P. 1
Griffin - The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2009) - Synopsis

Griffin - The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2009) - Synopsis

|Views: 75|Likes:
Published by Mark K. Jensen
Synopsis of David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2010 [released September 2009]). -- Discussed at Digging Deeper (www.ufppc.org) on February 7, 2011.
Synopsis of David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2010 [released September 2009]). -- Discussed at Digging Deeper (www.ufppc.org) on February 7, 2011.

More info:

Published by: Mark K. Jensen on Feb 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/24/2013

pdf

text

original

UFPPC (www.ufppc.org) Digging Deeper CXLIX: February 7, 2011, 7:00 p.m.

David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2010 [released September 2009). [Thesis. The account of the collapse on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, of 47story Building 7 of the North Tower some 200 yards north of the World Trade Center's North Tower is the "Achilles heel" of the official account of 9/11 because it cannot be explained without evoking domestic, probably government agents (the attempt by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in a final report issued in 2008 is false and constitutes scientific fraud).] Epigraph. Sinclair Lewis [in 1935]: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Dedication. To three scientists (Niels Harris, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan) and the memory of Barry Jennings, "whose truth-telling may have cost him his life" (v). Acknowledgments. Various assistants (viii). Frequently Cited Works. 8 NIST documents (ix). Introduction: The Background to NIST's WTC 7 Report. "There are two main theories" about 9/11: 1) an alQaeda operation; 2) a false-flag operation of the Bush-Cheney administration (xi). The 9/11 truth movement believes that the falsity of the first account is "most obvious" with respect to the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center (ix). The collapse of this 47-story building was scarcely covered or mentioned after 9/11 (xii-xiii). To many experienced observers, WTC 7 was obviously brought down by a controlled demolition (xiv-xv). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) worked for six years (not three, as claimed) on explaining the collapse (xvi). Popular Mechanics treated a preliminary "working hypothesis" of NIST as a definitive solution in its influential March 2005 issue (xvii-xviii). But NIST's final report abandoned two key claims on which Popular Mechanics relied: that diesel fuel in WTC 7 fed fires for hours, and that WTC 7 was structurally damaged by falling debris from the North Tower (xviii-xix). Summary of book (xix-xx). Terminological notes: "explosive," "Final Report," and "final report" (xx-xxi). PART I: NIST's Unscientific Rejection of the Most Likely Theory Ch. 1: NIST as a Political, Not a Scientific Agency. Because a large segment of the population, including many educated professionals, consider the Bush-Cheney administration suspect in 9/11, it is inappropriate that "all of the official investigations of 9/11, including the NIST investigation, were carried out by representatives of the Bush-Cheney administration" (3; 3-5). FEMA (5-6). The 9/11 Commission and its director, Philip Zelikow (6-8). NIST (8-12). Ch. 2: Some Principles of Scientific Method. The nature of scientific fraud (13-15). Because the NIST report consisted entirely of computer modeling, the line in it between fabrication and falsification is sometimes hard to draw in the NIST report (16). It is a scientific principle that "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored" (17, emphasis in original). Another principle is that "an investigation should aim to reach the best explanation" (17,

emphasis in original). These are moral, not merely scientific, positions (18). Extra-scientific considerations should not be allowed to determine the conclusions of an investigation (18-20). "[S]cientists should begin with the most likely hypothesis" (20). Occam's razor (21). Straw-man arguments (21-22). Prima facie implausible claims should not be made without good reasons (22-23). Unprecedented causes should not, without good reasons, be posited to explain familiar occurrences (23-24). Miracles should not be invoked (24-25). Peer review (25-26). Ch. 3: NIST's Refusal to Begin with the Most Likely Hypothesis. NIST ruled out, from the beginning, controlled demolition as a cause (27-29). Instead of starting by looking for evidence of explosives, as it should have, NIST defined its "challenge" as "to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire" (29). This must have been done "on political grounds" (30; 30-31). Ch. 4: NIST's Ignoring of Physical Evidence for Explosives. Evidence of demolition squibs was ignored (34-35). A video that emerged in 2008 clearly shows "a vertical row of approximately eight windows" [actually, inspection of the video shows a vertical row of windows on seven consecutive floors] being blown out; NIST ignored this evidence (35). NIST's dismissive handling of credible testimony of molten metal in WTC 7 as "irrelevant" is unscientific and absurd (39; 36-39). When Deutsche Bank had to respond to an insurer's claim that the dust in its building was a pre-existing condition, it had the RJ Lee Group prepare a 2004 report whose description of the dust implies (and states, in its 2003 draft form) that it was formed from molten metal and vaporized lead, implying temperatures over 3,180º F.

(hydrocarbon fires cannot much exceed 1,000º F.), but NIST ignored this report (40-42). A 2005 USGS report on WTC dust also found spherical iron- and zincrich dust; it, too, was ignored by NIST (42-43). A group of scientists led by Steven Jones found a molybdenumsphere dust particle, which would require temperatures over 4,753º F. to form (4445). NIST also deliberately ignored evidence from other scientists of a thinning of steel that suggested the use of thermate (thermite + sulfur that lowers the melting point of steel) (45-54). Nanothermite could explain the longburning fires at Ground Zero and unusual particles in the air there long after 9/11, but NIST ignored the subject (54-62). A peer-reviewed 2009 paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal by Niels Harrit of the Univ. of Copenhagen concluded that red-grey chips found in dust at the WTC site were "unreacted thermite"; Harrit estimated that 10 tons were used to bring down the three buildings (6266). Responses to question make clear that investigators were determinedly closed-minded (66-73). NIST violated accepted published "principles of fire investigations" (74;73-74). Ch. 5: NIST's Ignoring of Testimonial Evidence for Explosives. NIST ignored abundant eyewitness testimony of explosions in the Twin Towers from engineers, journalists, and firefighters (75-78). The omission was demonstrably deliberate and constitutes "scientific fraud" (80; 79-81). NIST ignored a witness, William Rodriguez, who tried to submit testimony (81-82). Michael Hess reported an explosion in WTC 7 (85-86). Barry Jennings, the emergency coordinator/deputy director of the Emergency Services Dept. of the NYC Housing Authority who in 2009 died somewhat mysteriously (his cause of death is still unknown) at the age of 53, gave several detailed accounts of explosions in WTC 7 (86-92). Jenning's testimony establishes that "There were

explosions in WTC 7 on the morning of 9/11, with a huge on occurring not long after 9:03, hence prior to the collapse of both of the Twin Towers" (104; 92-104). Inconsistencies in the NIST timeline (10410). Other evidence of internal damage (110-11). Many said they know the building was coming down (111-14). Premature news of the building's collapse was broadcast (114-16). A number of people were heard to report intentions to bring down the building, including WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein (117-21). Much expert testimony is persuaded explosives brought down WTC 7 (12122). Chapter summary (123). Ch. 6: NIST's Straw-Man Argument against Explosives. Review of argument (125). NIST identified a "most plausible scenario" involving explosives to examine (125-26). It then argued that this was implausible, because it would have caused window breakage that did not occur, sounds that did not occur, and would have been detected (but was not), but these arguments do not stand up to scrutiny (126-34). An additional fallacious argument (134-35). NIST ignored the possibility of thermites and thermates, much less nanothermite (13536). NIST did not discuss these explosives in its report, and in another document discussing them "engaged in deception" (138; 136-138). Analysis of the backgrounds of NIST's directors from 2001 to 2008, its advisors, and its research shows were all conversant with nanotechnology (139-42). By acknowledging that "some fragments" of the North Tower "were forcibly ejected and traveled distances up to hundreds of meters," NIST implicitly acknowledged in its 2008 report that explosives destroyed the Twin Towers (143; 142-44). PART II: NIST's Unscientific Arguments for Its Own Theory Ch. 7: NIST's Theory of an Unprecedented Collapse: An

Overview. NIST claimed in its final report that WTC 7 was the "first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires" (147). But since NIST decided that structural damage caused by debris from the North Tower played no role, "primarily" can be removed (147-48). NIST claimed to have "identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse" (148). Physicist John Wyndham wrote to NIST that this "runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings," and architect Richard Gage wrote that "In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever" (149). But NIST was intent on avoiding evoking explosives, because this would imply complicity by "domestic—most likely government— agents" (149). An outline of NIST's theory: fires started on 10 floors and on 6 of them burned intensely for 7 hours at high temperatures, causing thermal expansion and floor and column failures Ch. 8: The Initiation and Spread of Fires: NIST's Unempirical Account. Though it claimed fires burned for seven hours, NIST provided evidence only of fires that burned from 40 minutes to three hours (157-78). Ch. 9: Fire and Steel Temperatures: Implausible Claims Based on Distorted Data. Unrealistically hot fires were posited, the thermal conductivity of steel was ignored, and fires lasting too long in one place were supposed, thus permitting production of hypothetical exaggerated temperatures (179-207). Ch. 10: From Thermal Expansion to Global Collapse: Fabrications and Contradictions. Review of the theory of collapse (209-11). But NIST's account of thermal expansion of steel beams overestimated steel temperatures, falsely claimed girders had no shear

studs, used a fabricated differential thermal expansion by not calculating the expansion of heated concrete floor slabs, and exaggerated how far beams would have moved (211-23). Its theory of weakened floor beams depends on excessive fire temperatures and durations, its theory of girder failure depends on denial of the existence of shear studs and a fabricated differential thermal expansion, and presupposes an unlikely amount of elongation—and even so, fails to account for the free-fall rate of collapse (224-44). Conclusion: NIST's WTC 7 Report as Unscientific and False. The report was not merely unscientific, but constituted scientific fraud (245-49). It refused to begin with the most likely hypothesis (249-51). It did not undergo peer review (251-53). In addition to being unscientific, the report is false (a logically separate and more important claim) (253-55). This is important because it follows "that Muslim terrorists were not responsible for the collapse of this building" (255). Twenty-one reasons to question the official 9/11 story (256-59). The refutation of the WTC 7 report also debunks the notion that the 9/11 truth movement is a bunch of ignoramuses: au contraire, it involves hundreds of accredited professionals (259-60). It is one of the missions of the National Science Foundation to pursue scientific fraud, but Director Arden Bement will need to be replaced first (260). [NOTE: This occurred in 2010, when Pres. Obama appointed MIT's Subra Suresh to the post.] Appendix A: Why Did Explosions in WTC 7 Begin by 9:30AM? Preliminary removal of structural elements is common in controlled demolitions; others suggest that a first attempt to bring the building around 10:45 a.m. failed (26165). An independent investigation is needed (266).

Appendix B: Another Towering Inferno That Did Not Collapse. The failure of Beijing's 500-story Television Cultural Center (TVCC) to collapse in a Feb. 9, 2009, fire (267-69). Notes. 51 pp. Index. 8 pp. About the Author. David Ray Griffin has published 35 books on philosophy, religion, and politics. [Additional information. David Ray Griffin was born in 1939 and lives in Santa Barbara, CA. He grew up in the Disciples of Christ church, but abandoned ambitions for the ministry in college. He graduated from Northwest Christian College in Eugene, OR, and has a master’s degree in counseling from the University of Oregon and a Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University, where he embraced a Whiteheadian version of process theology. In 1973, he returned to Claremont, where he taught for 30 years and established the Center for Process Studies with John B. Cobb. In 1983 he started the Center for a Postmodern World in Santa Barbara, and edited the SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Philosophy from 1987 to 2004. It is perhaps ironical that his involvement with the 9/11 truth movement has made him a defender of Enlightenment values and science. — In the spring of 2003 Prof. Griffin examined Paul Thompson’s timeline and read Gore Vidal’s Dreaming War, which pointed him to Nafeez Ahmed’s The War on Freedom: How and Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001. Believing they provided a prima facie case for some level of governmental complicity, he became involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement by writing a magazine article that grew into The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Olive Branch Press, 2004). He has become its most

respected voice in the academy. On related themes Griffin has also written The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), Debunking 9/11 Debunking (2007), and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited (2008), and, with Peter Dale Scott, has edited 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006).] [Critique. Like his 9/11 Contradictions, David Ray Griffin's The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 is drily analytical, like a legal brief. The focus is entirely on the NIST report; there is no

speculation about what who benefited from the collapse of this building. Diagrams, drawing, photographs, and timelines would have been desirable. — As in previous books, Griffin makes a convincing and well-documented case in dry and sober prose for the need for a new and independent investigation of 9/11. — A cursory search for mainstream reviews of this book found none. — A 22-minute Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Griffin on 9/11 generally was broadcast on Dec. 4, 2009, and is available at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/20092010/the_unofficial_story/video_griffin.ht ml]

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->