What does Griffin stand for?

Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense

2006-12-10T10:09:00.001-08:00

Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense

By theWebfairy
correct URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_E._Jones

Many people call those who understand physics "conspiracy theorists". Steel framed buildings are over-designed. Thinking that one could collapse at freefall speed from anything other than a controlled demolition is absurd. In order for a collapse at free fall speed, the underlying floors need to be removed before the floors above. It's something called Conservation of Momentum, and anyone not familiar with this should educate themselves before making a fool of themselves using the CT term again.

Former Clemson Univ Mechanical Engineering Professor Judy Wood already PROVED controlled demolitions, and her paper "A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory" has not been refuted. (Google it, but I can't post the link because wikipedia blacklisted it.)

Also look at her paper "Star Wars Beam Weapon". Contrary to Steven Jones "thermate", the Star Wars Beam Weapon theory takes into account ALL of the evidence. Anyone having even the tiniest bit of scientific reasoning skills should know that a hypothesis is only valid if it accounts for ALL of the evidence. I encourage all to carefully look through her papers and try to understand the information her reveals.

For instance, she says the towers did not collapse, but were blown up from from the top down with a high-energy device.

Mount St Helens - Erupting Volcano - Massive Energy Release: [1]

Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast - Massive Energy Release: [2]

WTC - Controlled Demolition or Impact Damage/Fires? - Massive Energy Release: [3] [4]

Some of her evidence is:

1. Concrete pulverized to powder in a way that cannot be accounted in a standard controlled demolition. (i.e. more than 50% of samples under 100 microns)

2. Videos show steel spire turning to dust and trickling down.

3. Photographs of Ground Zero showing no signs of enough concrete and steel to account for two 110 story towers.

4. Downtown Manhattan not flooded. (If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub, it would have broken through and flooded New York.)

5. Toasted cars over half a mile from Ground Zero. (Check out the numerous pictures in her "Star Wars" paper)

6. Round holes in the roof of WTC 5

7. a large vertical chunk missing from WTC 6

8. seismic readings too low

That's just a small sampling!!

Controlled demolitions at the WTC has been scientifically proven *long ago*, as the government's version defies basic laws of physics. At this point it's just a matter of figuring out what method was used for the demolition.

BTW, is everyone aware that GWB gave a speech (broadcast live on FOX) where he talks about Muslims planting bombs in the buildings?

As prominent conservative Paul Craig Roberts says: "How could government complicity be kept a secret? It can be kept a secret, because so many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak. They are incapable of realizing the contradiction in the government’s claim that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, and they are emotionally incapable of confronting the evil of the Bush regime." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm

Kings 32 11:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The BTS database

2006-12-06T19:17:00.000-08:00

When I described the BTS database as having been fixed that wasn’t totally accurate.
It has been altered, but not enough to provide the evidence necessary to show that these flights ever existed.
When the database was examined in 2003 it contained no record whatsoever of either flight11 or flight 77.
That database has been backed up, as it was envisaged that it would be altered.
Then ten months later it was found that the flights had been added to the database as scheduled, but that there was no flight data for them.
And the tail numbers have not been added.
The flight data is recorded in real time as the planes fly, and would be almost as difficult to fake as pictures of stars from the moon, for similar reasons of complexity.
“No flight data” shows that the planes never flew.
The summary statistics for the day were also not altered to include these flights.
So even after the database has been altered, it still provides ABSOLUTE PROOF that Both AA flights 11 and 77 never flew that day.
That is:
According to the database, the flights didn’t take off.
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/
So any individual who says that those flights flew is going directly against the evidence of the BTS database!
So how does the hijacking story fit in with that?

Questions for David Griffin.

2006-12-05T22:07:00.000-08:00

David,

You will be fully aware that your highest-level professor has declined to attempt to disprove the simple physics principles that say it is impossible for a plane to fly straight into a building and vanish inside it without being deflected in any way or leaving wreckage and burning fuel on the outside, as outlined in “Crash physics for everyone”:
http://crashphysics.blogspot.com/
Even despite the public humiliation of my efforts to get a response from him he has remained silent.
I have described this as “hiding under a rock”.
What happened instead of his answer was a vicious and slanderous post by Mark Bilk, that was so full of fallacies that it just had to be answered:
http://bilksmears.blogspot.com/
But his post came just after the professor had been asked openly to assess “crash physics for everyone”, and a main part of what he was saying is that his “believers” should not consider our arguments, even if they made sense.
This was on obvious attempt to try and stop Jones’s followers looking at evidence that will discredit him or his theories.
This is called ignoring evidence.
Bilk did promise on the same forum that he would answer my reply to his statement, but like the professor, he has hid under a rock.
(No, this one didn’t hide did he? He ran away)
Which to me would imply that he accepts the things that I said about him personally.
I said he was a spook.
I said that he contradicts undisputed scientific reasoning.
I said that it was obvious from things that have happened that he and the other controllers as 911blogger have the assistance of the security services.
Just today one of our valuable researchers has been the recipient of an intimidating communication that contained undisclosed personal details.
In Bilk’s attack he has the audacity to say that the actual researchers that have uncovered almost EVERY RELEVANT SCRAP OF EVIDENCE RE S11 are “not researchers”.
He opened his article with a totally misleading description of Dr Wood’s research, saying that she was alleging “Space beams”.
This was an obvious attempt to feed Dr Wood to the likes of Fox’s O’reilley, so that she could be described as “keeping an alien in her bedroom” etc.
For one, Star Wars generation weapons are disclosed and commercially available from Northrop Gumman at least.
They provide a demonstration of the disclosed technology here:
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/media/presskits/mediaGallery/thel/videos/media2_2_16388_16472.html
And for another the weapons platform used to destroy the towers has not yet been determined.
I will point out, however that if the weapon were satellite-based then it would be an orbital weapon and not a space weapon.
So the talk of “space beams” is slanderous anyhow.
So there is a situation where evidence is being cherry-picked for inclusion at 911blogger, and nobody wants to answer against points raised alleging a fraudulent suppression of evidence and security-services control of the site.
You, it appears are their hero.
Their figurehead.
The one they rally round.
And your book, “The new Pearl Harbour” is looked upon with some form of reverence.
So I took a look at it.
Firstly, the title is no good.
What does it mean?!
“Pearl Harbour” can be looked at in two ways:
1. An attack by an enemy that was knowingly allowed to happen for political purposes.
2. A genuine attack by an enemy requiring a genuine war in response.
Both options require that the enemy is real.
And S11 is being described as “The new Pearl Harbour (definition 2) by people within government.
So even on the basis of the TITLE of your book you agree with the government that Al Quaida is a genuine Muslim organisation, containing members that are full of hatred for the west and hell-bent on destroying our “freedoms”.
Maybe that WAS why you titled the book “The new Pearl Harbour”.
And then into the book I see that this is the case.
You refer to the hijackers over and over.
But at one point you call the flight capability of the hijackers into question and mention remote-controlled aircraft.
This was in a footnote, probably to avoid having to explain it (P175).
Were you implying that the fanatical Muslims took control of the aircraft but that remote-piloting technology had been installed in the aircraft to ensure that the job got pulled off better than the Muslims could have done it themselves? (Maybe because someone who “had foreknowledge” of what they had planned had also found out that none of them could fly?).
This is all a lie isn’t it?
Because for one The Bureau of transportation’s database revealed that both Flight 77 and flight 11 did not exist that day.
The database has been “fixed” now but the original has been backed up and represents concrete evidence against real hijackings having taken place.
The research article that deals with this can be found here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html
You just ignored the evidence gleaned from this research.
There is other evidence that you have ignored in repeating the government’s own story of fanatical Muslims hell-bent on destruction:
You ignored the flight instructor’s comments that none of them were capable of flying any type of aircraft.
You ignored a crash site devoid of any sign of an aircraft at Shanksville.
I don’t know what the evidence was when you wrote your book but now, at least, you ignore positive proofs of tv.fakery, particularly the live broadcast (and inclusion on fake “eyewitness” videos of flight 175’s nosecone exiting the South Tower, when there was clearly no hole for it to have come through.
But then I see in your credits that you are very choosy about who’s evidence you will consider.
I am going to stop right here, because the description of what you seem to be suggesting happened on S11 is remarkably close to what the government has said, except that you imply that somebody who knew about it on the inside allowed it to go ahead for possibly financial motives, and that the fanatical terrorists and the need to go and smash the Middle East into little poisoned bits before we get attacked by fanatics again is real.
So I wonder just how you differ from the government’s story.
Just a little?
Just enough to allow a fall-guy to take the blame, but keep the spectre of Muslim fanatics looming large?
To me it sounds exactly like what I would expect the real planners of the S11 atrocities to put forward so that the war of conquest and destruction can continue in the Middle East.
Your book does not actually detail what you believe to have happened that day.
Totally unbelievable!
So what in the book and your standpoint is everybody rallying around?
Before I can continue constructively with you I could really do with a brief run-down of what you believe ACTUALLY HAPPENED on S11.
If you can put this forward, it will be the first time you have done so, and we will see where it goes.
If you can’t then by default, you have no view of what happened on that day and therefore should not even be telling people who’s research it is ok to read and who’s it is not.
Whoever heard of such a thing?
Russians (native ones) under Stalin, that’s who!
AND YOUR FIELD OF LEARNING IS PHILOSOPHY?!!
I feel you should respond to this, because your best physics professor is hiding from questions about his understanding of elementary physics principles and the thug he sent out to try and discredit the group asking awkward questions has run away after saying that he was ready to defend himself against my assertion of his being a slanderous spook intent on suppressing valuable concrete evidence, and for some reason, the so-called truth movement seems to think you are a hero.
So we will have it plainly.
Describe the events of S11 and let’s see whether you are a hero or a stooge that has been put in place to carry out, let’s say “controlled demolitions” on selected fall-guys, leaving the elite plan that was launched on S11 up and running.
If you leave this unanswered then I will assume the reason to be (like the professor, and Bilk) because you simply cannot reply without incriminating yourself.
Let your response or not to this exposition of your standpoint stand as a lesson to those who are actually looking to find out what really happened on S11.