Dear mr. Getler,
In your column, which can be found at http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2009/09/pbs_yes_and_no.html
you say the following about "9/11: Blueprint for Truth":
"I'm not going to review the films, but on a personal level I find the idea embedded in "Blueprint" of a government conspiracy to blow up those buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say."
Sir, unless you DO review those films, you have no business commenting on them whatsoever.
In your column, you commit the following logical fallacies in order to sway your readers towards your viewpoint:
1. Appeal to emotion
2. Argument from personal incredulity
3. Special pleading
The third and last point applies to the comments cited from viewers: the reactions were overwhelmingly positive and yet you misrepresent this by choosing to post only outspoken negative comments and one moderately positive comment. For AE911Truth's presentation however, plenty of "balance" is given by gross distortions in mainstream media to which a helpless and uninformed public is exposed every day.
Why do I, a foreigner, contact you about this? Because 9/11 affects us all, profoundly. Soldiers from my country are dying in Afghanistan. People from Afghanistan seek refuge in my country. Civil rights in Western countries now exist only in theory. I do not deny the involvement of foreign terrorists in 9/11, but I do deny the ability of terrorists to bring down buildings in ways that violate various laws of physics. Especially if these events are at the core of what happened that day. You may or may not have heard about initiatives by 9/11 victims family members. Visit their website http://www.nyccan.org/ for more information. This organization has collected around 80000 signatures from New York City residents.
Furthermore, may I note that it is public knowledge that your government kidnaps and tortures men and even children in a lawless prison on Cuban territory, kills hundreds of thousands of men in Iraq over lies, yet you are confident it cannot conceivably be an accomplice to mass murder on 9/11.
Note that the 9/11 commission has already admitted that it was "set up to fail". It even considered referring NORAD for criminal prosecution. A cover-up under these circumstances amounts to a criminal conspiracy to commit treason.
Note that licensed Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko confidently asserts that the destruction of WTC 7 was a professional demolition. He is not alone among his peers. He later noted that if one speaks about this in public in the United States, one is certain to lose his or her career opportunities.
As if that wasn't enough, exotic explosive materials have been found in World Trade Center dust. This perfectly augments other WTC dust studies by RJ Lee which indicate extremely high temperatures during the collapse of the Twin Towers. Temperatures that far exceed the range of any jet fuel or office fire, for particles that cannot possibly have been released during clean-up operations, but only during the exact moment of destruction.
You do not review this presentation because you can't. Because those who attempt to refute it, fail. If you think you can, you may attempt to answer one question. Use any expert consultancy you may require.
"How can WTC 7 collapse through the path of most resistance at a rate indistinguishable from freefall for a minimum of 2.25/2.5 seconds or eight storeys?"
Remember, NIST publically admitted this freefall event in their 2008 report on the destruction of WTC 7, after being forced to do so by physicist David Chandler. Watch this confrontation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
The initial response from NIST is nothing short of scandalous. They later turn around completely and baldly assert this as fact without proper explanation. Have you read their report?
David Chandler is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Visit their website http://www.ae911truth.org/ to review the signed statements of more than 800 licensed architects and engineers passionately calling for a new investigation.
What is wrong with NIST's response?
Newton's second law of motion dictates: F = m * a.
Therefore if a (acceleration) is identical to the acceleration of gravity g (9.8 m/s2) for eight storeys, F from gravity is maximal and unimpeded. This means the resisting force is ZERO.
Something destroyed eight floors across the width of this building and it sure as hell wasn't gravity. For this to happen without the aid of explosives, Newton's third law of motion MUST be violated. In order for the top section of the building to crush the lower section at all, it MUST either decelerate or show a decline in acceleration from complete freefall. In this sense, there is a profound difference between acceleration and speed.
Some have argued that the building collapsed internally first, leaving a half empty shell for us to look at. Well allow me to put forth my own argument from personal incredulity: I find this a preposterous suggestion. No such internal collapse would have been possible without large visible deformations of the building's exterior. Furthermore, even then the reasoning in the paragraph above applies.
If you can answer the question plausibly, I will withdraw my comments and publicly apologize. Remember, you are convinced you are right. Please put your religious belief, which you convey to others with some degree of authority, to the test. If it turns out you cannot answer my question, I suggest you fully and publicly support KBDI in their airing of independent and honest documentaries and presentations from now on. The real skeptics will be thankful.
Regards,
Michiel de Boer
The Netherlands
No comments:
Post a Comment