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.
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.
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,
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.
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion