Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you ever going to present information that's factual?! What are you basing this statement on? Let me guess. Barry Jennings' account? The fact that he said the firefighters ran away twice (once for each tower that fell) after he broke the window out on the 8th floor?Why was the building on fire and exploding BEFORE the Twins collapsed?
...nothing you have presented is even close to being objective ...
. . .During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.[10]
Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”[11] Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”[12] [emphasis Capstone's]
Griffin's essay is hogwash. The pieces he uses as evidence are garbage.Be sure to read the rest of Griffin's essay at the link I've provided, Daws. It obliterates many OCTers' claims and shows beyond the shadow of a doubt just how fraudulent the NIST reports were from top to bottom.
griffin is about as qualified to comment on 911 as a lumber jack is qualified to do brain surgery....nothing you have presented is even close to being objective ...
Another coincidence; neither has the NIST group, which, let's not forget, is itself an agency of the US Department of Commerce.
As pointed out here by the patriarch of the scholarly division of the 9/11 Truth Movement, D.R. Griffin,
. . .During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.[10]
Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”[11] Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”[12] [emphasis Capstone's]
That highlighted bit is not what anyone with half a brain could describe as a recipe for scientific objectivity.
Be sure to read the rest of Griffin's essay at the link I've provided, Daws. It obliterates many OCTers' claims and shows beyond the shadow of a doubt just how fraudulent the NIST reports were from top to bottom.
That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it- Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.That's hysterical coming from you!What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'
You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes,
Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.
What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.
You're a hypocrite.
In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both
...the Swiss cheese steel is from eutectic reactions. ...
...Harrit's paper is a joke (we can talk about particular's if you'd like) and the Swiss cheese steel is from eutectic reactions. ...
...Griffin's essay is hogwash. The pieces he uses as evidence are garbage.
An office fire did this to a 47 story building- over 40,000 tons of structural steel. OK
No, fire initiated the collapse and the resultant loads applied to the rest of the structure as a result of the gravity driven collapse did that to 40,000 tons of steel.
Get your stories straight.
griffin is about as qualified to comment on 911 as a lumber jack is qualified to do brain surgery.
btw I know him personally he's an evangelical nut job, when I was a stage tech at the Claremont colleges we did the audio for his "presentations"
David Ray Griffin (born August 8, 1939) is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology
Let's start with Harrit's paper....I'd be remiss to let such a trenchant criticism slide on by without a stitch of explicit support.
So, let's take "the pieces he uses as evidence" in the order he used them in his hogwash-laden essay, shall we?
Since you made the charge, I'll allow you to start our little interactive exercise.
It's not the furthest thing from the truth.That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it- Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.That's hysterical coming from you!What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'
You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes,
Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.
What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.
You're a hypocrite.
In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both
lol But I hardly "blathered on" about this relatively small issue in the scheme of things - and no one even disputed it with anything of substance - no one said it was the wrong corner. I've learned this is no place for a dialectic
How ironic for you to say this!People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.
Are you telling me you believe people can actually tell the difference visually that something is molten steel as opposed to something else? Could it have been molten aluminum?Of course, the questions remain:
- How did temperatures reach in excess of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit in the WTC fires and rubble (actually, in line with several highly credible and fully credentialed eyewitnesses who reported seeing pools of molten steel below the debris piles, it must have been significantly hotter even than that)?
Nooo, I thought it was the correct corner because it was at the same intersection and it was taped off in the same unusual manner, using a garbage can pulled into the middle of the street. I even stated that the engine should have traveled in a direction different from where I incorrectly thought it was found. Since "No one said it was in the wrong corner" I was not aware of my mistake. I was "investigating" the engine thing in real time and I was using this place as a sounding board. Beavis and Butthead of course were useless in calling attention to the specifics of my mistake.It's not the furthest thing from the truth.That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it- Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.That's hysterical coming from you!What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'
You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes,
Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.
What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.
You're a hypocrite.
In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both
lol But I hardly "blathered on" about this relatively small issue in the scheme of things - and no one even disputed it with anything of substance - no one said it was the wrong corner. I've learned this is no place for a dialectic
You read that crap from somewhere and ran with it. That's your version of "caring about the truth"? You even admitted it, "No one said it was in the wrong corner". You didn't even investigate anything. You just believed it.
You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!How ironic for you to say this!People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.
oh no the physics ploy !An office fire did this to a 47 story building- over 40,000 tons of structural steel. OK
No, fire initiated the collapse and the resultant loads applied to the rest of the structure as a result of the gravity driven collapse did that to 40,000 tons of steel.
Get your stories straight.
No, apply all the phoney physics you like, fire did not initiate the collapse
Friday, May 11, 2007griffin is about as qualified to comment on 911 as a lumber jack is qualified to do brain surgery.
btw I know him personally he's an evangelical nut job, when I was a stage tech at the Claremont colleges we did the audio for his "presentations"
David Ray Griffin (born August 8, 1939) is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology
Despite his field of expertise, Griffin has shown himself to be a highly capable researcher and writer on several topics (not just 9/11 related) outside of that field. His citations and sources are, as a general rule, impeccable, often appealing to non-controversial physical evidence and the best credentialed authorities available in his chosen subjects.
You know, Daws, you've become so predictable with the incessant ad homs, the copy-and-paste jobs, and the near complete lack of response to your opponents' points, that I think I'm just about through with you.
Shoo! Adults are talking now.
Like a cartoon huh?You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!How ironic for you to say this!People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.
