Friday, 03 December 2010
Federal Government Website Offers Amateur Video by Student as Authoritative Analysis
A new report has been released by the State Department website America.Gov in an effort to debunk the physical and forensic evidence presented by the technical professionals of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and others. The report was made possible by the Science Fellowship Program, which gives an “opportunity for a scientist to contribute scientific and technical expertise to the Department.”
In actuality the website posted a page purporting to debunk the evidence for controlled demolition on 9/11 just shortly after the publication of the peer-reviewed paper “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.”
The website recommends the long since debunked reports published by demolition photographer Brent Blanchard and Popular Mechanics. Even more striking, it suggests that visitors watch the YouTube video “9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible” posted September 02, 2007 by Ryan Owens (See http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html.)
When Owens was informed that his video was being used by the State Department, he had this to say:
“I can't believe the State Department actually linked to one of my videos. LOL, that's f****** insane, I can go brag to my buddies now. I never knew that, and am shocked that they would do that, but whatever, cool nonetheless.”The fact that the State Department would use a YouTube video from a non-scientist when they have top scientists at their disposal is bad enough, but then there is the issue of the contents of the video.
After producing a series of videos dealing with the claims of Ryan Owens, Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Adam Taylor wrote Owens an open letter attempting to take him up on his promise of fixing any errors that could be pointed out in his videos.
Owens’ response, however, demonstrated an inability to understand valid refutations and thus an unwillingness to correct major errors.
In regard to the video used by the State Department, Owens either failed to watch, or grasp the points, of a video of mine provided to him, which demonstrates that the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear. Based on his false premise that distinct explosions would be required, Owens claims that no explosions were heard even at the base of the Towers. He then proclaims that explosives would have been heard miles away. However, a news clip from FOX used in my video shows witnesses in midtown NYC saying that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead.” These sound waves were certainly heard miles away.
Owens also failed to admit that sounds strongly suggesting explosions can be heard in videos of WTC 1’s collapse obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies, and WTC 7’s collapse, with audio analysis by physicist David Chandler. Although not mentioned to Owens, such explosive sounds have also been found in newly released video of WTC 2’s collapse. It is also worth noting that the new videos of the Towers back up witness testimony describing loud pops at the onset of the collapses, which was also obtained through a FOIA lawsuit.
Regarding the demolition “squibs”, or isolated explosive ejections, seen on videos bursting out from the Towers, Owens failed to address that:
1. Calculations done by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers.Owens also asserted that since no squibs were seen until after the destruction had already began, that they must have been driven purely by gravitation. One argument against this is that the North Tower’s antenna dropped before any other building movement is seen, which is evidence that demolition devices were working on the core before any squibs were seen emerging out of the perimeter walls. This argument, however, is unnecessary. Thanks to the lawsuit filed against NIST we now have video showing that, contrary to Owens’ claim, some of these ejections occurred before the collapses. See “Visible Explosion at World Trade Center” and “WTC1 collapse initiation - visible signs.”
2. David Chandler has shown that some of these ejections came from the steel corner columns, making it impossible that they were the result of air pressure.
The one point that Owens’ video gets right concerns what were once believed by many to be demolition squibs emerging from the southwest corner of WTC 7, but in fact are just window blinds flapping through broken windows as the building descends. This point has been conceded by AE911Truth for quite some time.
This is just a small summary of the conversation that took place, but to paraphrase Popular Mechanics, “most of the other claims are just as easily refuted.”
In fairness to Owens, he has stated in YouTube comments that he is a current engineering student, which the State Department’s 9/11 debunking crew probably didn’t know when they posted his video. But even if they did, they shouldn’t be relying on a student to be the teacher. Even NIST officials rely on qualified teachers to provide corrections to basic errors in its work – such as the publicly humiliating WTC 7 free-fall lesson provided to Dr. Shyam Sunder by physics instructor David Chandler during its Draft Final Report in August 2008.