US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Review :: Technology
"The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True"
28 Nov 2005
On October 15th and 16th, 2005, in the Anthology Film Archives and St. Mark's Church in New York City, theologian David Ray Griffin delivered this address. Griffin's presentation focuses on one of the most powerful indictments of the official story - the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7. In this speech, Griffin cites many aspects of the collapses which are consistent with demolition, including unique characteristics of the collapses, excerpts from the recently released firemen's tapes, and some of the many contradictions in the official version of events
Griffin.jpg
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

An Address by David Ray Griffin

Table of Contents

* The Collapse of the Twin Towers
* Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena
in the 9/11 Oral Histories
* Implications
* Other Suspicious Facts
* The Collapse of Building 7
* Conclusion

excerpt:

The Collapse of the Twin Towers

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September." Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against "outrageous conspiracy theories." What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government's own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.

But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let's say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.
See also:
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.