Thursday, March 08, 2007

Griffin Responds to Monbiot

Over at Information Clearing House.

If my books are moronic nonsense, then people who have endorsed them must be morons. Would Monbiot really wish to apply this label to Michel Chossudovsky, Richard Falk, Ray McGovern, Michael Meacher, John McMurtry, Marcus Raskin, Rosemary Ruether, Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of America’s leading civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists?


Monbiot might not wish to do so, but I'll happily call all those guys chowderheads.

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.


Which is it, David? Did they come straight down, or did they spread debris "as far as 600 feet"?

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.


And to believe that controlled demolition would have pulverized the floors (the main location of concrete in the building is to believe in magic.

He pulls a nifty little sleight of hand here:

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.


And this might be relevant if Griffin could prove that the "molten metal" was "molten steel".

Labels: ,

43 Comments:

At 08 March, 2007 09:37, Blogger James said...

to hear a professor even consider 'magic'.

Laughable.

 
At 08 March, 2007 09:57, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

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.


Which is it, David? Did they come straight down, or did they spread debris "as far as 600 feet"?

Did you even read the information you critique?
Steel collums fail, and steel beams ejected. Two seperate issues, noe of which gravity can explain the behavior of the building. That or gravity became a heck of a lot powerful after Skilling's death.

You try to lump them togther with your failed critique do discredit the event captured by hundreds of photographs and numerous videos.



www.dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com

 
At 08 March, 2007 10:47, Blogger Braad Spitt said...

Steel collums fail, and steel beams ejected. Two seperate issues,

This is a joke, right?

 
At 08 March, 2007 10:50, Blogger CHF said...

Wow...what a mystery!

How did 120,000 tons all come down at once?

How did all the steel beams fail to support this dynamic load?

The true magic here would be a building that COULD hold it up!

Kids like Griffin and Swing just can't comprehend the forces at play here.

 
At 08 March, 2007 10:56, Blogger CHF said...

You try to lump them togther with your failed critique do discredit the event captured by hundreds of photographs and numerous videos.

So you must have an explanation for the bending exterior columns that were captured in photos and videos.

Let's hear it.

 
At 08 March, 2007 10:58, Blogger CHF said...

What's Griffin's story these days anyway?

Bombs? Thermite? Laser beams?

 
At 08 March, 2007 11:27, Blogger ewing2001 said...

More Urantia-Bechtel-Belitsos-Jamieson 911truth.org 'filth'
http://www.911researchers.com/node/299
http://www.911researchers.com/node/299#comment-2011
http://www.911researchers.com/node/299#comment-2016

Belitsos recruiting Urantia Members 2004 for "9/11 Truth"
Jamieson Briefing Urantia on "9/11 Truth"

 
At 08 March, 2007 11:32, Blogger James B. said...

How did all the steel beams fail to support this dynamic load?


Well the truthers have proven this can't happen through experiementation. If you build a model WTC out of chicken wire, one side will stand up, even if the other side is completely destroyed.

 
At 08 March, 2007 11:40, Blogger Alex said...

As a Brit, the way the truth movement have got this idea that Michael Meacher is a credible advocate of their madness amuses me greatly. He may be a "candidate for British Prime Minister" but he's from the left of the party and he has no chance at all of winning. He might not even get enough signitures to be on the ballot.

And his political career essentially amounts to a brief period as Minister for the Environment and many, many years as an MP. With advocates like him, it's a suprise the country hasn't risen up in revolt against our NWO overlords, really.

 
At 08 March, 2007 12:35, Blogger Stevew said...

Downward force will change to a lateral direction when a colum breaks. They were all bolted together so when a joint broke a beam will shoot out sideways. Just squeeze a toothpick til it breaks and see what direction the center goes when it breaks

 
At 08 March, 2007 12:45, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Quote DRG
"Bush and Wirt Walker III—the president's brother and cousin, respectively—were principals of the company in charge of security for the World Trade Center.80 Al-Qaeda terrorists would also probably not have had the courtesy to ensure that these huge buildings came straight down, rather than falling over onto other buildings. They also would not have had the necessary expertise."

Now not only is this stupid but it's stupid with a capitol S. We are talking here of mouth wide open, slap yourself on the head IGNORANCE.

Now maybe it's because his expertice is in theology and not building construction, But the idea the towers could fall over is just a childs view of how these buildings behave. These are not toys.

Tall massive things like the towers could never simply topple over, explosives or no.

So when this man makes such a huge error in science.. then what make him such a "expert" with the truthers? Shit.. I know more then him.

he need to stick to wht he may know, religion.

 
At 08 March, 2007 12:45, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 March, 2007 12:50, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Did the lower portions offer almost no resistance to explain the short collapse time (videos show the lower portions offering no more resistance than the nearby air), or did they offer high resistance, to account for the upper portions disintegrating ABOVE THE COLLAPSE ZONE, IN MID-AIR?

Which is it?

 
At 08 March, 2007 12:51, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Tall massive things like the towers could never simply topple over, explosives or no.

ROFLMAO...uhh earthquakes? Uhh failed CD? The pictures are out there.

Toothpics to explain the OS. Thats as bad as keebler eleves and trees.

 
At 08 March, 2007 12:53, Blogger Alex said...

Speaking of stupid with a capital "S".....

 
At 08 March, 2007 12:54, Blogger James B. said...

Not to mention George W. Bush and Wirt Walker are not related.

 
At 08 March, 2007 12:57, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

1) Look up the weight that each WTC floor was designed to support.

2) Calculate the force of 120,000 tons FALLING 8 feet.

3) Then come back and tell us whether you think the WTC structure would somehow slow down such a collapse.

Maybe you could even speak to an engineer about it.

 
At 08 March, 2007 14:01, Blogger Alex said...

Actually, the floors DID slow the collapse, they just didn't appear to have a significant effect. It's hard to measure the exact collapse speed, but if we use the twoofers own numbers, we end up with an acceleration that's roughly 10% to 20% slower than earth-normal gravity.

 
At 08 March, 2007 14:13, Blogger CHF said...

Actually, the floors DID slow the collapse, they just didn't appear to have a significant effect.

Yeah I know. I was referring to the "virtually in free fall" claim that is often brought up as being strange.

When such a massive load comes crashing down, it will not be significantly slowed by a structure that is 95% air.

For some reason twoofers think each floor should have slowed it down for a second or two. I think ol' Judy Wood came up with a 90+ second collapse time.

This is further proof of why these fucking morons don't have structural engineers behind them.

 
At 08 March, 2007 15:06, Blogger Alex said...

Yep. That was the point when I decided that Judy Wood wasn't just misguided, but absolutely clueless too. Even on the moon an object would only take something like 25 seconds to fall the height of the WTC. 90 seconds would put the acceleration at something like 0.1m/s^. Ofcourse, she's not suggesting constant acceleration, but the alternative is even dumber - she's suggesting that each floor should have had the strength to resist the dynamic force, and then buckled half a second later from the (now) static force. That's absurd. Her "90 seconds" argument shows that she doesn't have even a very basic understanding of physics.

 
At 08 March, 2007 15:35, Blogger shawn said...

Would Monbiot really wish to apply this label

I'll apply the label to every one of those people.

 
At 08 March, 2007 16:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Did the lower portions offer almost no resistance to explain the short collapse time (videos show the lower portions offering no more resistance than the nearby air), or did they offer high resistance, to account for the upper portions disintegrating ABOVE THE COLLAPSE ZONE, IN MID-AIR?


Which is it?
Again, which is it,gentlemen? I notice you can't answer that or wont. Which is it?

So the floors did slow it down, correct Alex?
Where are the floors Alex?

Shouldn't they be there? It is a pancake collapse, right?
How much time did they slow the collapse down by, Alex? Do inform us all.
Alex what was the speed of the fall according to the NIST?
That is the official story, correct?

What was the ratio of the top floor section that was supposedly severed versus the number of floors below?

What did cause the global collapse of the building in your opinon, considering the NIST doesn't have one?

Finally since none of us are experts, what is the explanation for assymetrical damage causing a symmetrical failure all at once?





How powerful is gravity?

 
At 08 March, 2007 17:38, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 March, 2007 17:42, Blogger Alex said...

They ARE there you idiot. I've shown you dozens of pictures, yet to listen to your stupid ass talk about it, one would think that there was nothing left at ground zero but dust. Stop being such a god damn dishonest asshole.

Assuming the building accelerated at 80% of gravity due to resistance, the top of the collapsing block would have been travelling at 80.91m/s by the time it hit the ground. That's 182 miles per hour. WTF do you EXPECT that to look like? You expect to see resistance? How fucking stupid is it possible for you to be?

 
At 08 March, 2007 18:38, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

have you talked to any engineers yet?

It sure doesn't look like it.

the upper portions disintegrating ABOVE THE COLLAPSE ZONE, IN MID-AIR?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Are you saying they rigged up the top portion with bombs and blew that up? What the hell for???

Jesus Christ man - think for a second about the scenario you present.

AND TALK TO SOME ENGINEERS. Your ignorance is stunning.

 
At 08 March, 2007 19:12, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

ROFLMAO...uhh earthquakes? Uhh failed CD? The pictures are out there.


i am talking something on the scale of the towers NOT 10 or 15 story apartment buildings. Hell show me something even half the size of the towers that has fallen over. It does not happen and only the clueless think so. This show your ignorance on the subject and why you are such a joke in these parts.

Thing is something as massive as the WTC will fall exactly like you saw on 911. GO ahead ask an engineer they will tell you, but you won't find any hanging around with truthers.

 
At 08 March, 2007 19:27, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Swing Dangler said...

Did the lower portions offer almost no resistance to explain the short collapse time (videos show the lower portions offering no more resistance than the nearby air),


That's just nonsense. Dust and debris moving faster than the main mass of the building are clearly seen in just about every video or photograph taken. The perimeter walls fell pretty rapidly (and to some degree peeled away; columns were not 'ejected') and so does the main bulk of the building, but the fact remains that it's pretty obvious that loose debris fell much faster than the perimeter facades and the perimeter facades fell faster than the main bulk of the building (indeed a chunk of the central columns f the North tower were still standing for about 30 seconds).

And it's absolutely appropriate to point out that as Griffin tries to grossly exaggerate both scenarios (ejected debris, collapses straight down) they become distinct and contradictory. The collapses were generally downwards (naturally) but quite messy and did severe structural damage to quite a few nearby buildings.

And the authoritative claim that the columns all collapsed simultaneously is simply fictional, there was significant and obvious tilt above the impact zones on both towers and for both this tilt continued as long as observations could have been made; p146 (among various other places) of the NIST final report points out that the South perimeter columns of WTC 1 and East perimeter columns of WTC 2 failed first. The collapse initiation, from the initial observed bending of perimeter columns, took place over a period of several minutes. Thus Mr Griffin is talking rubbish and the fact you weren't even aware of the tilting (despite it being known to CTer circles for a significant period of time) is evidence of your lack of genuine interest in how the collapse actually occurred.

 
At 08 March, 2007 19:55, Blogger ConsDemo said...

If my books are moronic nonsense, then people who have endorsed them must be morons.

Yup, that sounds spot on.

 
At 09 March, 2007 01:24, Blogger The Girl in Grey said...

Here in the UK I'll happily agree that Michael Meacher's a moron.

 
At 09 March, 2007 06:11, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Steel collums fail, and steel beams ejected. Two seperate issues"


And lets not forget the towers were the largest aluminum siding job in history the perimeter wall were clad in light weight aluminum.

So when you see what looks like steel beams flying away from the building in these low quality Youtube videos. It's more likely to be this siding. Light enough to carry some distance just on the air.

 
At 09 March, 2007 11:11, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Rev I saw the tilting, silly. I also saw the distentigration of the top portion above the collapse zone.
So you choose little resistance, without an explanation of the destruction of the top of the towers.
So what destroyed the top of the towers during the collapse?
Explosives.
Or what removed resistance? Explosives.

There is no other way to reason the event, gentlemen.

Unless your going with beam weapons, keebler elves, nukes, aggrivated steel eating termites...

Actually CHF, that question is from an engineer. But thanks for asking.

I noticed all of you try to reason the way out of the simple question by avoiding it.

See where you are at with the offical theory?

The offical theory contradicts itself making it an invalid theory based upon the gravitational collapsed compared to the destruction of the structures themselves.
Checkmate!

Thanks for playing, you just all proved the offical theory as nonsesnese.

 
At 09 March, 2007 12:15, Blogger pomeroo said...

Someone on the JREF commented that a conspiracy liar named Swing Dumpster posts regularly on Screw Loose Change but he never comes here (the JREF).
Gee, I wonder why Swingie refuses to parade his ignorance in front of that super-savvy crowd.

 
At 09 March, 2007 12:56, Blogger CHF said...

Actually CHF, that question is from an engineer. But thanks for asking.

And his name is....?

The offical theory contradicts itself making it an invalid theory based upon the gravitational collapsed compared to the destruction of the structures themselves.

I guess you're saying that masses of 40,000 and 120,000 tons should be able to crash through a massive structure and not get smashed up themselves.

What stunning idiocy.

 
At 09 March, 2007 14:27, Blogger Alex said...

So what destroyed the top of the towers during the collapse?

Gravity, stupid.

Explosives.

G-R-A-V-I-T-Y!!

Do you have ANY idea how much explosive it would take to do what you're suggesting?

Obviously not.

I know you can't help that you were born retarded, but you could at least keep your mouth shut and let people think you're not a total idiot.

I noticed all of you try to reason the way out of the simple question by avoiding it.

Nobody's avoided a single one of your questions. If there are any sentences followed by a question mark which we HAVE ignored, it's probably because they make no sense. Case in point:

See where you are at with the offical theory?

Huh?

Thanks for playing, you just all proved the offical theory as nonsesnese.

We also proved that you're a child molester, remember?

 
At 09 March, 2007 15:06, Blogger Stevew said...

Once the collapse started and as it tilted there was no support to hold it together, the structure was not designed to be supported at an angle. There was also a huge antenna that weighed is at several hundred of thousand tons that started the second colapse.

The floors were not designed to be self standing and with the support gone, they just crumbled. The toofers just don't want to understand this

 
At 09 March, 2007 17:48, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Swing Dangler said...
Rev I saw the tilting, silly.


Excellent, so what do you call it when you told an idea you know is untrue as being true in your mind?

So you choose little resistance,

I'm not sure what there is to choose, it was pretty obviously the case that the towers came down rapidly, though far slower than if they had come down in the air (as you claimed and seem to have abandoned now it's been pointed out that you're wrong, though I've no doubt you'll return to it)

without an explanation of the destruction of the top of the towers.

I'll choose Newton's third law of motion: although the 'destruction of the top of the towers' before striking the ground is not based on observational evidence (for the very limited time they remained observable they were obviously a relatively cohesive chunk), I'm assuming the destruction of the tops of the towers anyway because the same forces acting on the bottom of the towers would also be acting on the tops. I certainly wouldn't try to argue the case though, since as I just pointed out, there's no actual direct evidence the tops of the towers did disintegrate before hitting the ground, and I wouldn't assume it was a disintegration in anything but the broadest sense (ie., it stopped holding its general shape as it came apart)

So what destroyed the top of the towers during the collapse?
Explosives.


Yes, explosives which don't show up on seismographs and which unlike every controlled demolition don't require precutting of columns and which for some reason you believe are used to completely destroy 11+ floors of building above the impact zone

Or what removed resistance?

The large amount of mass + acceleration

Your hypothesis is an obviously added one, explains nothing which the scientific explanation doesn't already, and actually contradicts quite a bit of evidence, thus it should be trimmed by parsimony

 
At 10 March, 2007 09:47, Blogger Ivana said...

That's the problem with these idiots, they just can't come up with a scenario that makes any sense. I could buy the idea that a little-bit of explosives was used to start the collapse. There's zero evidence for it, but it's not impossible. But the idea that charges were planted on all of the top floors to make them "disintegrate" in mid air? That's so ludicrous that only a "special child" like our Swingy could come up with it.

 
At 10 March, 2007 10:17, Blogger Stevew said...

Ivana
The floors were not designed to be self standing and with the support gone, they just crumbled. There was no rebar just thin wire and they were only 3-4 inchec thick. Much of the dust was caused by the destruction of the thousand tons of drywall. The trusses that supported tha floors were flimsey, they looked like they were made from thin conduit,they should have been larger and had vertical supports. The angle clips that held the trusses should have had a diagonal brace as well. Cost was a major issue at the time and these were cheaper. No one thought at the time that anything like 911 would happen

 
At 12 March, 2007 05:21, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Rev go do some googling and find out if the truck bomb in 1994 at the WTC register on the seismograph?

NM, I will answer for you. No it did not. So that part of your arguement is done so stop relying on Implosion World's flawed arguement.

Go read about the 34 plus people that experienced a something similiar to truck bomb in the sub-levels in 01. You really are clueless.

came down rapidly, though far slower than if they had come down in the air
How much slower?

ALex, what is up bro! Go protect the borders cause you were proven a liar, fraud, and a Candian coward long ago. And go back and examine that thread from months ago, and you will see you are lying again as I pointed out the errors and fallacies in your logic, debunking the child molester comment.

 
At 12 March, 2007 05:27, Blogger Alex said...

It's painfully obvious that you have no idea what the word "proof" actually means. I'm curious, have you EVER found a person who actually agreed with you, but didn't also believe in 5 other wacky conspiracies which you DON'T believe in? Anyway, thanks for the laughs, and keep 'em coming!

 
At 12 March, 2007 06:13, Blogger Stevew said...

I love it, sd now knows more about CD than Brent Blanchard, a 20 year expert in CD LOL

 
At 12 March, 2007 12:14, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Rev go do some googling and find out if the truck bomb in 1994 at the WTC register on the seismograph?

NM, I will answer for you. No it did not.


And the answer is...yes, actually, of course it did, and you're wrong.

I have no idea what twisted psyche could possibly believe it didn't. The fact that two independent seismographs picked up two 'wave trains' sent conspiracy theorists into a frenzy. It's even the subject of a university lecture.

Go read about the 34 plus people that experienced a something similiar to truck bomb in the sub-levels in 01.

Yeah, and how many people felt it when a plane crashed into the building they were in or when a nearby building came down?

You really are clueless.

You honestly believe that the Oklahoma city bombing didn't register on seismographs or that such a scenario would even physically be possible. I'm going to take your 'clueless' insult under advisement.

 
At 12 March, 2007 19:54, Blogger Alex said...

To be fair, Rev, I think he was talking about the 1994 WTC bombing, not the attack on the Oklahoma federal building. And I really don't know whether any seismograph picked up the 1994 explosion. If any had been close enough, and had been turned on at the time, then ofcourse they would have registered it. I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to prove, but he's failing miserably as usual.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home