More Lies and Distortions from David Ray Griffin

Continuing from my previous article, it is time to continue exposing David Ray Griffin’s lies in his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omission And Distortions as outlined by Andrew Burfield in his article “A Comprehensive Analysis of The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr David Ray Griffin,” found here.

                This article will deal with claims 6 through 10.

     First, we have claims 6-8, from pages 25 and 26 of DRG’s book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, found here: “6.      The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26),”

 “ 7.      The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26),” and

“8.      The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).”

     Burfield  puts these 3 claims together, because as Burfield states, “the reply to claims 6-8 are the same.”

     First of all, the 9/11 Commission report’s focus was from the time Flight 11 impacted with WTC 1 and the time WTC 1 collapsed. Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission report was released more than a year before NIST released its final report on WTC 1 and WTC 2 and well before it completed the investigation of the collapse of WTC 7. (reference ).

     The following quote from Burfield  makes the point quite nicely: “The 9/11 Commission was not mandated to investigate the specific details of the collapses, nor, were it given this mandate, did it possess the expertise or resources to conduct such an investigation. As Dr. Griffin’s book was published in 2005, it is understandable that it does not cite the final NIST report, which was not released until late 2005.  However it is not reasonable that Dr Griffin was unaware that NIST was conducting their investigation.  Between May 2002 and July 2004 NIST released six interim reports containing summaries of their progress to date in their investigations. Furthermore, it is neither reasonable, nor understandable that Dr Griffin continues to raise these specific concerns over 18 months after the release of the final report by NIST.  This behaviour is one of intellectual dishonesty.”

     Another quote from page 25 of the aforementioned DRG book is this: “A second problem is that the fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were quite small.  We have all seen the pictures of the giant fireball after the South Tower was hit.  This fireball did not signal a raging fire inside, however, but the opposite.  There was such a big fireball outside because the building was struck near a corner, so that much of the jet fuel burned up outside.  There was, accordingly, not much fuel to feed the fire inside.  Photographs show, in fact, that not a single floor beyond the fire’s starting location was hot enough to ignite paper or plastic or to break windows.” (source )

      I can tell you one blatant lie of David Ray Griffin’s right now- it seems to me that a plane slamming into a building at between 400 and 500 MPH would be more than sufficient to break a window or two. One other thing Griffin neglects to mention is that both planes had approximately 10,000 gallons (37,800 litres) when they hit (source ).

      As we see here,  NIST, using the videos and photos taken that day, was able to estimated that the planes had consumed between 10 to 25% of the fuel before impact and Burfield  states, “Allowing the higher threshold of fuel burned (25%) that still leaves over 28,000 litres of fuel to start fires in the building.” 28,000 litres is about 7,932 gallons. In addition, as Burfield  points out, anyone in or near the area of impact for more than a very brief period is dead, exposing yet another of DRG’s lies, as do the photos about a quarter of the way down the page here. Burfield correctly points out that these photos of the fires were taken from outside the buildings and therefore are as he put it, a “MINIMUM indicator of the extent of the fires.”  

         This quote from here  also shows DRG is lying: “Numerous first responders and civilian witnesses reported that the fires in the WTC were so intense they could feel the heat on their faces from the street below.”

         One other thing Griffin neglects to mention is the reason the south tower fell first despite being hit second is because Flight 175 was going a bit faster than flight 11, which means it hit with a bit more energy- as any physics book will tell you, kinetic energy increases by the SQUARE of the velocity, plus it hit lower down, meaning Flight 175 caused more damage as it hit with more energy and force.  This means that despite having been hit second, the South tower had a more extensively damaged area trying to support more weight as it was hit lower down than the north tower. Go about halfway down the page here  and Burfield himself provides the calculations.  Clearly, David Ray Griffin needs to take a physics class or two.

       Griffin also uses the melted steel straw man, never mind that only “truthers” have made that claim- the fires were more than sufficient to weaken the steel, which was all that was needed as the impact of the planes dislodged the fireproofing (reference )

As for WTC 7, go about ¾ or so of the way down the page here  and you will see the REAL facts about WTC 7.  Readers may also want to check out an article by Brent Blanchard as well.

Next we have claim 9 from pages 26 and 27 of DRG’s book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omission And Distortions, found here: “9.      The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).”

Here are the 10 features and Andrew Burfield’s  responses:

 “1.      Each collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed.” (source)

      First of all, as Burfield  correctly points out and as any physics book will tell you, freefall can only occur in a vacuum (and the only vacuum here on earth is between the ears of “truthers.” Either that or “truthers” are getting the physics definition of vacuum confused with the thing you use to clean your house.


    (picture from here )

     In short, the friction of the earth’s atmosphere will slow down falling objects (source ).

      Burfield provides the calculations about ¼ of the way down the page here  showing that there’s no way the buildings collapsed at freefall speeds.

     Characteristic 2 that Griffin provides is, “each building collapsed straight down.” (source ) While Burfield goes into further detail here, I just have one little question of my own for DRG (and “truthers” in general) on their statement that the buildings collapsed straight down:  How else is a building supposed to collapse? Is it supposed to do a few jumping jacks first? Maybe it was supposed to shoot off into space like a rocket?

(picture from here)

     Burfield  also shoots down characteristics 3-10 quite nicely and I will address them in a future article. In the meantime, I will proceed to claim 10.

     Claim 10 from pages 27 and 28 of  the specified book of DRG is this: “10.    The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft” — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).” (reference ).

    The big issue is this quote from here: “Another problem with Dr Griffin’s statement is that, as we have seen previously, the core of each tower did remain “sticking up hundreds of feet in the air” for some time after the initial collapse. These core sections did not remain standing for very long, for the simple reason that they were incapable of remaining standing.  The core of the towers were never designed to stand on their own.  With the majority of the structure gone, the cores were subjected to forces that greatly exceeded their structural limits.”

     There is more but it is becoming more and more obvious that David Ray Griffin is lying through his teeth and may want to take a fire extinguisher to his pants, or, if readers will pardon the immaturity,  as the following picture puts it:

            (picture from here )



Posted May 26, 2011 by Victor Chabala in Mocking Truthers, Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: