Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

[Scepcop]

A talk by David Ray Griffin debunking the official defenders and Popular Mechanics with logic, facts, and empirical science.

Part 1 starts here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbY5_qtz83M

[Nostradamus]

[ProfWag]

[Nostradamus]

Don't bother with part 4 - it stinks. Aweful, just aweful - it's pitiful
1. Makes comments about the hijackers without apparent rhyme or reason
2. Claims the people that received cell calls from the planes did not

For a change there is a little presentation of evidence. A guy in Canada tried to make a cell call from a small plane. Couldn't. So Griffin does a stupid. He extrapolates this one effort to a universal claim.

Here is better evidence: Edward Felt and CeeCee Lyles successfully used cell phones to make call from Flight 93. The FBI claims that at least cell phone calls were made. The reset were made using airfones.

Regardless of whether or not there were cell phone calls it is clear that the bulk of the calls were made on the seat back phones on the plane.

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[Scepcop]

It seems that your critique contains nothing but ad hominem attacks. Everyone knows what empirical means. You are simply playing word games and denying again and taking official sources as truth even if they've been debunked.

Griffin has read more about this than you could ever. His scientific colleagues such as Kevin Ryan and David Chandler have read the NIST report and found only one page relevant that explained the collapse. The rest of the pages were irrelevant and mostly smoke and mirrors.

In fact, these scientists from the Truth Movement have forced NIST to admit to freefall. Didn't you see the video about it? NIST gave in cause it was cornered and forced to admit the obvious.

Again, steel requires 3000 F to melt. Office fires are only 1500 F. Doesn't add up.

A building collapsing from fire falls in the path of least resistance, not in the path of greatest resistance. That's common sense, which you lack.

Empirical is about the odds and probabilities.

For example, if a building is completely pulverized to dust, what are the odds that a passport is going to come out unscathed and that it just happens to belong to a hijacker? Billions to one?

Yet you accept that on gospel faith? Why? What is the source of your religious faith based belief in the official government propaganda?

[ProfWag]

I don't suppose I could convince you to read this, could I? (At least the chapter on the fires?...Maybe?)
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_ ... ew_2_1.pdf

[Nostradamus]