portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation

Amy Goodman uses double standards in debate over David Griffin's new book.

On today's democracy now (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221), Amy Goodman hosts a debate where she requires different standards from David Griffin and his detractor, Chip Berlet. The slant is in favor of Berlet. I, for one, wonder why.
I was deeply disappointed by the 'debate' hosted by Amy Goodman on today's Democracy Now! program.
Allow me to demonstrate:

(From the transcript at http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221)
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name an expert you have relied on, for example on the issue of the world trade center towers going down, expert in structural engineering who has said it is impossible for the explanation to be the planes hit, and the fires caused the towers to go down?
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, again, I say I have got 40 pages of notes. I've got a lot of notes on that chapter, and so readers can go and see the --
AMY GOODMAN: Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down.
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips right at this moment.
AMY GOODMAN: Chip Berlet.
CHIP BERLET: Well, there was an extensive engineering study of the twin towers and what cautioned their collapse which is publicly available and conducted by one of the largest forensic engineering companies in America.
...
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me end with Chip Berlet. I want to -- you give your final comment, but start with what did that structural engineering forensic study show?
CHIP BERLET: It showed that two planes hitting those buildings could in fact create a catastrophic collapse situation that would bring down the building and turn the cement and concrete into dust which is what happened when you pancake a building that's that tall.
[italics added]

What is missing from this exchange? Can Chip Berlet name this publicly available study? Can we have its name?

Because I'm sure we'd all love to see it. (Those of us in the 911 truth movement)

I hope its not the totally inconclusive FEMA report that used volunteer civil, not structural engineers, and only small random samples of structural steel - with no reference points to where in the towers they actually came from.

Or the ExPonent study, which is very limited in scope as to what caused the failure first and whether or not WTC1 was still salvageable when WTC2 began it's collapse.

Hey, did this 'large forensic engineering company' have any of the actual structural steel to work with?
Did they recover it from Chinese recycling plants?
Which large forensic engineering firm is this anyway?
Do they have the blueprints of the towers available for public study?

Too bad we don't have it's name.

Mostly, I am amazed by Ms. Goodman's requirement of a different standard from Mr.'s Griffin and Berlet. That Griffin name a dissenting structural engineer, while allowing Mr. Berlet to conjure a whole 'publicly available forensic investigation', one the 9/11 Truth movement seems to be uniquely unaware of, despite all of the research performed.

Great Job!

Score one for fairness in reporting.

It is interesting to note that not only does Berlet not name this publicly available study, he also doesn't link it from his website, publiceye.org. I, for one, wonder why that is, since it is given such sweeping authority.

Hey, should we note that his organization is called 'Political Research Associates'? What's in a name?

Of course there are some studies, but none answer the crucial questions in toto.
NOVA: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html with the widely published 'pancake' or 'zipper' theory presented by Thomas Eager, himself not a structural engineer. Thomas Eager is on the National Research Council Committee on Homeland Security. (see pg.2 of the NOVA article) Is this a reward for his explanation of the tower collapse? Certainly, this committee did not exist prior to 09.11.2001. Also, Mr. Eager's chair at MIT is endowed by a foundation controlled by the Lord Corporation (http://www.lord.com), a war profiteer.
This isn't a study, it is speculation aided by misleading computer graphics, from a suspect source.

Also the very scant ExPonent evidence, the details of which do not seem to be publicly available. http://www.exponent.com Their study was funded by the lessor of the WTC, who was trying to recover a double insurance claim.

Of course there's the FEMA report also, which is full of disinformation like misrepresentation of the building's construction. This is exposed pretty well for what it is here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

My, here's a whole list of engineering reports that don't cover the whole collapse. http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php

While perhaps this publicly available comprehensive study is just so pervasive that everyone in the wider world besides myself knows its name, I for one would like to finally lay my suspicions about 9/11 to rest by examining it.

Can you provide its name?

A very disappointed listener,

[name withheld]

------------------------------------------------

The above is from my somewhat hysterical letter to Amy Goodman. If you are interested in the truth about 9/11 and have read Mr. Griffin's book, I encourage you to listen to today's show, decide for yourself if Ms. Goodman held a fair debate, and then write her regarding her journalistic standards.
Since she's one of the only 'liberal' media voices available, I think it's important to keep her honest.

Alternatively, if anybody has a clue to the study Mr. Berlet is talking about, please post it here.

Maybe Amy Doesn't Have Her Head Up Her Ass... 26.May.2004 20:48

K.

...like you conspiracy nuts do.

When Goodman asks Griffin point blank to name one architectual expert who agrees with his argument that the plane crashes couldn't have taken the Twin Towers down, he admitted he couldn't name one. It's only fitting that a theologian would take the arguments of the conspiracy crowd and get it published.

planes have nothing to do with it--except the cover for the operation 26.May.2004 21:08

me

There was that Romero guy who was a demolitions expert who immediately said that it was a demolition, though he was told by who funds most of his research (Pentagon) to shut up and recant publicly, so he did.

What is always important to bring up is that the abstract theorizations failed to knock over a tower in this case. Explositions did. I have found that having a print out of the seismograph to flash people into submission or stunned silence is pretty much enough to topple the whole planes nonsense.

It was the queers, they're in it with the aliens; 26.May.2004 23:48

!

They're building landing strips for gay martians.

All the fororensic studies I have seen have been absolute rubbish 27.May.2004 00:04

PHH

Some are filled with mathmatics that have no basis because there are no specifications for the buildings available. Futhermore these people were not allowed to actually study the wreckage itself.

Say a detectives is trying to solve a case, but they will not let him go to see the scene of the crime. The detective goes to court.

Judge: "Okay, show me the evidence."

Detective: "I don't have any evidence, but I have a good theory."

Judge: "Did you test your theory?"

Detective: "No. But it proves what they paid me to prove."

Don't believe a word of the government story. This is the biggest whitewash since Tom Sawyer's fence.

minor update 27.May.2004 00:18

Bushwhacked

So, as I said, the bulk of this article is what I wrote to democracynow.org I also wrote to Griffin and Berlet. (different letters - I'll spare you)
So far I have only heard back from Griffin.
His (pertinent) comment:
You were right about the double standard, but with this occurring right at the end of the show, I couldn't do anything about it.

There is no such study.
I'll update if I hear from the others. (doubtful)

!: Love the Dead Milkmen reference, thanks for the laugh.

K: Your research method will only allow you to see the corporate/gov disinfo, and your own nasty intestines.

Y'all else: Por Favor drop Amy Goodman a line on why she shouldn't be running interference for the status quo (and include that seismograph).

interesting.... 27.May.2004 01:18

!

bushwacked; i agree that amy goodman cornered griffin; and i did not agree with his opponents base argument which appeared to me also to be, as griffin would likely agree; the approach that thinking in an unsanctioned manner, considering 'conspiracies' as inherently false or bad is simply narrow minded.
one should always consider all possibilities. But can griffin now, after the fact, name a structural engineer like amy so insisted? can he say that the calculation he did of the military plane and its arrival time on the scene pan out or was it simply bad math as it was called on the show?

while theres still plenty of questions and i certainly understand its not in the best interest of the rulers the be honest about anything, im still more in the camp that thinks people within our empire simply take the best advantage of whatever situation that occurs. which in itself , doesnt exclude much of what our sadly narrow minded mainstream media considers the 'conspiracy theory' realm.

And one last thing; how much backing did howard zinn give this guy? did zinn agree with everything or just support the questions?

peace

so happy to get a genuine response 27.May.2004 02:10

Bushwhacked

the answer to your question is apparently: NO.
I have been looking for structural engineers to sign off, one side or the other, for well over a year.
In order for them to do so, the blueprints of the WTC buildings must be released to the public.
The engineering diagrams of this building are now protected under national security.
There is no substitute for this information.
Someone should explain how the particular structure of these towers, which has specifically been described as a weak or vulnerable building design, is a threat to national security. (especially after they've been destroyed)
Since the buildings no longer exist, I have a hard time finding how 1960's engineering threatens us today.
There are no publicly available structural engineers who will 'sign off' on sign off on 9/11 so far: search and look around. Prove me wrong and I'll sleep better.

I forgot to answer your other question 27.May.2004 02:40

Bushwhacked

Can Griffin now, after the fact, name a structural engineer like Amy Goodman so insisted? Where is the math to substantiate the towers standing directly after the attacks, then suddenly blowing themselves apart?

We are told that the floors progressively failed.

Explain this photo:  http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/docs/site1102.jpg

As the floors are falling straight down, what force is pushing those streamers of steel and pulverized concrete hundreds of feet from the center of the collapse?

And one last thing; how much backing did howard zinn give this guy?

On the back of my copy, it says:

"[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."
--Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States

Check it all out at Powells.

goodman and indy 27.May.2004 16:42

beware of media

media is an important tool, for public opnion and control of culture. critical news of local celebs and their fans is being censorede on indy, one of which is linked to the censorship on this topic. this won't last much longer though.

Amy Goodman and the CIA 28.May.2004 20:18

Supporta

Amy Goodman and the CIA

A letter to Goodman (5/2004)

Dear Amy Goodman:

We, the undersigned, would like to state that the recent (5/26/04) appearance of David Ray Griffin on Democracy Now! (DN) repudiates every principle of press freedom that you claim to represent. It was a shameful betrayal to the movements opposing the Bush Regime around the globe.

First of all, it is very revealing that you chose to have Griffin appear on your show in a hostile "debate" format. This contrasted remarkably from the easy, non-confrontational (and extended) interviews recently given to Richard Clarke, Peter Lance and Sibel Edwards. (Richard Clarke is a "defector" from the Bush Regime. Peter Lance is an author. Edwards is a "whistle-blower". All three uniquely advocate the official story of 911.) The clear implication is that DN is biased in favor of sources who advocate the official propaganda of the State.

Second, while Chip Berlet's affiliation with the Political Research Associates (PRA) was made known, you failed to mention the controversy related to PRA's alleged ties to the Ford Foundation:
 http://tinyurl.com/yuptu

It is also known that the Ford Foundation has a long-term connection with Democracy Now and Pacifica generally:
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman01.html

Recall that the Ford Foundation has been reportedly linked to the CIA for decades. By specifically choosing Berlet to challenge Griffin this episode of Democracy Now! strongly resembles a CIA propaganda campaign.

Third, Berlet's major contention against Griffin's book is that Griffin is relying on experts who lack the qualifications to offer opinions about basic engineering and physics. So why not have on an expert promoting the official science of the Bush Regime with one of the many researchers who dispute it? We are appalled by Democracy Now's guest Berlet demanding that Griffin defend the scientific work of researchers who have never been invited to appear on your program.

Fourth, Berlet specifically (and very crudely) dismissed the crucial research of "Holmgren" (i.e., Gerard Holmgren). If Democracy Now! does not invite Holmgren on to defend his highly significant work then it is working on behalf of no democracy that has ever existed.

Fifth, during Griffin's ordeal he made many important points concerning specific anomalies with 911 (e.g., the Pentagon, WTC 7, etc.) that were ignored by Berlet. When will these be addressed on your program?

Lastly, we'd like to emphatically state that the science which disputes the official story of 911 can be understood by almost every high school graduate in your audience. By having Berlet and Goodman both dismiss Griffin's sources because they lack some unspecified credentials Democracy Now! seemed medieval. Surely DN can no longer claim to represent "Resistance Radio" when it discourages its audience from making the most basic of inquiries about the innumerable flaws with the official story of 911.

Until Democracy Now reexamines what happened on 9/11/01 with some intellectual integrity we will regard you and your program to be speaking on behalf of the CIA. To quote the Clash, you are solidly "Working for the Clampdown."

Sincerely,

Scott Loughrey

--on behalf of 911 researchers:

Gerard Holmgren
John Kaminski
Rosalee Grable (a.k.a., the Web Fairy)
Jeffrey G Strahl

DN's miserable coverage of 9/11 08.Jun.2004 01:24

oilempire.us

A more substantive critique of DN's coverage:

 http://www.oilempire.us/democracynow.html

the "stand down" of the liberal alternative media
 http://www.oilempire.us/denial.html


the bogus 9/11 exposure efforts referenced in the letter above:

Scott Loughrey - author of 9/11 hoax, a website that falsely claims that missiles were fired at the WTC
(a great way to discredit 9/11 truth exposure)

Gerard Holmgren
(an alleged "researcher" whose 9/11 truth efforts are riddled with easy to disprove allegations - who benefits from such sloppiness?)

John Kaminski
(a Holocaust Denial supporter who echoes the "missiles fired at WTC)

Rosalee Grable (a.k.a., the Web Fairy)
the "Web Fairy" is the fairy godmother of disinformation pretending to be 9/11 truth

Jeffrey G Strahl
(expelled from the SF 9/11 Truth Alliance list for extreme rudeness and relatively sexist comments - again, who benefits from such behavior?)






from "Painful Questions" by Eric Hufschmid, page 20
regarding a "blob" seen in some WTC photos that supposedly showed another plane overhead when the second tower was hit

"It is also possible that the blob is just an 'artifact' caused by the software that compressed the video. However, I suspect the person who posted the images deliberately created the blob to make fun of conspiracy theories or to fool people ... the best policy is to ignore theories that are based on compressed images. Demand the original, high resolution images."


 http://www.oilempire.us/911intro.html#disinformation
Disinformation masquerading as 9/11 Truth exposure

In addition to phony evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory, there is also the problem of bogus material pretending to be investigative journalism that does not bother to present even a scintilla of credible evidence. A few fringe 9/11 websites are now claiming that there wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower (even though the photos of the hole in the tower clearly show the impact of the wings). Some of these "no plane at the north tower" sites include physics911.org, letsroll911.org, 911hoax.org and the fairy godmother of this modus operandi - webfairy.org Oilempire.us doesn't provide direct links to these sites, which are a mix of accurate material and disinformation -- but they are easy enough to find.

The "webfairy" theories claim that no planes hit the World Trade Center, it was done with missiles and high-tech hologram, and uses video clips that supposedly prove these arguments. The "letsroll911" site claims that a missile was fired at the South tower just before the plane crashed into it, and also uses poor quality photos to "prove" this argument. However, blurry low resolution photos that magically appear two years later are not evidence of alternative views of what happened, they are only evidence of people's unfamiliarity with photo editing software and their gullibility. The "physical evidence" clearly shows that large jets hit the towers - the hole in the side of the North tower (which was hit first) is the size of a 767. And the idea that a missile was fired a split second before the South tower was hit makes no sense, since there was no "need" for this to happen (no tactical advantage for the attackers, since the towers were not anywhere as strong as the sector of the Pentagon that was hit - which had been strengthened against attack immediately prior to 9/11).

The "missile pod at the WTC," "no plane at the WTC" and "plane plus missile" theory are toxic to the cause of 9/11 truth. It is a sign that our political efforts are having an effect -- that these "theories" (unsupported by any credible evidence) are being distributed to "muddy the waters" to make those who seek to expose the lies of 9/11 as crackpots who have no idea what we are talking about.

There was no extra "pod" that was used to fire a missile from the 767. A quick search on the web will show several sites with photos of 767's with a structure under the plane to hold the wings together. It is sad that 9/11 truth exposers are forced to waste our time dealing with this. There are NO photos with high resolution that show an extra "pod," there is no credible theory to suggest the need for any alleged pod.

The same thing happened during the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside knowledge that turned out to be psychotic ravings. One particularly memorable occurrence was during the Jim Garrison prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy - the film JFK covers this episode very well. Garrison's legal team had found a witness who claimed to have participated in meetings with Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald and others, but on the stand, the man's claims of participation were totally shredded by his claims that he had fingerprinted his daughter before and after she went to college to prove that she was the same person (and therefore, this obviously insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence that Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by the jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions revealed he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw was a participant.

---------------------------

New at questionsquestions.net: an analysis by Eric Salter, refuting several widely-circulated claims about the WTC airliner impacts on 9/11. These include the claims that original video recordings of the impacts were fabricated or altered using computer graphics, that aircraft other than 767s struck the the towers, and even that no planes hit the two towers, the planes supposedly being replaced by super high-tech "holographic" illusions [!]. The analysis shows that these claims, which unfortunately have been lingering around for some time, have no solid basis in the evidence -- video, photographic, or otherwise -- nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

whaterver oilempire 14.Jun.2004 19:25

blah

oilempire.us, stick it up your ass. Take your empty aspersions and claims to already completed 9-11 orthodoxy elsewhere. This is still a work in progress.