II. Brief Rebuttals Top
Vaporizing the World Trade Center
by Steven Dutch, last updated July 13, 2007
"His logic is circular and his information understates DEW capabilities by several orders of magnitude." |
Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11
by Victoria Ashley, Version 1.1, August 5, 2007
Congratulations to Ms. Ashley for publishing an article in her area of expertise, an area in which she appears to thrive. Victoria Ashley does not have a degree in structural engineering, engineering mechanics (applied physics), materials engineering science, nor any other type of engineering degree. For that matter, she doesn't have a degree in any area of physical science.
List of Architects Who Have Questioned The Official Story of the Three WTC Collapses
Victoria Ashley (BA Architecture, MA Psychology)
Victoria Ashley, Psychology Researcher, BArch, Alameda, CA
So, what qualifies her to write such a piece? Her expertise is in PsyOps. Her MA (2004?) is in psychology and her area of expertise is neuro-linguistic programming. How interesting. She's actually one of the most qualified to write such a PsyOps hit piece.
;-)
Thoroughly Discredited
August 14, 2007, by Jeff Strahl
|
|
[empasis added]
"...The paper makes the assertion that certain photographs of the WTC collapse prove that explosions were responsible for the ejection of debris, but advances no evidence for the assertion. Pictures of damaged cars are produced more to refute the beam weapon theory than to promote the explosives theory; the damage is characterised as due to hot and possibly corrosive debris, but no evidence is advanced that this debris was not ejected as a result of glancing collisions in the collapse of the towers, or that the heating of the debris was not a result of the extensive pre-collapse fires.
In discussion of the "squibs", the key assertion that "overpressure is created by explosions" is not justified. The discussion of the radial distribution of debris is superfluous, as the ejection velocity has already been deduced from videos, and the comment that "it is likely that explosions are also occurring after the growing dust cloud envelopes the area" is pure speculation unsupported by evidence.
In summary, this paper is an attempt at proof by assertion, and no evidence is advanced to support its central thesis. ....
Refused for publication. Re-submission is not advised.
Dave" |
The World Trade Center Collapse: Waiting for a Fuse (source 2),
by Crockett Grabbe, September 22, 2001, (Revised: September 25, 2001).
Grabbe, Crockett L. Space Weapons and the Strategic Defense Initiative. Ames, Iowa State University Press, 1991. 252 p.Book call no.: 358.80973 G727s
|
|
