Wednesday, February 18, 2009

You Said You'd Never Forget Part III: I'll Give You a Conspiracy Theory!

I finally finished 9/11 Contradictions by David Ray Griffin, and I have a lot to take in and to work through my brain. As you've already seen, the contradictions are obvious and unacceptable. What can I do? Would Dan Burton even listen to me? How could we move forward 8 years later when so much evidence relies on eye-witness accounts? I don't know. I think I will try writing a letter or lending him the book. We'll see where it goes. In this post, I am going to discuss the last couple of chapters that I found interesting and then leave you with the closing statements of David Ray Griffin in his book because it is extremely well said.

What new conspiracy have I stumbled upon? What contradiction is now keeping me awake at night in wonder? You can trace my night terrors to one man: Rudy Giuliani. I don't remember now if the then-mayor of New York City was praised or put down for his hand in the 9/11 mess. But after reading the last few chapters, if I were a New Yorker, I would be demanding some answers from this chump.

Giuliani was being interviewed by ABC's Peter Jennings about his day on 9/11. During the interview, Giuliani revealed that he had been told prior to the South Tower's collapse that the World Trade Center would be coming down and that he needed to get out. At first glance, this seems like a normal story. He is an important man and therefore rightly told to rush to safety. But there is a huge problem with what he said. If you look at the testimonies, the oral histories, of the firefighters, the rescue workers, the contractors, anyone who had a part in the building of or cleaning up of the towers, one man in the hundreds of accounts believed that the plane crashes would take the buildings down. No one saw it coming. Why? Those towers were built specifically to withstand the impact of an airliner. And never in the history of fires or plane crashes had a large building collapsed in that way. So, how, when all the fire fighters and emergency workers were pulling people from the buildings without the thought of collapse ever entering their heads, did Rudy Giuliani know for a fact that the buildings were going to come down?

Let's take a look at what happened. On the morning of 9/11, Giuliani was working in WTC 7 at the Office of Emergency Management. He was told shortly before the first building came down that he needed to get out. Yet, as we discussed, there were very few people who could even imagine that the tower would fall. And, as we will see, the very building he was in was left to the small, manageable fires that broke out and building 7 was leveled. Who told Giuliani that they were going to collapse? He never reveals this. And he later changed his story to where he felt the floor tremble and was told to leave after the first tower had come down. David Ray Griffin did a good job at outlining the information passed between the fire fighters that day, which shows a bizarre circle of the collapse foreknowledge. Giuliani claimed it was the fire fighters who told him he had to leave. The fire fighter command post was given a message from an emergency personnel who was given a message from his superior who was, in fact, the deputy director of the Office of Emergency Management. Therefore, Giuliani gave himself the heads up.

If Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse, he either knew something we did not or he has a superior sense of what will happen. Never has the world seen a building collapse because of a fire. Yet, somehow he knew. If you look at the official story, the Commission says that the fires burnt so hot that it melted the steel. Science tells us, however, that a fire from the jet fuel of a plane will not burn hot enough to melt steel. Perhaps the fire was hot enough to weaken the steel so that it bowed. Even then, it is hard to believe that weakened steel would down a 100+ story skyscraper in a matter of 10 seconds. How, then, did these towers collapse? The Commission Report only gives us fire as a possible explanation. What about explosions? The Commission claimed that there wasn't enough evidence that anyone had even heard or seen explosions. Griffin points out that dozens of fire fighters, emergency workers, WTC employees, and many others heard and saw what appeared to be explosions before and during the collapse of all three buildings. One very popular account was the live interview with Barry Jennings. He told of how he and another man were trying to escape WTC 7 hours before the collapse. On the way down the stairs, an explosions took out part of the staircase. He and his companion had to climb back up to the 8th floor and wait for rescue. There, Barry claims he watched both towers fall. The first tower collapsed just before 10:00. Building 7 didn't fall until after 5 that evening. Yet, Jennings was blown back by an explosion before any of the other buildings fell. Not only did the Commission ignore most of Barry Jennings's testimony, they completely changed the time of his rescue to better suit their official timeline.

And you know what really weirds me out? Building 7 wasn't even mentioned in the Commission Report. One of the most bizarre aspects of that day wasn't worth discussing. How about the circle of information from Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management? How about how there were reported explosions in the lower half of the building when the explanation was that damage from the other towers were what caused it to collapse? How about the seemingly small fires that were in only a few floors and yet the fire department were told it was too risky and to let the building go? These things do not make sense.

And lastly, during the clean up at Ground Zero, there were numerous eye witness accounts of molten steel in the debris and rubble. Curse you Science!! If fires had caused the WTC to collapse, there should not have been molten steel left behind. As we saw, fire cannot burn hot enough, even when boosted by really awesome jet fuel. The only way that there could have been molten steel in the smoldering piles of what had been the World Trade Center is if something else had been added to the fire. Yes. If explosions had been used, molten steel would be expected. The Commission denied that there was any evidence of molten steel, despite those numerous accounts.

So. Dozens of accounts by journalists, television news crews, fire fighters, World Trade Center janitors, and many others of explosions, mixed with what looks very much like controlled demolition, mixed with molten steel, is not even significant enough to discuss in the Commission Report? You have got to be kidding me. And, as you will see, David Ray Griffin says that that, in itself, is a conspiracy theory.

"Shortly after 9/11, President Bush told the American people, perhaps especially Congress and the press, that they should not 'tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of 11 September.' Although we can probably all agree that such theories should be rejected, the meaning of the phrase 'outrageous conspiracy theories about 9/11' may not be immediately self-evident.
One's first reaction might be that the term 'outrageous' does not serve to distinguish some conspiracy theories about 9/11 from others, because all such theories are outrageous. However, the official account of 9/11, which Bush was advocating, is itself a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy is simply 'an agreement to perform together an illegal, treacherous, or evil act.' A conspiracy theory about some event, therefore, is simply a theory that it resulted from such an agreement. According to the official account of the 9/11 attacks, they resulted from a conspiracy involving Osama bin Laden and several members of al-Qaeda. The official account is, accordingly, a conspiracy theory.
We must ask, therefore, what would make such a theory outrageous. What are the criteria?
Within the philosophy of science, there are two basic criteria for discriminating between good and bad theories. First, a theory should not be inconsistent with any of the relevant facts. Many critics of the official account of 9/11 have faulted it for not fulfilling this criterion. They have argued, for example, that the damage and fires resulting from the impact of two airliners cannot explain why the Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed.
But many journalists and politicians have felt unqualified to make judgments on such matters, which involve technical issues, such as how buildings react to being hit by planes and how steel behaves when it is heated.
The other basic criterion of good theories, however, does not require any technical expertise. It simply says that a theory must be self-consistent, devoid of any internal contradictions. If a theory contains an internal contradiction, it is an unacceptable theory. If it contained a large number of such contradictions, it would be an outrageous theory.
The official conspiracy theory about 9/11, counting at least 25 internal contradictions, is clearly an outrageous theory. And yet this theory has been used to justify attacks on two countries, which have caused over a million deaths, including the deaths of thousands of Americans. This theory has also been used to justify extraordinary rendition, torture, warrantless spying, the denial of habeas corpus, and a general undermining of the US Constitution.
Given the extraordinary developments that have been justified in the name of the official story about 9/11, Congress and the press need to ask if the many contradictions in this story point to its falsity."

No comments: