David Ray Griffin shifts 9/11 scientific burdens to Chomsky, Cockburn, Taibbi et al.

(2PM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)

In 2004, I saw the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 for the first time on an internet video.  The building had not been hit by a plane, had insignificant damage from falling debris from the other two big towers that fell, and had spotty fires burning asymmetrically across a handful of its 47 or so floors.  Out of nowhere, it suddenly dropped its four-square topmost corners symmetrically and descended rapidly to the ground as if the entire supporting matrix of steel I-beams had not just weakened according to local areas of damage, but had vanished entirely and instantaneously:

Although I knew instantly — by my own cognitive recognition hardware — exactly what I was watching from seeing many similar demonstrations before, I watched the video again another 25 times, or so, out of sheer incredulity at the implications (eliciting the subsequent autonomic re-shuffling upon first viewing), before sitting back in my chair and conceding, “Holy shit!  That is a fucking duck!

Whatever the implications of my seeing “a duck” at the time, including my autonomic reactions, is unimportant.  Those are irrelevant to the cognitive recognition, the fact and the manner of the building’s collapse (the duck itself), which seemed and seems perceptually obvious.  The question, however, that cannot be ignored is, “Was that really a duck?”  In other words, “Did that building fall in the way it appeared to fall?  Why did that building fall in the perceptually obvious way it did?”

These are NOT extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, once you separate the observation from the implications of the observation.  These are simple observational claims requiring simple evidence.  Only the implications might be considered “extraordinary,” but not the observations themselves.  In this respect, while it was a mistake for “truthers” to jump to implications, nobody in the present discussion claims any extraordinary implications, just observations of physical facts.

From a scientific perspective, one needs to have both the courage and wisdom to separate the observation from its implications.  If one could not separate an unexpected observation from prior theoretical narratives, then knowledge could not advance.  One would be hopelessly trapped in previous expectations.  The Universe itself would continually revolve around Earth and Man.

The very phrase “conspiracy theories” is a term that conflates and obfuscates a valid observation, in and of itself, with the potential implications of that observation.  Those who fear the potential implications often either leap into conspiratorial thinking or retreat into a Neanderthal mentality of retribution against the observation itself, regardless of whether there is, as Hume would say, “a necessary connection” between the observation and the implication.

There have been name-calling, tub-thumping reactionaries on both sides, but a particularly virulent form of reaction has come from the left against the left, in the absence of discriminating between “the observation” and “the implications of that observation.”

Others, like Chomsky, while dismissive of the scientific evidence (the observations) as he saw it based on his professional expertise in linguistics (while developing and maintaining an admittedly non-trivial interest in the sciences and historical events more generally), bucked both reactionary, Pan troglodytic trends, and instead laid out two more rational guidelines for seeking the truth, one that is relatively weak (based on reliance on established authority), and the second relatively strong (based on reliance on reason via antagonistic or adversarial methods, e.g., scientific peer review), but both far superior to emotion-based pant-hoots.  In this respect (only), I will defer to Chomsky’s assertion that (and I paraphrase closely if not perfectly),

Ape language is to human language what broad jumping is to flying

Keep the basic distinction between observations and implications thereof in mind as your read David Ray Griffin’s summary of a fairly narrow set of observations concerning the fall of WTC 7, and related issues.  In other words, read the basic observations and any accompanying validations dispassionately.


Skip to comment form

  1. so I just pasted the url.  Sometimes, I can dick around with the html and make it work, but not this time.

    If any editor honcho jefe boss-man larger-than-average-Kahuna knows how and cares to fix that, I would be delighted, and I thank you in advance.

  2. Hmmmm…only 663,000 results?


    “New World Order” another thing which doesn’t exist, 732 million.


  3.  ” Mr President after having watched the video footage of WTC 7, what is your opinion?”

    This will never happen. Building 7 didn’t exist for The 9/11 Commission and it doesn’t exist for the Beltway establishment.

    • Edger on August 28, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    were taken down the same way.

    • banger on August 28, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    A mysterious bunch of terrorists brought down three building and damaged another. Proof: does not exist at all. There is no proof or any of the contentions of the government and they haven’t really offered any either and they don’t care. Ok, for the MSM, which is the official Ministry of Truth you expect that. But the fact-based community is notwhere to be found except on the fringes. 9/11 is one of the greatest mysteries I’ve ever seen or heard about. Not how it happened or who did it–it is still somewhat of a mystery–we know that the story the government gave us is demonstrably false and that’s something. What really makes it a mystery is how the intellectual elite of the United States who were not all bought off ate that shit up and loved it and offered no doubt to any of the details. No doubts at all! It is one of the most exatraordinary thing in the history of human beings–stunning in its implications.

  4. Photobucket




    Fireman, Police, Eyewitnesses, and even some on location News Reporters all had even described “explosions“, “secondary explosions”, “loud explosions”, “a series of explosions” into rolling cameras and microphones (which you can find on YouTube), …but yet at the anchor desk the only thing we ever hear about is that: 19 guys trained on some monkey bars –who could not fly — with “box-cutters” (made out of plastic) were responsible. What a whopper!!

    As with the Kennedy Assassinations, just how long are we supposed to listen to TV people and our Government ram pure fiction and bullshit down our throats?

    “There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

    We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

      –John Swinton, former New York Times Chief of Staff

    • Edger on August 28, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    and fed to the media before the buildings were demolished.

    BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11.

    BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head – you can see WTC-7 over her left shoulder, beside her ear…

    • Edger on August 28, 2010 at 10:40 pm


    9/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible,


    (PilotsFor911Truth.org) – Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled “FLT DECK DOOR”, cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

    On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, “…all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers…”[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]

    Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/c… for full member list.

  5. Since I was banned from DKos years ago for questioning the official version, long before David Ray Griffin and Stephen Jones, I find it refreshing that there is a progressive site that is willing to blatantly post about the science of 9/11.

    The simple fact of physics is that asymmetrical injury never causes symmetrical failure.  Symmetrical failure is engineered or intelligently designed.  The planes caused asymmetrical injury and the collapses were symmetrical.  Duh.

    So why did these left gatekeepers spring up like weeds?  Answer.  I think they are much more establishment than we give them credit for.

    I also think there are too many scientists who are beholden to the government through grants, income, and employment to really look seriously at this, and have averted their eyes for the sake of their own pocketbooks; some may legitimately fear for their safety.

    Unfortunately, 911 is not the only scientific matter where we have left gatekeepers.  A couple of others spring to mind, the mere mention of which have got me quickly banned on progressive sites.

  6. One of the many question marks surrounding the events of that day is Rudy Giuliani’s apparent disclosure that he and those with him were warned in advance of the upcoming collapse of the South Tower, the first tower to fall.  Wasn’t this collapse supposed to be a complete surprise? Wouldn’t it have been nice if others who were in that ill-fated building could have received similar advance notice?

    Here is Peter Jennings’ interview with Guiliani on 9/11, which becomes particularly interesting at about the 1:32 mark, and even more so between the 1:50 to 2:00 minute mark.  

    If anyone reading this still believes the official government-sponsored version of events on that day, I would highly recommend that they read David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor. You may not know exactly what happened when you finish, but you’re likely to be convinced that we have yet to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity. — Marshall McLuhan

  7. WTC 7 possibilities

    What would have happened if the “hijackings” [if that was what happened] didn’t occur; were they going to detonate the explosives then?

    If, despite a possible “non hijacking” they were going to “detonate the explosives anyway,” why not simply detonate them regardless, at the time that the explosives were ready?

    Perhaps this explains why WTC 7 detonations occurred: There was supposed to be another aircraft, mirages, or missile attack on that building. . . but it didn’t happen as planned?


    I think there are other events that happened during 9-11 that “didn’t go according to the original plan”:

    * Why did WTC7 detonate, but there was no collision?

    * Who placed explosives in WTC7, but knew to “not use them” despite the explosives being ready?

    * How many people who worked in WTC7 knew the real purpose of the government offices in the US Postal Office?

    Which brings me to the subject of another little discussed news piece: United Flight 23 on 9-11. Hence, forget the fact that there were other flights that didn’t make it into the air. Because relating these two ideas demonstrates a foreknowledge of coming events.

    The FBI was already investigating whether an altercation at Kennedy Airport on Tuesday was linked to the World Trade Center explosion, a law enforcement source told The Associated Press on Thursday.

    The Tuesday incident occurred about 9 a.m. the same time two hijacked jet airliners crashed into the World Trade Center towers, toppling the two 110-story buildings. The source said the FBI is investigating whether the incident may have been an aborted hijacking attempt.

    After the plane was boarded, United Airlines officials told passengers that United Airlines Flight 23, bound for Los Angeles, had been cancelled.

    Three males traveling refused to disembark. The argument with a member of the flight crew became so heated that the crew member called airport security.

    But before security arrived, the men had vanished, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    I wonder whatever happened to the results of that alleged FBI investigation?

  8. dying in a hot tub ‘incident’ there are many questions that will not be answered.

    There was also the anthrax thing.

    The WTC 7 thing really has no other explanation than a demolition that I can see.  

Comments have been disabled.