911 WTC Demolition! The Final Nail in the Debunker/Posers Coffin!

[daws101]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[daws101]

someone farted in here.^

 

[KokomoJojo]

you made the assumption of support..it takes more to put your name and reputation behind
a controversial assertion than saying nothing or indifference

well duhblunders, the academic geniuses they are think all they need do is say CT CT CT CT, to explain everything. Who can argue with those academic standards?

 

[eots]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

 

[eots]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

 

[eots]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

 

[Hollie]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

And still, none of you twoofer conspiracy theory loons can make a single connection between the gubmint, Jooooooos, the industrial - military complex, Jooooooos with thermite, and a host of other co-conspirators who you loons claim conspired to destroy the WTC.

So, we are left with you inventing a host of conspiracies, trying to connect a vast array of conspirators and failing at every opportunity to substantiate your conspiratorial musings.

What a collection of paranoid loons.

 

[Hollie]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Debunking 9 11 Myths Why Conspiracy Theories Can t Stand Up to the Facts Popular Mechanics David Dunbar Brad Reagan John McCain 9781588166357 Amazon.com Books

 

[Hollie]

you made the assumption of support..it takes more to put your name and reputation behind
a controversial assertion than saying nothing or indifference

well duhblunders, the academic geniuses they are think all they need do is say CT CT CT CT, to explain everything. Who can argue with those academic standards?

All that's required is for you twoofers to be held accountable for your silly conspiracy theories.

Where is the evidence that ties together all the conspirators from gubmint, industry, national entities, etc., supports your conspiracy theories?

There is no evidence. You twoofers are frauds and just a bunch of paranoid loons.

 

[daws101]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

false! your desperation slip is showing.

 

[daws101]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

bajhahahahahahaha!

 

[daws101]

there is no valid or verifiable "peer reviewed" papers to be found. There are, however, a lot of papers out there with a cult following of people with substantially less than a reliable scientific or structural background.

the absence of any of the alleged discoveries or contradictions not being printed in any scientific venue that could be reviewed by peers. They seem to be only on op-blogs, conspiracy websites and fictional "documentaries."

 

[eots]

there is no valid or verifiable "peer reviewed" papers to be found. There are, however, a lot of papers out there with a cult following of people with substantially less than a reliable scientific or structural background.

the absence of any of the alleged discoveries or contradictions not being printed in any scientific venue that could be reviewed by peers. They seem to be only on op-blogs, conspiracy websites and fictional "documentaries."

"there is no valid or verifiable "peer reviewed" papers to be found."

then why did you title them as peer reviewed papers.?.

 

[daws101]

there is no valid or verifiable "peer reviewed" papers to be found. There are, however, a lot of papers out there with a cult following of people with substantially less than a reliable scientific or structural background.

the absence of any of the alleged discoveries or contradictions not being printed in any scientific venue that could be reviewed by peers. They seem to be only on op-blogs, conspiracy websites and fictional "documentaries."

"there is no valid or verifiable "peer reviewed" papers to be found."

then why did you title them as peer reviewed papers.?.

as always you got it wrong and took it out of context
They seem to be only on op-blogs, conspiracy websites and fictional "documentaries
the above line is referring to any group with for truth in the title.
you've fucked yourself again.

 

[daws101]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Elvis planned the whole thing. He faked his death, and has been pissed off ever since his daughter married Michael Jackson. Then his records almost stopped selling, and old women stopped leaving wreaths on the gates of Graceland. He was fired as a gas station attendant in Wisconsin, when they converted to self service pumps. Now he is just a bitter old man with a big chip on his shoulder.

 

[eots]

Elvis planned the whole thing. He faked his death, and has been pissed off ever since his daughter married Michael Jackson. Then his records almost stopped selling, and old women stopped leaving wreaths on the gates of Graceland. He was fired as a gas station attendant in Wisconsin, when they converted to self service pumps. Now he is just a bitter old man with a big chip on his shoulder.

another fool that can not support the NIST report so resorts to strawmen and inane babble

 

[eots]

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking


Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism

of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

Ryan Mackey

Version 2.1, 24 May 2008

Original Release 31 August 2007

Abstract


In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST

investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be

unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further

analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This

paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft

impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were

of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive

collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the

“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. We

also discuss the anticipated NIST report on World Trade Center Seven. The author

highlights the fundamental sources of errors present in Dr. Griffin’s research and

provides a template to evaluate future claims using resources available in open literature.

http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center InvestigationRyan Mackey



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
Mark Roberts



Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2

Peer-Reviewed Papers:

There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon
JamesB
Firefighter’s Interviews - Sounds of Explosives or Explosive Sounds in the Towers Debunking911

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories - An online paper
Mike King

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint
Brent Blanchard





Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1

Peer-Reviewed Papers:


Fleas under a Microscope: Evidence there was no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Debunking911

The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
JamesB
Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part I
Debunking911

Evidence of Controlled Deception: A long list of observations - Part II
James Bennett

Oh no! not another expert

Giulio Bernacchia

Journal Of Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories

lol these are not peer reviewed papers you just titled them that..these are debwunking sites and a book reveiw

“given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11

.http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

criticism of the above you tube piece

The reality of the Bush administration and its ineptness simply doesn’t gel with the massive, absurd and physically impossible conspiracy that 9/11 “truthers” would have us believe they orchestrated.

The biggest issue for “truthers” is depending on which one you engage with, they have their own angle on the conspiracy and usually its mutually incompatible with the truther next to them. Some of them think controlled demolition, some thermite, some military planes painted in civilian livery, some suitcase nukes and orbiting space platforms, some missiles etc. etc. What they all have in common is a lack of evidence and helpings and helpings of unbridled paranoia.

An interesting question to put to any truther is to ask them what happened, exactly and what evidence they have to support that. You will never get a direct answer. If you’re “lucky” you’ll be on the receiving end of the usual truther tropes – quote mining, cherry picking of facts, pseudo science by the shovelful and wishful thinking.

this is daws way of explaining the free fall collapse of the WTC buildings

 

[Vandalshandle]

Occasionally I come over here to just verify for myself that there really are people wander around loose who lost their minds long ago. This makes me feel a little better about those people that I come across in the real world who are only half crazy. It reminds me that it could be worse!

...and now, back to the real world!