• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

CIT/Air America Debate Challenge

Tanabear,
What is the obsession you share with some of your peers where you state someones name?
BTW CL you have a PM.

He mentions his name at his own website. It isn't like it was a big secret.

Tanabear, maybe you should read the whole paper?

"Along the path of the movement of aircraft debris through the building,the most severe damage was confined to a region that can be represented approximately by a triangle centered on the trajectory of the aircraft in plan,with a base width at the aircraft entry point of approximately 90 ft and a length along the aircraft path of approximately 230 ft (figure 6.6). damage for 60 ft to the north of the collapse area,especially along a strip bounded approximately by column lines B and C. "

I have read the whole report. I asked if the estimate of 90 feet referred to an actual hole, or did it include a hole plus column damage and distortion. Is the report referring to an area of impact damage or an actual continuous hole? Regarding the triangle, he report states,

"However, within this triangular damage area there were a few relatively lightly damaged columns interspersed with heavily damaged columns along the path of the aircraft debris through the building."

Regarding the impact the report states,

"The impact upon the west facade removed first-floor columns from column lines 10 to 14. First-floor exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17 were severely damaged..."

It sounds like the report is referring to a hole plus an area of damaged columns, but not a continuous hole. Besides the question was for Caustic Logic. He wrote,

"The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area."

He said the columns were removed for the whole way. However, I quoted the PBPR where it stated,

"A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing."

How can the columns be removed the whole way and still attached? I was asking for clarification from Caustic Logic


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hole

Are you ****ING serious?

the "actual" hole? I think he is referring to the section of the outside wall that was removed by the jet plane. you know, the 75-90 foot section along the bottom floor, combined with the smaller 12-16 foot section above...is it a cavern that goes in 50 feet in all areas, NO, but I think most SANE people would agree that the 75-90 foot section of damage to the bottom floor would qualify as a "hole"...an "actual" one.

TAM:)

Once again, is this "hole" continuous or does it include damaged and distorted columns as well?
 
Quote:
the majority of the people who got involved in this movement did so because of their interest in the pentagon. this aspect of the attack has always been the most suspicious to everyone because the notion you could attack the hq of the mightiest military in the world 90 minutes after war was declared is unbelievable.

then you see cameras were mounted directly above the alleged impact spot and the duh-bunkers claimed the pentagon didnt archive any of its security film unlike every corporation in the united states has been doing for the last 15-20 years is also a joke. the footage exists. but it'll never be release because of what it doesn't show.

:jaw-dropp
 
Quote:
the majority of the people who got involved in this movement did so because of their interest in the pentagon. this aspect of the attack has always been the most suspicious to everyone because the notion you could attack the hq of the mightiest military in the world 90 minutes after war was declared is unbelievable.

then you see cameras were mounted directly above the alleged impact spot and the duh-bunkers claimed the pentagon didnt archive any of its security film unlike every corporation in the united states has been doing for the last 15-20 years is also a joke. the footage exists. but it'll never be release because of what it doesn't show.

:jaw-dropp

So your evidence is the lack of evidence? And they pulled off this daring caper based on pot luck that no one happened to be filming the fake airplane crash, yet they can't simply fake some camera feeds and that's how you caught them? Wow, way to go Sherlock Holmes. And as if we are to believe that if they showed the footage which shows nothing, that you would actually be satisfied? LOL!!
 
Where in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) does it say that the hole in the E-ring of the Pentagon is 90 feet across?

Everywhere and nowhere. It is written upon the wall. The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Also pp. 28, 35, 39. Go ahead and check it. Do a word search for "90" if you have it in pdf.

Hello Adam Larson (AKA Caustic Logic). I've read your blog on and off for quite a while now. Why the obsession with Flight 77? It seems like there are other topics that are far more interesting regarding 9/11. Blogger Arabesque devotes some of his writings to Pentagon attack, but he covers a much wider spectrum.

Hello back, tan - a - bear? Am I pronouncing that right? . (to all - my true name is public and on everything I write. 'salright.) I decided the Pentagon was confused enough to warrant dissection and understanding, and simple enough I could do it. Then I kept going and getting better. The WTC is big... Here I can actually get a good grip and do more help by narrowing in. I learn useful things that no one much wants to hear and so don't. :) However in the past I've also contributed
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/
And building bridges, encouraging honest debate, open-mindedness on all sides, etc... for whatever that's worth [cough-bootlicker!]

But yeah, I'm kinda strapped to this one bus, wherever it's driven, waving at passersby 'hey, this thing is a sham. I can't seem to stop it, but don't get on.' They do anyway, just glare at me on the way and complain to the driver, who runs me into things when possible. Hey, you wanna take my place?

The PBPR report states, "A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing."

According to the report, the impact of the fuselage occurred at column line 14. So how can the hole extend 90 feet across if the column lines just to the right of where the fuselage impacted the facade are still connected?

If you actually wonder about this, rather than just mentioning it for argument's sake - it's a good question. More people have tried to work around the intact columns 15-17 than the 16-foot hole. It looks a bit like columns there, if all broken and weird. Get this... this is crazy... the ASCE is wrong. Those are not columns in that spot.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/07/columns-15-17-still-attached.html That is my explanation to that point.
Columns_15-17_Repaired.jpg


Alternately, maybe they are and somehow they just - didn't get - obliterated, like the others did. I guess that's possible.

When you say the hole was 90 feet across are you referring to an actual hole, or just the area of column damage and distortion?

You write, "The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area."

To clarify, and do please show me wrong if you can, IF we call 'columns 15-17' gone as they should be, 9 panels wide, 90 feet, nothing left. At all. Ground floor. Big time. It's a friggin continent, the 16-footer's just a peninsula. Please read more closely.
 
Once again, is this "hole" continuous or does it include damaged and distorted columns as well?

I am not a member of ASCE, nor was I there, nor did I take photos of it. What I can say, is that the "hole" likely includes the entire area that had the front wall/facade destroyed/removed from the impact, so I think that the composite photo above posted by Ben pretty much covers it...

How do you know that there are not "damaged/distorted columns" just inside the truthers infamous "12-16 foot hole" on the second floor as well?

Perhaps you should write the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS that worked on the PENTAGON BUILDING REPORT for ASCE and FEMA, and ask them what their definition of a "hole" is, to make sure it matches your definition.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
So what you are arguing about here is yes there was a wide path of damage. Much greater than the 16 foot claim around 90 feet that is consistant with a plane impact but maybe it did not constitute one contiguous hole. And that somewhere in the world there is at least one "debunker " who says there was a 16 foot hole. The said debunker doesn't claim the 16 foot hole is the only damage but instead says that particular hole was consistant with the damage from the fuselage.
 
So what you are arguing about here is yes there was a wide path of damage.

No, they're arguing about the definition of the word "hole".

As ever with 'truthers', they see the world with distorted vision but believe everyone sees what they see. This applies equally to their ability to comprehend the written word. They latch on to the use of a particular word in an official report/speech/posting and interpret this in a way which confirms their suspicions about the official version of events.

That only they see things this way is not their fault, apparently it is ours.
 
Everywhere and nowhere. It is written upon the wall. The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Also pp. 28, 35, 39. Go ahead and check it. Do a word search for "90" if you have it in pdf.

Yes, I have done that. The PBPR does not give the specific dimensions for the size of the hole in the E-ring. The report is not clear on the issue.

Hello back, tan - a - bear? Am I pronouncing that right? . (to all - my true name is public and on everything I write. 'salright.) I decided the Pentagon was confused enough to warrant dissection and understanding, and simple enough I could do it. Then I kept going and getting better. The WTC is big... Here I can actually get a good grip and do more help by narrowing in. I learn useful things that no one much wants to hear and so don't. :) However in the past I've also contributed
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/
And building bridges, encouraging honest debate, open-mindedness on all sides, etc... for whatever that's worth [cough-bootlicker!]

Yes, you a pronouncing that correctly. Yes, I have read your blog "they-let-it happen-on-purpose." It has a lot of good information. So which fence are you sitting on now, LIHOP or MIHOP? As for me, I find more agreement with blogger Arabesque regarding the LIHOP/MIHOP distinction.

If you actually wonder about this, rather than just mentioning it for argument's sake - it's a good question. More people have tried to work around the intact columns 15-17 than the 16-foot hole. It looks a bit like columns there, if all broken and weird. Get this... this is crazy... the ASCE is wrong. Those are not columns in that spot.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/07/columns-15-17-still-attached.html That is my explanation to that point.
[qimg]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Columns_15-17_Repaired.jpg[/qimg]

Alternately, maybe they are and somehow they just - didn't get - obliterated, like the others did. I guess that's possible.

I was wondering and arguing. I first heard that explanation from Jim Hoffman. I did not find it entirely convincing though. It seems to be more special pleading to fit the evidence with the theory. Someone could also say that the right wing hit these columns, damaging them and then folded back. Which explanation should we believe?

It should also be noted that Jim Hoffman seems to support Eric Bart's plane bomb theory. He writes,

"Bart's theory, entitled on his web page "It was a plane bomb" (IWPB), fits the eyewitness accounts better than any competing theory, and is potentially compatible with the photographic evidence of damage to the facade. Despite the strong evidentiary support for Bart's theory it has received relatively little discussion, eclipsed by the attack drone and two-plane theories...According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building...Bart's theory is consistent with the crash of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, but not with the official story that it was hijacked by Muslim terrorists, since it assumes the plane was prepared prior to the attack."

As for me, I remain undecided on the Pentagon attack. All the explanations that I've heard(missile, fly-over, Boeing 757, A-3 Skywarrior, Global Hawk, plane bomb etc) can't seem to account for all the available evidence. People try to come up with their own pet theory regarding the Pentagon attack then reason backwards to support it. I'm against people becoming dogmatic over the issue. Dogmatism leads to unnecessary divisions within the 9/11 Truth Movement.

To clarify, and do please show me wrong if you can, IF we call 'columns 15-17' gone as they should be, 9 panels wide, 90 feet, nothing left. At all. Ground floor. Big time. It's a friggin continent, the 16-footer's just a peninsula. Please read more closely.

I'm not sure. I would have to see a picture of a continuous hole. Many of the Pentagon photos seem rather murky.

The PBPR states, "It is likely that the exterior first-floor columns from column line 10 to column line 14 were removed entirely by the impact and that the exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17 were severely damaged."

As well, even a 90 foot hole on the first floor wouldn't account for the entire plane. The PBPR reports, "no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building."

The report then speculates as to why this might have occurred, but they don't seem to support their conclusions with any strong empirical evidence.
 
Last edited:
I am sure you would prefe3r the cartoon theory where the plane punches out a hole the exact shape of the plane itself and leaves nothing in tact inside that area. Bugs Bunny physics.
 
"Bart's theory, entitled on his web page "It was a plane bomb" (IWPB), fits the eyewitness accounts better than any competing theory, and is potentially compatible with the photographic evidence of damage to the facade. Despite the strong evidentiary support for Bart's theory it has received relatively little discussion, eclipsed by the attack drone and two-plane theories...According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building..."

You've got to love Jim Hoffman for his wacky theories. Before he claimed that the WTC Towers must each have been destroyed by at least 2.3 kilotons TNT equivalent of explosives, because dust clouds can only grow through heating...

So let's see what we've got this time. We have an aircraft about to impact a recently rebuilt, blast-resistent structure with spirally wound concrete columns, at a speed of over 200 meters per second. Mr. Hoffman now claims that there must have been "shaped charges" -- presumably secreted in the leading edge of the aircraft wing -- to shred the wings milliseconds before impact.

Can you comprehend the pressure that the wings would feel as they hit those columns?? But apparently that's not good enough, so we must imagine a far greater pressure being applied by "explosives," somehow hidden in the aircraft itself... The amount of explosives needed to make any significant difference is not small, let's just leave it at that.

Also, there is the little question of "why."

This is the kind of hypothesis that scientists sometimes refer to as "failing the giggle test."

As well, even a 90 foot hole on the first floor wouldn't account for the entire plane. The PBPR reports, "no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building."

The report then speculates as to why this might have occurred, but they don't seem to support their conclusions with any strong empirical evidence.

The report is more concerned with collapse than specifics of the aircraft, and it is terse, so the answer is not well developed. However, it's quite simple. The inner two-thirds of the wings were the parts filled with fuel. The fuel tanks don't extend to the wingtips. This gives the inner two-thirds much more momentum, enough to defeat the perimeter columns, whereas the outer portions do not. See Chapter 10 of NCSTAR1-2B for a similar treatment of the 767's for the WTC impacts.
 
Last edited:
So let's see what we've got this time. We have an aircraft about to impact a recently rebuilt, blast-resistent structure with spirally wound concrete columns, at a speed of over 200 meters per second. Mr. Hoffman now claims that there must have been "shaped charges" -- presumably secreted in the leading edge of the aircraft wing -- to shred the wings milliseconds before impact.

Can you comprehend the pressure that the wings would feel as they hit those columns?? But apparently that's not good enough, so we must imagine a far greater pressure being applied by "explosives," somehow hidden in the aircraft itself... The amount of explosives needed to make any significant difference is not small, let's just leave it at that.

Also, there is the little question of "why."

Hoffman came up with the answer to that question in Scenario 404, I believe (at least, I assume it was Hoffman - it's on 9-11 Research, one of his websites). The scenario is a little different, in that he doesn't invoke explosives in the airliner wings; instead, he postulates a hidden AA rocket launcher under the Pentagon lawn which fires a missile just before impact, blowing off the tail of the airliner. As a result, although the impact damage to the Pentagon facade is caused by the airliner impact, the imprint of the tail is missing, causing the truth movement to hypothesise that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon. This can then be used to discredit the truth movement as a whole, because it's sufficiently obvious that it actually was an airliner that caused the damage.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

Imagine the duplicity of the New World Order here! They have created an impact which was very obviously not caused by an airliner so as to fool truthers into disbelieving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, yet at the same time very obviously was caused by an airliner, so as to discredit the opinions of those who saw the obvious fact that it wasn't caused by an airliner. It's so subtle that it must be true, and couldn't possibly be simply a projection of Hoffman's confusion and paranoia.

Dave
 
A few minutes ago I e-mailed the following to Kevin Barrett and radio host Richard Greene. We will see if we ever get a response.

An Open Challenge to David Ray Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement

Dear Sirs:

I do not have the E-mail address of David Ray Griffin, but I am sure you both know how to contact him, so I will address this to you. There have been many ongoing discussions in connection to Air America Radio’s Richard Greene and his “Month of Truth” in regards to having “debunkers” on to provide the opposing viewpoint to the “9/11 Truth Movement”. Many debunkers, including Mark Roberts and my blogging partner Pat Curley, openly refused to come on last week’s show, for various reasons, but mostly revolving around the fact that Kevin Barrett and the guys from CIT were so controversial within their own movement, that engaging them would be pointless, and your time would be much better spent interviewing witnesses, and possibly even others within the truth movement who opposed them.

We were surprised however to see, not Kevin Barrett, but David Ray Griffin appearing on the show. As opposed to being a member of a faction within the movement Dr. Griffin is in fact widely considered the most prominent spokesman of the movement, and has authored 5 books and spoken widely on the subject. Even Mr. Greene praised him, calling him “The guru of the 9/11 truth movement “ and his work The New Pearl Harbor a “classic”.

Despite his prominence in the movement though, Griffin has largely avoided his critics. While such figures as Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer may be controversial, even among other truthers, they at least have had the courage to advance and defend their own hypotheses, and engage critics, something which is normally done by academics in controversial areas. Dr. Griffin, however, has openly opposed advancing any but the vaguest theories, and has carefully avoided any situation where he would have to address any criticism, despite giving a plethora of speeches and radio interviews. As mentioned on last week’s show, NASA engineer Ryan Mackey prepared a detailed 200 page criticism of Dr. Griffin’s work, which to the best of my knowledge he has avoided even acknowledging, much less answering.

Therefore after his appearance on last week’s show, in which he once again dropped off the air before any questions could be asked of him by critics, we began discussing the fact that Dr. Griffin has avoided defending his arguments, despite the fact that the truth movement is constantly calling for an open and vigorous discussion of these events. Why then, does Dr. Griffin constantly refuse to engage in a discussion with anyone who disagrees with him? Does he believe that his work is beyond reproach? We believe that if he is so confident in his years of research, which have allowed him to sell many tens of thousands of books, that he should have no problem discussing it with an intellectual opponent.

So in this spirit we would like to propose a debate between David Ray Griffin and Mark Roberts on a subsequent episode of Richard Greene’s radio show, with Pat Curley and myself as possible co-guests if desired by the host. We understand that the host is biased, and accept that, but we just call on him to be fair, and fully expect that he would be so, and propose the following ground rules:

1) Roughly equal time for each participant to speak.

2) Discuss one – and only one – claim at a time. No long lists of claims (from either side) followed by, "In our limited time, which of those would you like to respond to?"

3) Be able to speak directly to each other with the host moving things along if the discussion bogs down.

4) Focus on discussing what Griffin thinks is the very strongest evidence in each area, so as not to get bogged down in minutiae. Griffin and Greene may pick the topics if they wish.

Given the open taunts by members of the movements when debunkers refused to come on the show earlier, I do not see how Dr. Griffin can in good spirit refuse to engage in this very debate you all have been calling for. Such an acclaimed academic, who is widely regarded as the foremost scholar of your movement should have no problem wiping the floor with any opponent, especially with the advantage of a friendly host and being able to choose the subjects, and I call upon the truth movement to encourage him and Mr. Greene to participate.

You both have my e-mail along with Mark Robert’s, please contact either Mark or I with any questions. We are open to any reasonable accommodations in scheduling and format to ensure that this event goes off.

Sincerely,

James
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com
Labels: Air America, David Ray Griffin
 
The following message is from Rob Balsamo. I haven't listened to the off-air commotion yet.

(RB wrote)
Attached is the file. 11mins runtime.

I edited out on air dicussion except for the last segment. We only got the second hour off air chats as i said i didnt think of it until second hour. Feel free to post it on your websites.

We posted it here..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12450&view=findpost&p=10740626

Here's a direct mp3 link of the off air chatter (11 min.) apparently recorded from Balsamo's telephone.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/AAR.mp3

At about the 7:00 mark Greene tells Ron he will not get 60 sec. of air time to make a general point about the whole pentagon CT issue.
 
JamesB why do you continue to pretend that David Ray Griffin avoids his critics. I listened to a show with him and George Monbiot where he directly addressed debunkers claims. Admittedly the host wasn't hostile (James Whale I think) but Griffin did indeed go head to head with a prominent critic. Why do you keep saying he never does?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom