I had sent you a message back in June. I am planning a video in response to your reply back to me. I wasn't motivated to respond to your reply to me for the simple reason that your reply was dismissive and unreasonable. This was your reply to me, "I am capable of forming my own opinions. Thanks." That was a reply to my message about Prof Jones being wrong. In that message, I had included a link which asked you to check out the fact that "The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center."
I just watched your David Ray Griffin Interview and I see you make no mention of this critical fact which Griffin is ignorant of. At the link I sent you, I wrote, "The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center.
Griffin writes, "in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes." But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong.
Your reply to me suggests that you didn't even take the time to look at the information I was trying to make you aware of. For someone putting themselves out there as one who is "researching various aspects of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks." I find your response to me especially disappointing and frustrating. What kind of scholar is so sure of his position that he refuses to even look at facts he is being presented with?
I am making a video response to our video David Ray Griffin Interview which will highlight the errors that Griffin makes and which you failed to address.
Since I plan to point out in my video how unreasonable your original reply was to me, I thought I would give you the opportunity to review what I had originally sent you and to formulate some sort of response that won't put you in such a bad light. I assume no scholar would want to look unreasonable and unwilling to even review information that calls into question their theory.
In your interview, Mr. Jackman asks Griffin what is the "the biggest piece of eye-opening evidence" and Griffin says that if the question is what is "the clearest evidence that it was an inside job," he answers, "I, like many other people, would probably say building 7." It is incredible that this man can be ignorant of something so well documented and available but perhaps he too doesn't take the time to review information which people send him. Griffin could take a look at the facts laid out at this link and see that building 7 was hit by debris from WTC 1 and was on fire for about 7 hours. Please review the link for yourself. You will see that it is no mystery why the building collapsed. Captain Chris Boyle of Engine 94 explained, "on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."
Fire chief Daniel Nigro clearly thought the building could collapse. Here's what he said, "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."
Ignorance spreads when there is an unwillingness to engage in a dialog.
UPDATE: Here is his e-mail back to me.