Even More DRG Lies exposed

As readers may remember from my previous article   I was in the process of debunking many of David Ray Griffins claims in his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,  which I found in an article titled “A Comprehensive Analysis of The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr David Ray Griffin, “ found here http://sites.google.com/site/9.   You may remember that in my previous article, I was working on claim 9 of DRG’s book The 9/11 Commission report: Omissions and Distortions from pages 26 and 27 of the aforementioned book and his 10 characteristics of controlled demolition, as well as Burfield’s  response.  As you recall, I only got to characteristics 1 and 2, freefall and collapsing straight down, respectively (again, for the second one, how else is a building supposed to collapse?) in my previous article.   I will now proceed with characteristics 3-10 of controlled demolition as David Ray Griffin tries to “prove,” and Burfield’s  responses.

            Characteristic 3 of controlled demolition, as claimed by David Ray Griffin is that all the concrete in the WTC was turned to very fine dust (source).

            Burfield, however, points out several problems: 1: The intention of controlled demolition is to bring the building down quickly in order to remove the debris as fast as possible.  Let’s not forget that the north and south tower were hit at 8:46 am and 9:03 am, respectively and they collapsed at 10:28 am (north tower) and 9:59 am (south tower), respectively. That means it took the north and south tower just shy of two hours and just shy of one hour to collapse, respectively (reference ).   That’s not exactly fast.  Oh, and let’s not forget the debris was smoldering for about 2 weeks, which made quick removal problematic, to say the least. 2:  In point of fact, dust is actually a problem when it comes to controlled demolition and demolition companies will spray debris piles with fire hoses to reduce the amount of dust. In addition, you would need an EXTREMELY large amount of explosives, not to mention it’s easier to remove large pieces of concrete than dust (reference ).  As there were people in the WTC 24/7, sneaking enough explosives in there to bring it down without anyone noticing would be IMPOSSIBLE. Also, the WTC was mainly steel and glass- only the floors were concrete and was a little over 11,000 cubic meters or about 14, 387 yards, not to mention the fact that only about 31.8% of the dust consisted of gypsum (plaster), and concrete.  Logically, since that is a mixture for gypsum (a component of drywall) and concrete, the amount of concrete in the dust would be LESS than 31.8 %. In addition, Burfield states that the analysis didn’t differentiate between concrete and gypsum, and the latter will also create a fine, white power, so there’s a good chance that that 31.8% was mostly gypsum (reference ).  It seems to me that two 110-story office buildings and one 47-story office building will have a LOT of drywall in them. Finally, this quote from Burfield provides this information: “             Further, an estimate of debris at Ground Zero by Phillips and Jordan, Inc. (the company that managed the disposal of debris from the WTC and managed the crime scene support facilities) indicates large quantities of concrete were present:

The initial debris estimate included 125,000 tons of glass, 250,000 tons of steel, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete, 12,000 miles of electrical cable, and 198 miles of ductwork.”  Hmm, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete- that would be an awful lot of dust.  It seems far more likely that was many chunks of concrete.

            Characteristic four, as DRG puts it in his book mentioned in this article, and as found here  is : “In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more.”

            There are, of course, many problems with this.  Burfield  provides links here, here, and here  showing that any time of building destruction, will produce dust particles, whether or not it is a controlled demolition.

Characteristic 5, as claimed by DRG is, as we see here, is “The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.” However, go about one-half to 3 quarters of the way down the page here, and you will see a post-collapse photo that clearly indicates otherwise.

Characteristic 6, as DRG tries to “prove,” is, as shown here: “Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions.”

The problem is, as Burfield points out, that Griffin cites Jeff King, who claims that the tower collapses produced pyroclastic flows.  There’s just one tiny little problem with that:  Pyroclastic flows ONLY OCCUR DURING A VOLCANIC ERUPTION (source)!

 (picture from here)

I don’t recall any volcanic eruptions in New York, and since volcanoes can only occur at convergent (coming together) plate boundaries, such as Italy, where the African tectonic plate is going under the European one (this is called subduction), divergent (moving apart) plate boundaries, such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, or in hot spots (a weak point in the earth’s crust where magma forces its way up) such as Hawaii, I doubt we ever will have volcanic eruptions there anytime soon.

Characteristic 7 as DRG claims is that “Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long,” however, as Burfield indicates and shows by a photo here, the steel came down relatively intact.

Claim 8 of Griffin’s is that many people heard explosions in the building. While technically true, what Griffin doesn’t mention is explosions don’t necessarily come from explosives and Burfield  provides this link to 911myths.com, which I myself have used many times and goes into much greater detail.

Characteristic  9, as found here is:    “Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions).”  However, Burfieldhttp://sites.google.com/site/911guide/griffin29 refers us to Brent Blanchard, who goes into much greater detail, as well as Columbia University.

            And, last but not least, we have characteristic 10 as claimed by Griffin in his book I am citing in this article,  found here:   ” Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.”

            This quote from Burfield  indicates the problem with Griffin’s claim quite nicely: “Explosives work by producing enormous amounts of over pressure in a very short space of time, shattering and breaking steel and concrete.  Explosives do not generate significant amounts of heat, and what heat is produced is quickly dissipated.

Explosives simply cannot produce enough heat to liquefy steel, which melts at around 1,500degreesC depending on the precise composition of the alloy.

On the other hand, when the towers and WTC7 collapsed they had raging infernos inside them as we previously saw.  They were also full of large quantities of flammable material which was buried.

Underground fires can burn for very long periods of time, at very high temperatures.”

            As you can see, the only omissions and distortions are coming from David Ray Griffin.


Posted June 12, 2011 by Victor Chabala in Mocking Truthers, Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: