Dishonest attacks on Griffin like a blueprint for how the uninformed and intolerant defend the official story
Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. The state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking… – Leo Tolstoy
By Craig McKee
For the most part, I’m getting better at staying out of Facebook fights with idiots, trolls, and those who think the word “conspiracy” is their go-ahead to try stand-up comedy.
Better, not perfect.
On the 16th anniversary of 9/11 last week, I decided to spend the day sharing articles and memes I’d created about this massive and devastating false flag deception. I also dared to comment on a friend’s tongue-in-cheek Facebook post about 9/11, leading me into a somewhat predictable marathon confrontation with three journalists, one I know personally and the other two I know by reputation. Oddly enough, I do think it was worth it. The three, whose arrogance and non-existent knowledge of 9/11 were exposed, went beyond having bad attitudes; they thumbed their noses at everything journalists are supposed to believe in.
The three fancy themselves as intelligent and well-informed, but they have fallen for the indefensible idea that anyone who questions the official account of any important event must be a nut case. They actually seem to believe that it doesn’t matter about evidence if the word “conspiracy” is involved. They would deny this, but their words give them away.
And by the way, just because I focus here on three journalists does not mean I couldn’t have added a bunch more from past “discussions.” I’ve gotten “face palm” as a response to one of my points, I’ve been told that I live in a “conspiracy bubble” and, only slightly facetiously, that I had made up my mind about 9/11 even before it happened. (In fact, I didn’t seriously begin to doubt the official story until 2007, when I first learned what the heck Building 7 was. While I’m embarrassed that I was so gullible for so long, I did at least approach the new information by investigating further.)
The first member of the typing triumvirate in this case was Julien Feldman, co-founder of the now defunct Montreal alt-weekly The Mirror and currently a school board commissioner in the city. He unsuccessfully sought the New Democratic Party nomination in the federal riding where I live, NDG-Westmount (a “riding” is what we call our federal electoral districts in Canada). He is described in a CBC article on the nomination as a “former journalist.”
Batting second was David Lieber, who writes some freelance articles (we’ve had our work appear in the same magazine more than once) but describes himself as a communications/marketing writer and translator. His intolerance for ideas that don’t conform to his own seems almost absolute. At least on Facebook it is.
And behind door number three we have Matthew Hays, who wrote about cinema for The Mirror and teaches cinema, journalism, and communications at Concordia University (where I studied journalism). Hays didn’t get into the discussion as deeply nor stay as long as the other two, but in his few comments he made it clear that he shares their cartoonish and condescending views on topics not deemed acceptable by the mainstream.
Unfortunately, these attitudes aren’t unusual, as every truth-seeking activist knows too well. Media reports on 9/11 and other false flags—when the subjects are covered at all—feature snarky and dismissive comments that focus on the psychological state of those who dissent along with questions about why these darned theories “persist” after so many years. I have a thought: maybe they persist because the media refuse to address them and refuse to help us to learn the truth about them. Just a thought.
What struck me about all three know-it-alls in this discussion was that they would not, or could not, offer any specifics about 9/11, the topic they were using to justify their insinuations about my mental health. They came up with many ways to say that 9/11 truth activists are lunatics but no ways to refute anything we say. They actually seem to believe this is not necessary.
Feldman thought it would be particularly great to attack the 9/11 Truth Movement’s most respected and prolific researcher, David Ray Griffin, and accuse him of inventing facts. Either Feldman didn’t think anyone would challenge him on this assertion, or he didn’t care because he thought that the accusation alone would be enough to malign Griffin’s scholarship. But I was more than prepared to call his bluff. I demanded even one example of something Griffin had invented, and Feldman could not comply.
The fun all started with a post by my good friend Frederic Serre, another journalist, who shared this: “What’s the difference between a cow and 9/11? Americans can’t milk a cow for 16 years.” Fred can be a you-know-what disturber, but in the best sense of the term. He is a free thinker, and he expresses support for my position, something that takes real courage. His post provided an opportunity for me to insert a different perspective into what I was sure would be predictable 9/11 anniversary hand-wringing. One person (yes, it was yet another journalist) said Fred’s joke was “cruel” and “too soon” and that he had friends who were killed that day. I offered this:
“I think the cruel thing is the bogus war on terror that this event has led to. Millions have died because of this deception. Those people—and the families of the victims from that day who continue to fight for answers—deserve more than maudlin tributes. They deserve the truth.”
I prepared myself for the inevitable vitriol, and it didn’t take long for Lieber to bring “psychology” into the discussion. He wrote: “Even if 9/11 were the conspiracy that a handful of nut bars believe it was, there’s no cause for hilarity at the commemoration of the event. And the families of the victims are NOT ‘fighting for answers.’ They already have it.”
I love it when people who haven’t taken five minutes to investigate 9/11 promise us that they know what the families of those killed on 9/11 want and deserve. I pointed this out, linked to a video of Bob McIlvaine speaking, and added: “There would never have been a 9/11 Commission had the families not demanded an investigation. It took more than 440 days for their demand to be met. And then the commission was a sham and a cover-up as even members of the commission admitted.”
Here are some revealing highlights of the discussion, with every effort made to maintain context. For the purposes of this article, I’ve removed comments from other contributors, although some were pertinent (a gentleman named Murray Pearson jumped into the fray and offered excellent points to rebut Feldman).
Lieber: Of nearly three thousand victims, the chances of finding of a few crazies like you, Craig, is virtually guaranteed.
And we’re off…
McKee: I gave you a question, which you were afraid to even attempt to answer.
Lieber: What was that question again?
McKee: How did Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, come straight down into its own footprint at virtually free fall acceleration? As if it were falling through air. Without damaging adjacent buildings that were just a few feet away. And considering that the official NIST report conceded that the fires were isolated on just a few floors and that they were out by 4 p.m. The report also said that falling debris did not play a part in the collapse. So how did the 82 support columns all manage to fail within a millisecond of each other to make a symmetrical collapse possible?
At that point, Lieber hit me with the dreaded link to Popular Mechanics – an article about Building 7 (“World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest”). The piece features a link to the magazine’s disinformation book called Debunking 9/11 Myths: How Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. You can almost set a clock by these people posting PM. And you can almost picture their smug faces as they’re doing it.
McKee: I didn’t ask for a link. I know all about PM‘s whitewash. You pretend you know all about 9/11, so just tell me the answer. Or admit you don’t know. I would respect that, if you just stated honestly that you have not done any research.
I responded with my own link, to Griffin’s book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
McKee: Written by David Ray Griffin, who has written a dozen books on the subject. His new one is called Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. I recommend it.
Lieber: He has appeared on Alex Jones’ show and has also stated that 9/11 is a religious issue. That’s enough for me.
McKee: Ah, the old guilt by association thing. Griffin also appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show, and nobody is a bigger douche than that guy. Someone appearing on a show is the weakest possible argument. As for it being a religious issue, a lot of people would see a lot of things as having religious implications. Do you mock anti-war activists whose activism is influenced by their faith? You are exposing yourself as someone who has nothing to offer but snarky quips and a couple of links. Not impressive.
Then Hays enters the fray with this: “I have to side with David here. I’m shocked at the number of otherwise-sane people who believe the inside job theories around 9/11. It’s nonsense (yes – I’ve seen the “documentaries” on the issue and read the statements of some engineers). Please see Chomsky’s assessment of the inside job theory. This theory ranks up there with fluoride in the water, vaccinations causing autism and gluten-free diets. Bunk.”
I love it how they always hasten to inform others how thoroughly they’ve reviewed the evidence, but when you ask them a question…
McKee: I can see why you agree with David. Neither of you addresses any of the evidence. Just generalities and insults. And Chomsky doesn’t address any of the evidence either, so I see why you like his take.
Hays: Craig: I’ve seen and read about the “evidence.” None of it is convincing at all. You’ve been had.
McKee: Matthew, I don’t know what you mean by “seen and read about” the evidence. I can’t imagine that you have given the evidence fair consideration, particularly if you find “none of it” convincing. It’s the totality of the evidence that is convincing.
I then posted a link to my article on the documented weaponization of the “conspiracy theory” term by the CIA in the 1960s.
Hays: Craig: by the looks of things, this conspiracy theory is a fixation of yours. Good luck with that. Holy fuck, the things the Internet have spawned……..
McKee: Matthew: Given that this deception has led to numerous wars and a serious assault on privacy and civil liberties, then I think it is appropriate to be very concerned about people understanding the truth. When I was a teenager I was doing a great deal of research on the Kennedy assassination, so the Internet did not spawn my views. Research did. I’m sorry you feel the need to be dismissive and condescending about this, but I’m used to it. Tell me, what in the official conspiracy theory do you find compelling? Or did you just assume that the media and government wouldn’t ever tell us a lie?
McKee: I’m sure there were “patriotic” Americans in the 1960s who claimed that peace protesters had a “fixation” on opposing the Vietnam War. But it was a good fixation to have. By the way, that war started with a massive government lie called the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Hays: David makes valid points. This is a ludicrous conspiracy theory which stops us from focussing on what we need to know and act on.
McKee: Matthew, David didn’t make ANY POINTS. And neither have you. Can you address any of the evidence specifically, or do you just rely on broad and unspecific put-downs? I’d be embarrassed to endorse the comments of someone who says there is “no issue” because “there is nothing left to learn.”
Lieber: O! You brave, courageous souls! Here’s something I dragged off the internet (the same place you drag your bullshit from, Craig).
A self-satisfied Lieber plopped down a link to a horrible Psychology Today article (“The theories are powerful because they promise to manage fear of death. Instead of feeling poisonous worry, you name the threat and feel heroic for uncovering the secret truth. Since the theories are false, anxiety comes back as obsession with the theory and efforts to convert others to believe.” Anything to distract and misdirect…)
McKee: The refuge of those who are closed-minded and arrogant is to point to the “psychology” of those who dissent. It’s so much easier to slap down a link to a mainstream propaganda piece than it is to actually address the topic. But it makes sense: to address the topic requires knowing something about the topic, which you don’t.
Lieber: How did YOU become such a goddam expert, Craig? Whoever pronounced you to be an expert? You?
McKee: I did a ton of research, Dave. Even though I bought the official story for six years, I reacted to new information and began looking at the evidence. Anyone can do it.
Lieber: I know, Craig. “Anyone” can also be a doctor or a lawyer or a nuclear physics expert or a student of dead languages. “Anyone” can be a conspiracy theorist, too, except he doesn’t need any qualifications for that.
McKee: That’s what I just said. Anyone can do it. Unless they think they already know it all. Those people cannot learn anything.
Lieber: If “anyone” can do it, I’m not impressed, Craig. It’s many, many years that conspiracy theorists have failed come up with anything resembling proof to the contrary of the intensively researched conclusions of experts.
McKee: That’s a laughable statement. We have tons of proof, but you would never know because you brush it off without even looking at it. What I notice about people like you is that you love to talk in generalities and insults, but you won’t take me on on the actual facts. If I were you, I wouldn’t either.
Lieber: What on earth do you mean by an “actual fact” Craig? And what constitutes a “ton” of proof?
McKee: You’d have to look at it to know that. I have, you haven’t. I don’t know why you expect broad questions like that to have short answers. Still waiting for you to set me straight on Building 7. Or we could go to other aspects of the crime. I’m easy either way.
Lieber: … Craig looks WAY beyond the “usual sources.” I don’t find that at all virtuous.
Lieber: I invite anyone interested to visit Craig McKee’s FB page. It contains nothing but conspiracy theories, one after the other, and many memes from a site called “Truth and Shadows.” Craig also draws heavily on material from the Centre for Global Research, which contains, among other nonsense, filthy anti-Semitic articles disguised as anti-Zionist. I just read a fascinating article asserting that Israel instigated the Six Day War. Did I say “nut bar”?
McKee: Dave you seem to get nastier and more pompous as the day goes on. My page is indeed full of 9/11 posts over the past couple of days because it is the anniversary of 9/11. See how that works? Truth and Shadows is my site. Global Research does not contain “filthy anti-Semitic” articles. It sometimes dares to criticize Israel and Zionism, yes. Is that not allowed? Only nut bars do that? And you should do some research on the Six Day War.
Lieber then introduced a common disinformation tactic by suggesting that I was making money from my web site (I’m not) and that I am fooling people into thinking that Truth and Shadows the web site is unrelated to Truth and Shadows the Facebook page (pretty sneaky of me).
Enter Feldman (sounds like the worst Metallica song ever), who proved even more obnoxious and ignorant than the other two. As you’ll see, he accuses me and other “conspiracy theorists” of doing exactly what he does – ignoring facts and abandoning reason. Irony abounds.
Feldman: I studied the JFK conspiracy movement in depth for a story I wrote in the London Tely Magazine. The conspiracy nutbars stalked me for years afterwards and claimed I worked for the CIA!
I was tempted to ask, “So, do you?” but I resisted, mainly because I didn’t think he’d see the humor in the question. I also could not help wondering how truly bad that article must have been.
McKee: Did you ever study the actual evidence, or was the story just to mock “conspiracy nutbars”? For some reason, mainstream journalism only seems interested in doing the latter.
Feldman: The most interesting aspect of any conspiracy theory is how facts are systematically re-organized – always in service of the conspiracy.
McKee: It’s funny: I always evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis. It’s neither always a conspiracy nor is it never a conspiracy. I have to say I don’t respect the endless generalizations used to attack those who question official accounts. You’ve just made a generalization: why don’t you relate it to something specific, and I’d be happy to comment?
Feldman: You need to learn how to evaluate situations on a fact-by-fact basis!
McKee: By all means, Julien, tell me how I’m not doing that. If you can.
Feldman: I think you’re studious avoiding the facts. Your head is in the sand – a common look for conspiracy theorists.
He then posted the same dreaded Popular Mechanics link, which I doubt he has even read. What would these people do without it?
McKee: I’ve already addressed this link, Julien. If you want to tell me I’m wrong about 9/11, make an argument. Tell me why you believe the official account. Challenge something I’ve said. Slapping a link down doesn’t cut it. Popular Mechanics was refuted by David Ray Griffin in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Did you know PM [actually it was PM’s editor-in-chief James Meigs] claims the wings of the Pentagon plane were sheared off? Odd since they were never seen again.
At this point, Feldman thought it would be good strategy to toss out a lot of ridiculous and easily-refuted attacks on Griffin.
Feldman: Craig, Griffin wrote the book, but debunking he did not do. The book was ridiculous and the debunking an abject failure.
McKee: Give me a specific, Julien.
Feldman: How about, who is this hack polemicist – without being chemist or structural engineer, nevertheless feels entitled to go beyond hypotheses and make authoritative judgements about the events of 9/11 being at odds with the official story?!
McKee: Are you a chemist or a structural engineer, Julien? And yet you have an opinion…
Feldman: I’m not making any judgments other than to observe that your retired religion prof pretends to “debunk” serious investigations. None of the facts raised in the technical report appear to be any use to your man of little faith.
McKee: For example? What did he say that isn’t right?
Feldman: In a way it’s not surprising that a man of faith is comfortable denying science while attacking scientists as politically motivated and venal. That’s standard operating procedure on the American right.
McKee: Stop, Julien. Jesus. He’s not part of the right and he is not denying science. His books are meticulous about the evidence, including the science. Do you know anything about this man? His new book is called Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. Sound like a right winger to you?
McKee: I’m still waiting for one person on this post to offer even one specific point on 9/11. But no one can. All distractions and innuendos.
Feldman: Craig, your reaction to the Bldg. 7 report reveals you as completely alienated from the scientific idea — the notion that objective assessment of evidence is the way to understand the world.
You have to hand it to this guy. He has the balls to accuse ME of being alienated from science and objective evidence while being completely incapable of offering a single coherent thought on either one.
McKee: How so? Give me a specific, Julien. I’ve asked you to do that several times now, and all I get is empty accusations with no substance.
Feldman: A serious investigation such as the one your conspiracy leader allegedly debunks – should be taken seriously and its findings analyzed. Griffin, on the other hand, focuses on opinion polls!
McKee: That’s false, Julien. He mentions polls but he does not focus on them. Have you read his book? Do you have EVEN ONE specific point to make about Griffin’s analysis? You obviously don’t or you would have made it by now.
Feldman: History reveals a general consensus that Bush & Cheney exploited 9/11 to support their political agenda, start disastrous wars, etc., but Griffin’s actual (and wholly unnecessary) claim – in fact, referencing the same historical events – is that they *masterminded* 9/11. He launches into a search for physical clues to support the ludicrous claims of the 9/11 Truther movement – as if his pedestrian political theories need a dramatic theory to jazz ’em up.
McKee: Claims are not necessary or unnecessary, they are true or false. He does not “launch into a search for physical clues,” he looks at the official story in detail and shows where the evidence is contradictory and where government claims are simply impossible. But I guess that if you stay away from specifics – like you do – then it’s easy to take shots because you don’t have to support anything you’re saying. But I think people see through that.
Feldman: The specifics are in the Bldg 7 report. Griffin’s fake news is irrelevant invention and fabrication. A nice retirement hobby, perhaps.
McKee: That is fucking bullshit. Griffin does not peddle fake news. You throw words around very recklessly. What has he fabricated? What has he invented? What has he said that is irrelevant? Either back up your bogus claims or pack it in.
Sorry for the language, but it reflects exactly how I felt about these charges. I bet you can’t wait to hear what proof Feldman offered…
Feldman: I’m not making a claim at all, merely suggesting that the Bldg 7 report sticks to facts, while Griffin’s ambitious inquiry – designed to underpin a cult-like ideology, – is more suited to the concept of “bogus”.
The concept of bogus?
McKee: The building 7 NIST report is completely unscientific. It was even disavowed by a former NIST engineer named Peter Michael Ketcham, who now supports the 9/11 Truth Movement. So you’re wrong about that. And you have just added more empty assertions that you can’t back up about Griffin’s work. “Designed to underpin a cult-like ideology”? That sounds like gibberish to me. Again, you offer no specific point where Griffin is “bogus.” But no worries; I’ve adjusted my expectations so low now that you are guaranteed to meet them every time.
McKee: I’ll ask again: What has he invented? What has he fabricated?
A gentleman named Tim Rideout interjected a comment at this point that I got a smile out of: “Omg. Best. Thread. Ever. The Internets thank you all for your contributions.”
Feldman: The WTC 7 NIST report resulted in more than 20 changes in the U.S. model building and fire codes which have already been adopted based on the findings and recommendations from the investigation. I suppose Griffin would recommend that future tenants forego any safety concerns and measures other than arrest of the government conspirators.
McKee: Julien, no one is going to have a problem with improved safety codes, but in this case any changes are based on a false premise that fire and faulty construction brought Building 7 down. The buildings were brought down with explosives, which your precious NIST admitted they never investigated. (By the way, how do you explain the presence of molten metal under all three towers for three months after 9/11, along with the presence of unignited thermite and tons of iron microspheres in the dust that are a bi-product of a thermite reaction? In the Deutsche Bank Building, almost 6% of the dust that entered from the towers’ destruction was iron microspheres.) Your supposition about Griffin is once again both false and irrelevant. Too bad you have to attack him for words you put in his mouth instead of addressing what he actually has said. You seem incapable of dealing with actual facts. And your claim that Griffin invents and fabricates evidence is clearly invented and/or fabricated itself. I’m still waiting for you to provide an example of something he has fabricated.
Feldman: There’s no actual evidence of any kind government conspiracy. Plenty of evidence was found of the hijackers’ conspiracy – and subsequently, the crude effort to fabricate a case for war involving claims of Iraq’s alleged WMD program.
McKee: And the claim that there is no evidence of a government conspiracy is laughable. To take one example of hundreds, we know that the surveillance video from the Pentagon was doctored because two synchronized camera views from almost identical angles show exactly the same thing EXCEPT in the frame where the alleged “plane” appears. In every other frame we know they are synchronized because the smoke cloud is precisely the same shape. As to the hijackers, their identities changed multiple times, and we cannot look at who was on the plane because the official flight manifests have been kept secret. In fact, there is no proof that any of the 19 accused ever boarded any of the planes.
Feldman: That’s not evidence, just more speculation!
McKee: Doctored video is speculation? How so? As for the “hijackers”: these 19 men have been accused of mass murder. Don’t you think there should be proof they were on the planes? If you were accused of mass murder, wouldn’t you expect someone to prove you were even at the scene of the crime?
Feldman: It’s speculation that it’s “doctored”. As detectives, conspiracy theorists are notoriously lazy. Where there’s no evidence you just make it up. No problem, as the entire theory of the case is a fabrication anyways.
We’re notoriously lazy, says the man who hasn’t done enough research to be able to make a single specific point about 9/11 or about Griffin’s work.
McKee: Again, Julien, you prove that it is YOU who is lazy and you who simply fabricates. In fact, you just lie. Tell me what evidence I have ever made up! Tell me what evidence Griffin has made up. Show some integrity. Here is my article discussing the evidence for doctored video.
McKee: And how can a theory be a fabrication? Never mind. Tell us one example of evidence that I, or Griffin, or Murray, has “made up.” Just one example.
Feldman: Virtually everything underpinning the “theory” is a fabrication. It’s a theory looking for evidence. Where it finds none, it’s made up from whole cloth! The “doctored” video, for example – or Dr. Jones’ WTC dust.
McKee: If virtually everything is a fabrication, then you should be able to give examples and tell us why they are fabrications. Why is the video a fabrication? And please back up your new unsubstantiated claim that Steven Jones’s evidence is made up. Can you? No, I didn’t think so.
McKee: Watching you flail away with broad attacks that have no meaning is embarrassing. I’m embarrassed for you.
Feldman: Asking the sane world to disprove inane absurdities is as ridiculous as it sounds.
McKee: Thank you, Julien, for continuing to illustrate my points so well. But all you and the other “sane” people have to do is prove your own story. But you can’t, so you rely on silly sentences like the one you just posted. You are twisting yourself in knots to avoid addressing any of the hundreds of legitimate questions about 9/11. Is it an inane absurdity to ask how Building 7 came down when it wasn’t hit by a plane? We can’t even ask the question without being called names? But I understand: if my knowledge was as poor as yours, I’d look for distractions too.
Feldman came back the next day, showing that Google searching is among his skills. He started with a link to the pointless video of a guy showing how he can bend steel rods by heating them up. (Here is Richard Gage’s take-off on that video.)
Feldman: Here’s a detail that shows how flimsy most conspiracies really are: a waste of time.
He then posted a long quote from Griffin that he called “moronic”; it addressed the issue of whether steel melted or just weakened. But, again, he would not, or could not, say why it is moronic.
Feldman (quoting Griffin): “There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).
These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit. And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel. We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.
Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled. For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.”
At the time I responded to the use of this quote, I didn’t know where it was from or what the context was. But I tracked it down and found it in an essay of Griffin’s called “The destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the official account cannot be true” that appeared in the Paul Zarembka edited volume The Hidden History of 9-11. When I read the passage in the essay, in context, I realized why Feldman stopped quoting where he did.
Here is the paragraph that immediately followed “But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot”:
“But they were not. Claims have been made as we have seen, about the jet fuel. Much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and the rest was gone within 10 minutes, after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eager, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300 degrees F.”
Did Feldman just grab a random chunk of one of Griffin’s essays, or did he choose this one and end it where he did to deliberately mislead? [Griffin’s footnote here points out that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the NIST report, said that the jet fuel fires “probably burned out in less than 10 minutes,” and that the NIST report itself noted on page 179 that, “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”] Anyway, back to my real-time response:
McKee: Ah, Julien, you’re back! And after being incapable of making a single actual point the other day, you’ve done some frantic Googling, and now, armed with a quote from David Ray Griffin and the word “moronic” you’re ready to salvage your non-existent arguments. But this attempt just further confirms that you don’t know anything about the evidence. First of all, it was 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton who told [the CBC’s] Evan Solomon in 2006 that the steel in the towers melted and didn’t just lose strength.
Second, there is the problem of the molten metal seen pouring from one of the towers (lots of video available on that) and also reported by many sources under all three towers. The fires under the buildings were so hot that it took firefighters three months to extinguish them. They were in fact vastly hotter than anything that could be produced by jet fuel and burning office materials. And keep in mind that Building 7 was not hit by a plane and so molten metal there was not even helped along by jet fuel. The other day I mentioned the billions of iron microspheres that could only be produced by the cooling in air of molten iron. I also mentioned the presence in the dust of traces of thermite (nanothermite, actually). What do your Googling skills tells you caused all of that? And how did damage near the top of the building lead to the top section crushing the bottom four-fifths of the building?
There have been many high-rise fires that have engulfed buildings and burned for many hours without collapsing. And yet it took the South Tower just 56 minutes for its steel to “lose strength.” The only three skyscrapers in history to collapse because of fire happened on that day. And it is the official account, by the way, that says that the plane impacts did not play a significant role. And did I mention that Building 7 was not hit by a plane?
Feldman: Lol. The report on Bldg. 7 mentions in passing what happens when when [sic] steel structural members failed!
McKee: Not only is your sentence unclear, but your use of an exclamation point is a mystery. As is the reason for you laughing out loud.
Feldman: As in, the building collapsed. Lol, as in, your conspiratorial refutations are as delusional as they are absurd.
McKee: … Tell me, what in my refutations was either delusional or absurd? Can you respond to the points with actual arguments? What created molten metal that remained molten for three months? How did the building fall as quickly as if it were falling through air? Did you know that NIST, authors of your precious Building 7 report, admitted that the building fell at free fall for the first 2.25 seconds? How can that happen without something removing the structural support? If my arguments are “absurd” then it shouldn’t be hard for you to refute them…
He did not refute them. He did not make any points about 9/11. He offered no analysis, no evidence of his own. Nothing.
And that is the usual pattern. Those who aggressively support the official narrative—like many journalists, academics, and others—will very rarely discuss actual evidence. First of all, they’re usually unfamiliar with it. They will replace knowledge with “attitude.” They will try to get others to believe that they are responding to theories that are so outlandish they do not merit serious responses. So instead, they condescend and mock and ridicule.
In this discussion, I raised the free fall of the towers; the symmetrical “collapse” of Building 7, along with its isolated and short-lived fires; the molten metal under all three towers that remained that way for three months; the doctored Pentagon video; the disappearing wings of “Flight 77”; the alleged hijackers who can’t be proven to have boarded any planes; and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. And I was prepared to go into any number of other elements of the bogus 9/11 official story. (How about the incredible plane that buried itself in a field in Shanksville while creating a debris field eight miles away?) But I would not have received a straight answer to any of those, either.
On the other side the ledger we heard that conspiracy theorists are fixated obsessed nut bar crazies who make ludicrous arguments, are notoriously lazy, commonly bury their heads in the sand, reorganize facts to serve the conspiracy, and make up their whole case “out of whole cloth.” What scares me isn’t that people even make these kinds of empty accusations, what scares me are those who think this is all you have to do to dismiss questions about 9/11 and other false flags.
It would be bad enough if Feldman made these simple-minded non-arguments because he just had to distract people from the fact that he was getting his ass kicked. But I’m not convinced he isn’t pleased as punch about how he set me, and David Ray Griffin, straight. That’s the really disturbing part.
I’m reminded of Al Franken’s old Saturday Night Live impression of Senator Paul Simon who thought to himself during a debate of Democratic presidential hopefuls, “I think I scored big with the bow tie.”
I rarely hear journalists mocking 9/11 “conspiracy kooks” who don’t think they scored big with the bow tie.