recent drg interviews esp. for newbies that claim they want answers

[DimeDR]

2008-06-23_Gary_Null_Interviews_David_Ray_Griffin.MP3


2008-06-24_Gary_Null_Interviews_David_Ray_Griffin.MP3

[tar_baby]

Debunking David Ray Griffin (Again)


I am going to have to stop listening to these David Ray Griffin interviews. I could only make it about 16 minutes into this interview before wanting to smash my head against the monitor.

George Kenney: David’s analysis is an important litmus test for intellectual honesty. I am not saying he is right about everything or that one must agree with him, but intellectual rigor and neutral methodology are clearly on his side.

You have got to be kidding me. This is the guy who wrote "These reports of having seen a missile or a small military plane [at the Pentagon] must, accordingly, be given more weight."in his book, when he didn't even list a single report that fit that description. Intellectual rigor indeed.

Here Griffin explains why he writes such crap:

Griffin: Process theology and philosophy is inclusive, and deals with the interconnection of various disciplines that have been kept apart by too many forms of thought. One of those is science and religion. So a lot of my work has been, not in theology proper but in philosophy and religion with a heavy emphasis on philosophy of science. In fact several of my books are on science and religion, and the philosophy of science.

Kenney: So you are following Alfred North Whitehead I guess?

Griffin: Yes, his philosophy made the interconnection of science and religion the most important issue. And so that was uh, and important part of my background. And secondly, this form of thought stresses the interconnection of religion and politic. So I had also done quite a bit of thinking about political matters….

I would have to agree completely, this guy applies religious-like beliefs in his cause to science in ways that would make the most fervent televangelist jealous.

Now this part I couldn’t believe. Keep in mind, this is not just some guy I found on the Internet who only watched his first Youtube video yesterday. This is supposedly the most learned mind the 9/11 deniers can come up with. The guy has written 5 books on 9/11 for God’s sake, and yet he will still say crap like this:

Griffin: Likewise, when they finally confront the evidence that there was molten metal under the towers and building 7.
Kenney:For a considerable period of time after the event.

Griffin: Oh, weeks if not months. And it was still in a molten state when people were… crane operators were pulling out the beams and said it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel.

What? Did he really just say that? Let me rewind this and play that again…
"it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel. "

You have got to be kidding me. Explosives don’t melt steel, least of all not months after they are used. They do their work through pressure, not intense lasting heat. Whenever they blow up a hotel in Vegas do you see the fire department spending weeks hosing down the red hot debris afterwards before they can clean it up? No, once the dust settles you can go pick it up if you want.

And this is the best they got?

Update: Griffin later argues that the steel in the towers could not have weakened unless they were exposed to fires for several hours, because steel is a good conducter of heat, and the heat would be conducted away from the source of the fires almost instantly. He does not explain, however, how this works with his previous theory, that once steel is molten, it dissipates heat so poorly that it manages to stay in this molten state for weeks after that.

[tar_baby]

April 29th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Debunking David Ray Griffin Continued

» by Victor Chabala in: FHK/General
Unless otherwise indicated, all information in this article comes from “On Debunking 911 Debunking” by Ryan Mackey.
On pages 30-32, Ryan Mackey provides us with David Ray Griffin’s comparison of the ‘88 First Interstate Bank fire in L.A. That fire lasted for 3 ½ hours and destroyed five floors, but the structural damage was negligible.
However, there are several differences which Griffin ignores- fortunately, Ryan Mackey provides the differences, and those differences were as follows:

1. There was no loss of fireproofing, unlike the WTC
2. There was considerably less ventilation, and therefore less oxygen for the First Interstate Bank fire, unlike the WTC, where the impact of the planes left gaping holes in the side and broke windows
3. The LA Fire Dept was able to fight that fire as it started on a fairly low floor and the elevators were still functional, and
4. The First Interstate Bank more than likely started at a single location and spread slowly rather than starting across multiple floors at once

On page 23, Ryan Mackey shows us that David Ray Griffin uses the typical “truther” fallacy of black smoke means an oxygen-starved fire at temperatures far lower than 1000º C and that another of Griffin’s sources, James Hoffman (who, as we see here, is a SOFTWARE ENGINEER) claims that temperatures between 800º and 1100ºC can occur in office fires but only briefly. However, let’s not forget that oil wells that catch fire will emit lots of black smoke- and oil wells are outdoors where there’s loads of oxygen.
On page 24, Ryan Mackey notes that Griffin backpedals and says that Hoffman stated that some large indoor fires produce bright orange flames as they have plenty of oxygen and are hotter. The trouble is orange flames were seen emerging from the WTC windows.
On pages 28 and 29, Ryan Mackey provides the following quote from David Ray Griffin’s book Debunking 911 Debunking:

However, NIST found no evidence that fire resistance tests of the WTC floor system were ever conducted. As a result, NIST conducted a series of four standard fire resistance tests (ASTM E 119). In this series of tests, the effects of three factors were studied: (1) thickness of sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM), (2) test restraint conditions, and (3) scale of the test. The tests were conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. under a NIST contract and represented both full-scale (35 ft span) and reduced-scale (17 ft span) floor assemblies constructed to represent the original design as closely as practical. … The restrained full-scale floor system obtained a fire resistance rating of 1 ½ h, while the unrestrained floor system achieved a 2 h rating. For the unrestrained test condition, specimens protected with ¾ in. thick sprayed fire resistive material were able to sustain the maximum design load for approximately 2 h without collapsing; in the unrestrained test, the load was maintained without collapsing for 3½ h.

However, as Ryan Mackey points out, this is exactly the type of test that would have been done before the Twin Towers were constructed. He further gives us the three main points that prove Griffin wrong:

1. The fire rating only applies to the COMPLETE structural system, which necessarily includes undamaged fireproofing. Hint: This means high speed aircraft impacts render the fire rating worthless.
2. The rating’s only an estimated measure of the time the structural steel can withstand a fire, which is not necessarily representative of an individual fire, and
3. The fire rating is NOT to any particular temperature- the 2000º F temperature Griffin uses is the MAXIMUM FURNACE TEMPERATURE, not the temperature of the steel.

As usual, David Ray Griffin has no idea what he’s talking about.

[tar_baby]

....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand BUSTED!!

[Tiger V]

tar-may i ask you what color pill you took before posting that?