer wall and floorplates, stairwell disruption, trajectory of aircraft components and so forth. A blatant lie by Jones is good enough to be used as evidence by Griffin.

The NORAD chapter is quite messy. I'm not all that familiar with that aspect of 9/11, but I'm sure many members here could easily make mincemeat of it. The other chapters argue against Without Precedent by Kean/Hamilton and the Popular Mechanics book, covering almost all of the same issues covered the other chapters. I'm not sure those two books are really worth defending anyway.
 
Mancman said:
...he only left in the bolded section and snipped away the other important paragraphs, and then wrote as if NIST accepted 9 and 11 seconds as total collapse times, which they clearly do not. He edited the text to create a strawman.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that Griffin is dishonest and simply trying to profit from 9/11. He is one of the more disgusting leaders of the *truth* movement.
 
Mancman said:
After reading it, I was thinking of doing the same, but you've got it covered. Is it finished yet?
Click to expand...
Slogging along. I sent a first draft of the portion addressing the NIST report out for early reviewer comments last week. The next portion, more to do with his own vaguer-than-vapor demolition theory, is about 80%. After that I tackle his mystifications on WTC 7. Then I can retire. :cool:

Mancman said:
The NIST chapter really is astounding. It's very clear from the outset that Griffin must only have read the short FAQ they released last September, plus a few brief critiques of the report, and nothing else. He misrepresents NIST on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...
That's my conclusion as well. I see no evidence that he's actually read the NIST report, not that it matters given his background, or the repeated and flagrant lies in the chapter. It would be trivial to dispatch him in debate given this total unawareness of the source he's allegedly criticizing.

The one good thing about addressing his book, in my opinion, is that he's amalgamated such a comprehensive melange of other conspiracy theories that de(or re-)bunking Griffin is, de facto, a debunking of just about all of them in one swoop. Stay tuned.
 
The other chapters argue against Without Precedent by Kean/Hamilton and the Popular Mechanics book, covering almost all of the same issues covered the other chapters. I'm not sure those two books are really worth defending anyway.
Click to expand...

Why's that? I haven't heard of Without Precedent, but I have heard of the pop mechanics book and ready the articles that generated it.
 
An Organized SPAM Campaign

Solitaire said:
Thanks to an organized campaign, Bill Moyers mentioned it on his Journal.
Click to expand...


Referenced here. Truthers from 911 Blogger started the 'campaign' which blew up in their face. I even made a little video about it last week. Moyers’ briefly mentioned the book in reference to the ‘campaign’ on his show this week.
 
I'm sure Bill Moyers will soon be added to the rolls of the NWO, if he hasn't already... Well, he doesn't look like a neo-con, but that's MILDEC for you.

At the end of this month, it'll be six months since I released my whitepaper. Dr. Griffin has issued no response of any kind. Several of his quoted sources have responded, and in so doing have only managed to gargle shoe leather. Mr. Moyers would have no trouble at all demolishing the book, even if he lacked the resources to do so himself, although I'm sure he's capable on his own.

Six months.

This is what's called a "forfeit."
 
Last edited:
Dr Griffin is one of the most inept and dishonest Conspiracy Theorists I have ever come across. At least the regular underlings can alternatively claim stupidity, ignorance, or plain insanity. Dr Griffin is highly educated and has no excuse.

Mike W's site has some recent classic examples of how unfathomably dishonest he is with his arguments (like citing a computer game manual as a "report warning pilots" implying it was some form of official document). I've also found with my own investigation of his work that he is quite capable of quoting bits and pieces of a paragraph that actually states exactly the opposite of what he claims it does.

On the positive side, often you don't need to do any actual research to brutally eviscerate his arguments - you just fully quote his own sources and you're done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom