• 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"

nicepants

Graduate Poster
nicepants
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
1,723
Just wondering if anyone here has read or looked at David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 911 debunking" book. I heard a podcast where he spoke in Canada, I believe it was, and he still regurgitated the same worn-out, already-debunked, CF garbage.

My favorite was a claim in the lecture that went something like this:

"The interior columns couldn't have melted. Nist says that they found steel in the exterior columns was only heated to x degrees. The interior columns didn't even get that hot because they were inside, away from oxygen."

LOL. So I guess that photo of a woman in the gash of one of the towers wasn't really alive, because she was obviously in the hottest part of the fire.
 
They're still thinking that the paint tests were some asessment of the maximum heat of the fire.

The paint tests were for modelling of the fire's travel path & effect. They were not an indicator of how hot it was.

If this is Griffin's 'debunking' he fails, completely.
 
nicepants said:
Just wondering if anyone here has read or looked at David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 911 debunking" book. I heard a podcast where he spoke in Canada, I believe it was, and he still regurgitated the same worn-out, already-debunked, CF garbage.

My favorite was a claim in the lecture that went something like this:

"The interior columns couldn't have melted. Nist says that they found steel in the exterior columns was only heated to x degrees. The interior columns didn't even get that hot because they were inside, away from oxygen."

LOL. So I guess that photo of a woman in the gash of one of the towers wasn't really alive, because she was obviously in the hottest part of the fire.
Click to expand...

I have flipped through the book, but out of principle (and cheapness) I refuse to buy it. Both Pat and I have done several posts on his recent book promotion speeches, including the Vancouver speech you mention. We already got him on the AA77 airfone thing, even before the book came out.
 
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.
 
DRG is an articulate version of Fetzer. His book, I refuse to buy, but from what I have read, is just regurgitation of his 115 points which gumboot is wading through to debunk, but in a nutshell, he offers nothing worth my time now, as it has all been debunked over and over.

TAM:)
 
kookbreaker said:
They're still thinking that the paint tests were some asessment of the maximum heat of the fire.

The paint tests were for modelling of the fire's travel path & effect. They were not an indicator of how hot it was.

If this is Griffin's 'debunking' he fails, completely.
Click to expand...
In fact, there weren't enough core columns with intact paint from the impact areas to make such an assessment, which is why NIST only reported those observations for exterior columns.
 
debunkingdebunking.gif


You ever say a word over and over again until it just loses all meaning? That's starting to happen here.
 
Just wait until the Truthers come back with "The Debunking of 'Debunking Debunking 9/11 Debunking' ".
 
Couldn't a more clever title be thought of instead of Debunking Debunking 9/11 Myth Debunkers?
 
Well we could use "Bedunking" that crafty word given to us by LUCAS, the CTer from SLC Blog...

"Bedunking the Bedunking of 9/11 Bedunking"

TAM;)
 
You know perhaps something escapes me but why do some people believe that there was less oxygen in the towers during the fires, and enough to make a considerable difference on proportion with "...The interior columns didn't even get that hot because they were inside, away from oxygen..."

I mean what do people seriously think the towers were sealed air tight or something?
 
Was there any other form of temperature assessment made by NIST to determine the temperature of the steel columns, besides the paint test?
If so, isn't the whole point of the alleged 1000C fires quite hypothetical and with no physical evidence to rely on?
Unless the lack of surface paint itself is the proof of whatever temperature had reached.
Basically what I'm asking is, isn't the paint test all the NIST has, in terms of physical evidence?
Enough JAQing off for today.
 
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?
If so, isn't the whole point of the alleged 1000C fires quite hypothetical and with no physical evidence to rely on?
Unless the lack of surface paint itself is the proof of whatever temperature had reached.
Basically what I'm asking is, isn't the paint test all the NIST has, in terms of physical evidence?
Enough JAQing off for today.
Click to expand...

There were also microstructure analyses performed but I can't remember offhand whether the result was "Steel experienced temperatures of up to 600c" or "Steel didn't experience any microstructure changes expected at 600c or above".

Regardless, we know the temperature that a 'typical WTC floor' should have reached because NIST burned several workstations in various configurations and tested their ability to predict variables in the fire. Their simulations were surprisingly close. Their model also accounted for oxygen availability and I believe radiative insulation from soot.
 
Air temperature on the fires and steel temperatures are not the same, thats why I asked.
Especially for the steel columns which are not placed directly above the flames and do not retain much heat at all. Add that to the rather unknown insulation cover damage... which is based on another model... and there's no way to know for sure what temperature they've reached.

Which is fine I guess. We have to assume some things in order to contemplate what most likely happened. I'm just pointing it out that the NIST theory is not all about hard evidence as many here want it to be. And it can't be, most steel was dumped away anyway.
 
This is becoming just a tad redundant. :p

Shouldn't 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking' have been more simply (and accurately) titled; "Rebunking 9/11"?
 
T.A.M. said:
Well we could use "Bedunking" that crafty word given to us by LUCAS, the CTer from SLC Blog...
TAM;)
Click to expand...

Someone once came up with the term Rebunking.

ETA: Sword beat me to it.

Steve S.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
DRG is an articulate version of Fetzer. His book, I refuse to buy, but from what I have read, is just regurgitation of his 115 points which gumboot is wading through to debunk, but in a nutshell, he offers nothing worth my time now, as it has all been debunked over and over.

TAM:)
Click to expand...



My triple combo debunk of his claims 6, 7 and 8 is pretty brutal...

I'm now on 9 (10 features typical of a controlled demolition) and I'm offering no mercy.

-Gumboot
 
I was able to leaf through the book today at Borders. It's four chapters (but really thick) with a whiny introduction about equal playing fields for conspiracy theorists. Each of the chapters tackles one of what Griffen calls the official or semi-official debunkings of 9/11 conspiracy theories (sorry, David! "alternate" conspiracy theories!).

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?????



Yes, David Ray Griffin believes that the NEADS tapes are forgeries! They might, might, might be taken from actual tapes of the day (and Griffin's really unwilling to spot them that one), but they've been cherrypicked and augmented and covered up before any reporter got to listen to them.

After that, I started flipping a little more quickly. The other three chapters are on the NIST FAQ release (which is totally official because NIST is a branch of the United States Department of Commerce), the Popular Mechanics book (written by Michael Chertoff's joined-at-the-hip cousin, Bennie Boy, which makes it semi-official), and the Hamilton-Kean book about the writing of the 911CR (which is full-up official, cuz you can't get any more official than these guys).

I'm going to check tomorrow to see if any of the used bookstores have a copy yet. My goodness, what a big, wretched mess that book is.
 
The one section I read of it was a pathetic attempt by Griffin to debunk Popular Mechanics by using the worn-out/debunked "OMFG THEY ARE T3H R3LAT3D!" ad-hom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom