David Ray Griffin compares 9/11 physics to believing in magic

ref

Master Poster
ref
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
2,685
From David Ray Griffin's reply to George Monbiot:

One of the reasons these people reject the government’s conspiracy theory is that, if they were to accept the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they would need to affirm magical beliefs. A few examples:

The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic.
Click to expand...

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/812/1
 
A recipe for stupidity

It's funny how CT's all believe basically the same thing. It's like a recipe for stupidity:

--There evidence of a conspiracy.
--This evidence is really obvious.
--This terribly obvious evidence has been missed by everyone in the world, except the CT guy and his pals.
 
ref said:
From David Ray Griffin's reply to George Monbiot:



http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/812/1
Click to expand...


A beatiful little reply to Monbiot's cheap hitpiece from our "Guru". I don't mind that designation. He would most certainly.

Monbiot's two hitpieces in the Guardian contained no substance, no serious arguments. Only namecalling like "gibbering idiots" "kooks" etc.

Such crap is easily refuted.
 
The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously
Click to expand...

That's quite a leap in logic right there. Wow.
 
Well, that's not my fault that the official theory can only present a kids-diagram. It would indeed be better to give exact numbers but that would make the official theory even more unlikely.
 
horizontal ejections

At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.
Click to expand...

Griffin has clearly never played Jenga. I've never once played without the blocks toppling sideways.

Some good comments though.

Some legitimately highlight the ASSUMPTION the molten metal is steel. I do not know of any proof that says it WAS steel, however, what proof is there to say it WASN’T steel?
Click to expand...

Where are all the gold?
Click to expand...
 
Questions We've Heard Before

[=pagan;2408379]A beatiful little reply to Monbiot's cheap hitpiece from our "Guru". I don't mind that designation. He would most certainly.

Monbiot's two hitpieces in the Guardian contained no substance, no serious arguments. Only namecalling like "gibbering idiots" "kooks" etc.

Such crap is easily refuted.
Click to expand...

Pagan, you have shown yourself to be a fact-free fantasist. Tell us what specific arguments made by the conspiracy liars can stand serious scrutiny. Point out an actual error in the mainstream science relating to the jihadist attacks of 9/11. If the "crap" presented by the real scientists is so easy to refute, why not refute some of it? Nobody on your side has managed to do so after five years of screaming.
 
And to really rub it in.

Monbiot wrote 2 articles in the Guardian a couple of weeks after 911. Here are some enlightening quotes.

September 2001 25:th
When presentad with material like this. I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it. For this reason and many others... I think we have some cause to regard the new evidence against Bin Ladin with a measure of scepticism.
Click to expand...
2001, October 16:th
There are plenty of reasons to be sceptical. The magical appearance of the terrorists luggage, passports and flight manual looks rather too good to be true. The dossier of "evidence" purporting to establish Bin Ladens guilt consists largely of supposition and conjecture.... Even the anthax scare looks suspiciously convenient
Click to expand...
I could quote some more, but I don't have the stamina. How the fokk do you make "copy n' paste" quotes in this place?


The question that comes to my mind is. What happened Mr Monbiot? Has some new evidence been presented that made you change your mind?
After these articles and five years of research, a mountain evidence has been presented against the Bush regime.
 
The only thing I found mildly entertaining with Griffin's 'rebuttal' had nothing to do with his played out diatribe, but comments like these:

David Ray Griffin and those like him have been providing us the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Limp-wristed efforts like this BBC garbage are easily dismissed by the facts.

But who cares? Is this where it leads us? To an endless succession of "tit-for-tat" exchanges between the legion of 9/11 experts and the plants trying to debunk facts with name-calling and distortion?
Click to expand...
WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE UP A LITTLE OF THEIR DENIAL AND OPEN THEIR MINDS A LITTLE TO CHECK OPPOSSING IDEAS, FACTS ETC? IF 2x2 = 7, THEN IT'S TIME TO CHECK THE VALUES OF THE 2S.
Click to expand...
 
[=pagan;2408540]And to really rub it in.

Monbiot wrote 2 articles in the Guardian a couple of weeks after 911. Here are some enlightening quotes.

September 2001 25:th2001, October 16:th I could quote some more, but I don't have the stamina. How the fokk do you make "copy n' paste" quotes in this place?


The question that comes to my mind is. What happened Mr Monbiot? Has some new evidence been presented that made you change your mind?
After these articles and five years of research, a mountain evidence has been presented against the Bush regime.
Click to expand...

No, Pagan, you are lying. NO evidence supports the fantasists' myths.
 
einsteen said:
Well, that's not my fault that the official theory can only present a kids-diagram. It would indeed be better to give exact numbers but that would make the official theory even more unlikely.
Click to expand...
It is your fault that you didn't provide evidence that you claimed to have been providing and then attempt to blame the diagram for not being what you claimed it was.
 
pagan said:
How the fokk do you make "copy n' paste" quotes in this place?
Click to expand...
Paste, select, press the little quote button. Not that hard.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The question that comes to my mind is. What happened Mr Monbiot? Has some new evidence been presented that made you change your mind?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Unsurprisingly. There's been a vast amount of investigation. Monbiot is an example of someone who wanted to believe that Bush was the villain, but was compelled by the evidence to think otherwise.

After these articles and five years of research, a mountain evidence has been presented against the Bush regime.
Click to expand...

For example, in his rebuttal to Monbiot, Griffin asserts that because gravity is vertical, explosives were required to fling steel sideways.

He also asserts, in
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
Click to expand...
that it must have been a controlled demolition, because otherwise the building would have fallen sideways.

For some reason, Monbiot isn't convinced by this kind of thinking.
 
I'm somehow horribly underwhelmed by a pseudo-scientist claiming that something is "magic."
 
pagan said:
The question that comes to my mind is. What happened Mr Monbiot? Has some new evidence been presented that made you change your mind?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that no evidence has come forward since the end of 2001 that has any bearing at all on our understanding of the events of 9-11? If so, that would have to include every piece of evidence that the 911 truth movement has claimed to produce. Or are you saying that abandoning an opinion that is contradicted by the evidence is somehow suspicious?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom