Nila Sagadevan
Re: 9/11, Morons and Magic:
Thu Mar 8, 2007 14:33
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Submission
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:12:05 -0800
From: Nila Sagadevan nila@truepennymedia.com
To: Eric Garris egarris2@antiwar.com
CC: 911 Research
To: The editor of Antiwar.com ( http://www.antiwar.com  )

Eric,

I found your curt response strangely evasive.

By your comment, “My already-low opinion of Mr. Griffin has fallen further”, would you not then necessarily need to include all the other highly reputable individuals who have endorsed his work in your sweeping assessment?

Instead of summarily dismissing Mr. Griffin with nothing more than innuendo, I wonder whether it would be possible for you to respond directly and specifically to a few of the questions he raises:

1. What caused Building 7 to collapse into its own footprint in a 6.6-second freefall when it was not struck by an aircraft? Also, what did the building’s owner, Larry Silverstein mean by his comment, “We decided to pull it”.
2. The basis upon which you summarily dismiss the LAWS of Conservation of Momentum according to which it is impossible for the three towers to have collapsed at freefall speeds (never mind neatly into their own footprints -- and never mind the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of similar-sized jetliners).
3. The basis upon which you summarily dismiss the LAWS of Thermodynamics, according to which it is impossible for jet fuel — I.e., kerosene — to have melted or deformed the high-grade steel used in the WTC towers (tested and passed by Underwriters Laboratories).
4. What was the source of energy that propelled multi-ton beams several hundred feet horizontally?
5. What was the source of energy that caused the utter pulverization — to a pyroclastic cloud — of the 800,000 cubic feet of concrete in the Twin Towers? Was it Gravity? Kerosene?
6. Why did this alleged “pancake” collapse NOT leave the 47 massive central core columns jutting a thousand feet into the sky after all 110 floors had collapsed around them? (Never mind there were no “pancakes” left on the ground). What was the source of energy that caused these central columns to virtually disappear?

If you cannot, or will not, respond to these specific question — just six of hundreds — I’m afraid you would only be demonstrating your state of abject, incorrigible denial.

I would have expected more of the editor of an excellent blog such as Antiwar.com.

Incidentally, have you even read “The New Pearl Harbor”. I really can’t see how you could have — if you have, it’s impossible for me to conceive — I truly mean that — how you could, with a clear mind (or conscience) challenge, let alone refute ANY of the unassailable points raised in the book.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Nila Sagadevan
--------------------------------
From: Eric Garris
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:04:41 -0800
To: Nila Sagadevan
Subject: Re: Submission

What a poor response. My already-low opinion of Mr. Griffin has fallen further.

Morons and Magic: A Reply to BBC’s George Monbiot

David Ray Griffin
ICH
Thursday, March 8, 2007

In “Bayoneting a Scarecrow - The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.” (Guardian, February 20), George Monbiot accuses members of the 9/11 truth movement of being “morons” and “idiots” who believe in “magic.” Having in his previous attack---“A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world,” Guardian, February 6---called me this movement’s “high priest,” he now describes my 9/11 writing as a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense.”

03/07/07 "ICH " -- - 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?

If anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is by definition an idiot, then Moncbiot would have to sling that label at Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program; Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense; former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney; General Leonid Ivashov, former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; all the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth; and most of the individuals listed under “Professors Question 9/11” on the “Patriots Question 9/11” website.

One of the reasons these people reject the government’s conspiracy theory is that, if they were to accept the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they would need to affirm magical beliefs. A few examples:

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.

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.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

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.

Monbiot, regarding the 9/11 truth movement’s conspiracy theory as a wrong-headed distraction, fails to see that the obviously false and truly distracting conspiracy theory is the official 9/11 myth, which has been used to justify imperial wars and increased militarism, thereby distracting attention from global apartheid and the ecological crisis. We focus on the 9/11 myth because, until it is exposed, getting our governments to focus wholeheartedly on the truly urgent issues of our time will be impossible.

David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. He has published over 30 books, including four about 9/11. His next book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, will be out in April.

Main Page - Friday, 03/09/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)