index

Second hour of the show, with David Ray Griffin

http://archives.avrnlive.com/gianni-09-24-08.mp3

Entire Show:

Local copy (mp3) Gianni Hayes' Archived copy Audio 2. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Early in the interview, Dr. Hayes cited my questions and asked the first 2 early in the show along with other intermittent callers.  In this article, I will cite the topics, include clips of the audio as support for the question as well as the answer, and then provide support that contradicts Dr. Griffin’s responses, or in those cases where Dr. Griffin declined to comment/provide support for the question asked.  Based upon this level of detail, I will then draw conclusions concerning the interview, the interviewer, the interviewee, as well as the callers..

As the interview started, Dr. Hayes discussed Dr. Griffin’s background as well as his participation in the analysis of the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. She then indicated she had questions from some of her listeners which she wished to ask of Dr. Griffin. As you can tell from the following segment of the show, the questions asked were mine and read essentially verbatim.



index
Question 1: — Who profits?

Can Dr. Griffin comment on those who would profit from the events of 9/11?  Anyone who has benefited from 9/11 since it occurred should all be investigated for profiteering from this tragedy and their connection to it.

Dr. Griffin comments here:

Question 1:

(mp3) full audio Audio 3. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Griffin has written seven books on 9/11 and supposedly, according to him, has tremendous evidence that the official story is false, yet he has not filed suit against those who wrote the report. He points the finger at the neocons, but what specific direct evidence does he have to pursue them? Much of what he includes in his books is hearsay and inconsistent with all of the physical anomalies at Ground Zero in particular. If he has evidence, why not pursue the perpetrators in court? Why wait for another Commission-like governmental whitewash investigation? Further, Dr. Griffin has written seven books and profited from their sales.


index
Question 2: — Pile size?

Was wondering if Dr. Griffin could comment on the size of the debris pile (vertically) as it appears in pictorial evidence.  It is my observation that the two towers are no more than 1-2 stories tall and pictorial evidence suggests that the subbasements are virtually intact and empty.

Dr. Griffin comments here:

Question 2:

(mp3) full audio Audio 4. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

According to Dr. Griffin, the piles for the Twin Towers were 4-6 stories high. The pictures below show that the piles were only 1-2 stories high within hours of the destruction . See the 2nd floor skywalk in the background below.  This picture is from mid-day 9/11 (notice WTC7 still standing in background with Building 6 to its left in the foreground). Building 6 is eight stories tall and it towers over the remnants of Tower 1. Recall that the Poseiden’s forks were the lobby area of the Towers and they stand well above any debris pile as shown in figures 3 and 4. Did they haul the buildings away that day? See for yourself:

Now you see it.	Now you don't.	Where did it go?
Figure 1. The height of the towers is compared to the height of WTC6 and the "rubble pile" shown in Figure 2. (1978) Source	Figure 2. This photo was taken was take around noon on 9/11/01, showing the height of WTC6 compared to the "rubble pile" of WTC1 which is appears in the foreground. Where did the building go? (9/11/01) Source and here	Figure 3. A view of the vacant lot where WTC1 stood just the day before. Where did the building go? (9/12/01)

Here is a photo of the remains of Tower 1:

Figure 3. A view of the vacant lot where WTC1 stood just the day before. Where did the building go? (9/12/01)	Figure 4. A view of the vacant lot where WTC1 stood just the day before. Where did the building go? (9/11/01) Source

Underground Mall

Figure 5. "Hmmm...where do we start looking?" GZ workers begin to search in the mall in first subbasement level. (photo filed 9/19/01) Source	Figure 6. "OK, here we go. Let's just start looking." This photo was taken inside the mall. The store sign "innovation" is visible on the left. (photo filed 9/19/01) Source

Figure 7. (old Figure 18(b).) Warner Bros. figures from the WTC mall. (And of course, Roadrunner survived! ) (Source)

Here is a photo from the basement of Tower 2:
Massive Subbasement Holes - WTC 2

	Figure 8(a). Solid red box locates Figure 300.
Figure 8. GZ workers descend into the subbasements below WTC2. While there is extensive damage, there is little building debris at the bottom of the hole. There is no sign of molten metal. A worker in the distance walks along a massive core column. (photo filed 9/18/01) Source	Figure 8(b). Figure 300 is located in zone 2, above. Overhanging debris was removed before ladder was lowered into hole 2.

Here are the remains of WTC 3:
No Debris Pile

Figure 9. WTC3. Where did the building go? Notice the depth of the hole in front of the Poseidon forks that surrounded the lobby. The pile level there is below ground level, a hole. (9/15/01 entered) Source

No Debris Pile

Where does Dr. Griffin get 4-6 stories?  I have found no pictures that show them to be that high.  How is it that Dr. Griffin has not looked at pictures of the subbasements which shows that the basements were not full, but in fact, were quite undamaged, relatively speaking, when compared to the complete elimination of most of the debris?  How can Dr. Griffin make the statement that there is only one way to destroy the building or slice steel.  He speculates on thermite/thermate, yet will not speculate on Directed Energy when the evidence has been presented.  Further, he makes the statement that we don’t need to understand what happened, only that the official story is not true.  If those who seek the truth about 9/11 do not understand what did or did not happen, how can they expect to hold accountable, those who perpetrated the events of 9/11.  Lastly, he indicates that the cement was turned into very fine dust.  It is understood that thermite/thermate can melt steel, but what does it do to cement?  If explosives were used in conjunction with thermite/thermate, how were they able to turn all of the concrete into very fine dust?  Typically, explosives break things up at the time of the explosion and is inconsistent in the pattern that materials are broken apart.  Evidence suggests that the fine dust that Dr. Griffin speaks of settled out of the air rather quickly, indicating that it was more coarse, then further broke down after settling on the ground.  This would support the evidence that the dust that remained could no longer quickly settle out of the air as supported by pictorial evidence.

Figure 10. Nice example of "fuzzballs." (9/11/01) Source Tricia Meadows/Globe Photos	Figure 11. (9/11/01) Source

Figure 12. Whoops! I guess that's molten metal under the sidewalks? ;-) (9/11/01) Source	Figure 13. And molten metal under the streets? (9/11/01) Source

Figure 14. (9/11/01) Source	Figure 15. And molten metal under the streets? (9/11/01) Source: AP

index

Question 3:

(mp3) full audio Audio 5. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Dr. Griffin’s response to the hypothetical that Iraq was the purpose for 9/11 is highly speculative.  It would appear to go to motive, but for whom?  What specific evidence does Dr. Griffin site that proves that the physical destruction at Ground Zero was caused by members of the Bush Administration?



index
Question 4 — Brian asks about Secondary Devices

Dr. Griffin comments here:

Question 4:

(mp3) full audio Audio 6. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

The co-host, Brian, asks about reports of explosive devices in the buildings. Dr. Griffin speculates (he said he doesn’t do this) that the sounds heard by the rescuers was related to explosives, though he doesn’t have any specific proof of that. On the other hand, there were pressure tanks of many types within the buildings that could have been thinning just as the metal was disintegrating during the destruction that may have burst prior to the buildings disappearing. This would be consistent with the Scot Pak question later in the interview. These tanks were exploding on the fire trucks surrounding Ground Zero.  What would cause this phenomena other than thinning of the canisters to the point that they burst? Again, all data must be taken into account and the only explanation that one garners from the Scot Pak thinning away from the buildings themselves would be that they were being affected by the same phenomena found in the buildings.


index
Question 5 — Molten Metal

What about the issue of the molten metal? We see people walking on that pile. And if it was as hot as they were claiming, wouldn't they have been burned by walking on it? maybe even cooked?

Dr. Griffin comments here:

Question 5:

(mp3) full audio Audio 7. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Could Dr. Griffin comment on the issue of molten metal? Pictorial evidence shows that people are walking on the pile and would surely be burned or cooked if they were standing over top of what would essentially be a barbecue grill. Further, due to my understanding of hydraulics, it is my understanding that the hydraulic oil breaks down above 180 degrees F and that hydraulic cylinders will freeze up when subjected to high heat. Also, if water is poured on super heated metals, should there not be steam explosions after the water contacts super-heated metal? Question 5 (clip 2): (mp3) full audio Audio 8. David Ray Griffin on Gianni Hayes 24 September 2008 (Thanks to Andrew Johnson for the recordings)

Dr. Hayes asks a very specific question about the molten metal and the fact that people were walking on the super hot pile.  She correctly asks why people weren’t severely burned or cooked.  Dr. Griffin avoids the idea that people would have been burned and quickly points out that boots were melting, which suggests they were touching hot debris.  The problem with that thinking is that if the boots were melting from heat, the feet within them would have been severely burned.  Would you walk in your barbeque grill for any period of time?  The person whose feet were in the boots would have been overwhelmed by the tremendous heat required to melt the boots.  If the ground was that hot, you couldn’t be there.  I have worked over a grill cooking hundreds of hamburgers for a fundraiser and could only stand it for a few seconds and the hair on my hands burned off.  Think of this.  Would you put your hand in water that was just below the boiling point?  I wouldn’t as you would be scalded.  If the ground was hot enough to melt the boots, it would have been far hotter than that.  Further, if it was that hot, why didn’t water from the water main break at GZ blamed by NIST for the failure of the lower level sprinklers in WTC7 have caused huge steam explosions as was seen at Grand Central station in July, 2007 when cool water was pumped into steam pipes?  Not only that, it rained and water was sprayed on the pile.  No steam explosions at 212 degrees F.  We certainly would have expected this.  That they were able to comfortably walk around in boots that deteriorated as if melted, it begs the question:  Were the boots disintegrating from some other effects, not from heat?  Could it be that whatever turned thousands of tons of steel and concrete to dust may have broken down the material in the boots as it came in contact with the affected materials that continued to break down at normal outdoor temperatures?



index
Question 6 — about the four planes being shot down:

Question 6:

(mp3) full audio Audio 9. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

The data related to this specific question again is highly speculative.  That evidence against planes would suggest that no planes crashed into the towers as evidenced by the wrong sized holes, lack of deceleration into the buildings, Shanksville, PA, and the Pentagon.  Dr. Griffin says that he tries to stay away from trying to figure out what happened, but that he does use the work of a select few researchers.  If he supports any speculation, then why not start digging into what is and is not valid speculation based on the pictorial record and eliminate unsubstantiated theories such as those like thermite that cannot support such things as the toasted cars,  flipped cars, fires on metal objects that do not blow up gasoline or burn paper.

Who are the right people that need to be convince that the official story is false and a new official investigation is needed that Dr. Griffin is talking about?  The perps?   




index

Question 7:

(mp3) full audio Audio 10. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

This entire conversation is speculative.  Dr. Griffin says he doesn’t know and stays with things he understands.  His speculation on Cheney and Myers is just that.  It does not connect physical evidence to them in any way.  All hearsay.

Dr. Griffin talked about turning steel to Swiss cheese.  Metal would not evaporate (thin), it would weaken and break.  If the metal was attacked and repelled its own molecules, it would essentially fume itself away, which was observed in the pictorial evidence. 

 He also says that the steel, as it was cut, was very, very hot.  Is there evidence of this or is this speculation?  Did people walk on the pile?  Pictorial evidence says yes.  Were hydraulic equipment used on the pile?  This equipment would have been damaged at temps below 200 degrees Fahrenheit.  There is no evidence that people were severely burned being treated after the demolitions.  People didn’t cook on the missing piles of debris.  Water stood in pools around the site and people were able to walk around in the basements as shown.  Is it possible that Dr. Griffin is wishing to keep the listener from considering other methods for turning thousands of tons of steel, cement, filing cabinets, porcelain, etc. to dust?

 Why did Dr. Griffin discount directed energy when he said he had not looked into the idea and would not speculate on actually what happened when he does just that with thermite and explosives?  Can he prove that the speculation that thermite and explosives were used to remove the volumes of cement (which was all turned to dust) and steel (which should have stood many, many stories high since it did not fall outside the footprint of the WTC complex)?  Does this speculation take into account all the other unusual phenomena seen at or around Ground Zero (flipped cars, toasted cars, unusual steel bending, and spandrel rolling at 90 degree variance to the demolition wave.  Why does he say we have enough evidence to require a new investigation when researchers are doing an independent investigation and finding the reasons for the destruction?  What is his definition of enough?  Should people analyzing the physical data stop?  Why on earth would anyone do that or say that?  No prosecutor goes to trial when additional research might be fruitful to make his case air tight.  No prosecutor would go to trial without corroborating all of the evidence, lest some surprise might destroy his case.





index

Question 7A (clip 2):

(mp3) full audio Audio 11. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Dr. Griffin avoids the question about Scot Paks despite being an authority.  Explosions could have been air tanks exploding that were thinning from the same phenomena as the Swiss cheese beams where they finally became weak enough to give way.  This was documented by firemen in their trucks in that their air tanks were blowing up.

Testimony of Exploding Scott Paks A. ..."There was a Deputy Chief's rig on fire that was extended to 113's rig. There was a big ambulance, like a rescue company truck, but it wasn't a rescue company truck. It was a huge ambulance. It must have had Scott bottles or oxygen bottles on it. These were going off.  You would hear the air go SSS boom and they were exploding. So we stretched a line and tried to put that out. He could only use booster water." WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE, FIREFIGHTER PATRICK SULLIVAN INTERVIEW, p. 8 A. ..."I remember getting a drink of water out of their cooler there, and then we just started to put out the car fires, and the rigs were going, ambulances. I mean, there must have been 50 of these things burning heavily.  The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were all blowing up left and right." WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE, FIREFIGHTER TODD HEANEY INTERVIEW, p. 13. Figure 16. SCOTT air-pak (photo lightened) source Q. At this point was your vehicle lost? A. Basically all we to do is go around the building, came around. But it took longer than usual because you're walking in like this shit. Like you move and it's this soot like heavy dust. While we're walking I realize that we only have two people. I see my vehicle. The seats are covered. I've still got my bag. I hold it like a trophy. Like people collect basketballs. I haven't touched -- whatever the force was, it was so strong that it went inside of the bag. But we were there. Vehicle 219 wasdestroyed. Q. Was it on fire? A. What? Q. Was it on fire? A. Fire? We saw the sucker blow up. We heard "Boom!" We were walking up Fulton Street. I don't know how far we made it up when someone says, "The building's coming down." By the time I realized, it's a repeat. WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE, RENE DAVILA INTERVIEW, pp. 27-28

Why did Griffin avoid Hurricane Erin?  Why did he want to go back to the Russian thing?  The piece of evidence that indicates a Hurricane was right off shore should surely be a huge piece of evidence.  It indicates media complicity, weather control, and field effects as expected by the physical data analyses and magnetometer analysis on 9/11.

index
Question 7B — Scott Paks

Could Dr. Griffin comment on the radar evidence of a large hurricane existing off the northeast coast of the United States on 9/11? I have seen nothing about this in his books and would guess he would have grave concerns about this as part of the cover-up. Further, has he looked at the magnetometer data that indicates that the magnetic field recorded in Alaska went haywire during the events at the WTC?

Question 7 (clip 3): (mp3) full audio Audio 12. David Ray Griffin on Erin and Scott Packs David Ray Griffin on Gianni Hayes 24 September 2008 (Thanks to Andrew Johnson for the recordings) Response to Question: Weather and Magnetometer Data Figure 17. This photo of Hurricane Erin was taken mid-morning on 9/11/01. The eye has an unusual appearance. (9/11/01) Source: (more information is here) Figure 18. source (more information is here) Figure 19. source: website: (more information is here) Figure 20. Track of Hurricane Erin. (9/01-17/01) Source: (more information is here) Figure 21. (9/11/01) source (more information is here) Figure 22. (9/11/01) Source: (more information is here) Figure 23. Was this a controlled environment? National Hurricane Center data source: (more information is here) Figure 24. magnetometer data source: GIMA (more information is here) Figure 25. H3, magnetometer data source: GIMA (more information is here)

index
Question 8 — Dr. Hayes asks and Griffin Speculates on Confiscation of Rights/Freedoms, Iraq

Question 8:

(mp3) full audio Audio 13. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

This entire answer is speculation on ulterior motives.  Again, this is circumstantial evidence that must be connected once the true perps are identified.  This must occur after the World knows what exactly actually happened.  Again, the detective work must be done first, then specific charges brought, then a trial against specific perpetrators.




index
Question 9 — Question on PNAC/Zelikow Mythology

Question 9:

(mp3) full audio Audio 14. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Again, this is highly speculative save for solid evidence tying the actual crimes to these documents and people.






index
Question 10 — Brian Question on Post 9/11 Events

Question 10:

(mp3) full audio Audio 15. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Again, this is highly speculative save for solid evidence tying the actual crimes to these documents and people.






index
Question 11 — Caller (4) Questions the Pile Size

Question 11:

(mp3) full audio Audio 16. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Dr. Griffin is asked about the size of the pile.  Again, Dr. Griffin indicates that the pile was 4-6 stories high.  He admits that everything, save all of the steel was turned to dust.  This includes cement, office equipment, desks, computers, toilets, etc.  How could that be?  Since available evidence shows that the debris pile was less than two stories in height and that the basements were left intact, it stands to reason that much of the steel was turned to dust as well.  This is confirmed by analysis of seismic data that indicates that when compared to the King Dome, the ground shaking from the Twin Towers at a minimum should have been around a 3.8 based on the difference in mass.  Further, based on analysis of the fall times, all of the debris would have had to have hit the ground at roughly the same time based on observable data that the building fell from the top and reached the ground in freefall time.  That the bottom of the building did not disappear until immediately before all of the debris hit the ground, then all of the debris (if it was still intact) would have had to have hit the ground all at one time which should have crushed the basements (evidence to the contrary exists above) and cause very significant noise (also not evident) and tremendous ground shaking (again not evident).

index
Question 11A — Pile Size

Could Dr. Griffin comment on the size of the debris pile (vertically) as it appears in pictorial evidence. It is my observation that the two towers are no more than 1-2 stories tall and pictorial evidence suggests that the subbasements are virtually intact and empty. (mp3) full audio Audio 17. David Ray Griffin on Debris Pile David Ray Griffin on Gianni Hayes 24 September 2008 (Thanks to Andrew Johnson for the recordings) (mp3) full audio Audio 18. David Ray Griffin on Debris Filling Basements David Ray Griffin on Gianni Hayes 24 September 2008 (Thanks to Andrew Johnson for the recordings) Response: Piles were only 1-2 stories.  See the skywalk in the background below.  This picture is from mid-day 9/11 (notice WTC7 in background). Building 6 is eight stories tall and it towers over the remnants of Tower 1. Did they haul the buildings away that day? See for yourself: Now you see it. Now you don't. Where did it go? Figure 26. The height of the towers is compared to the height of WTC6 and the "rubble pile" shown in Figure 17. (1978) Source Figure 27. This photo was taken was take around noon on 9/11/01, showing the height of WTC6 compared to the "rubble pile" of WTC1 which is appears in the foreground. Where did the building go? (9/11/01) Source and here Figure 28. A view of the vacant lot where WTC1 stood just the day before. Where did the building go? (9/12/01) Figure 29. WTC6, an 8-story building, towers over the "rubble pile" remaining from WTC1 and 2. We know this photo was take around noon on 9/11/01. WTC7 can be seen in the distance. The Verizon Building is at a distance on the left. Where did the building go? (9/11/01) Source and here Figure 30. This is a view from West Street, looking east across the remains of WTC1. FEMA entered this photo on 9/13/01, which is the earliest date for any posts for the 9/11 event. Other photos they have for 9/13/01 show much more people and equipment present. So, it is believed that this photo was taken on 9/11/01, but entered into their files on 9/13. Where did the building go? (9/13/01 entered, likely taken on 9/11/01) Source

index
Question 11B — Pile Size

Is Dr. Griffin aware that the basements were not collapsed and full of debris, but relatively undamaged and/or empty? Echo: What would have caused them to collapse at the bottom? Did we see the bottom of the building pulling in at the same time the top of the building is coming down? Could all of the floor truss connections all have failed at the exact same time? This is highly unlikely due to visual evidence. There are massive open holes in the sub-basements that cannot be explained. If the core columns were in there, wouldn't there mass have filled much of the holes that existed post collapse? Again, look at the visual evidence and see for yourself. In addition, a video of the first rescue workers going into the basement records an obvious echo, indicating the basement had large open areas. (mp3) source video Audio 19. First rescuers under the WTC remains, "someone down there-there-there..." (mp3) full audio Audio 20. David Ray Griffin on Debris Pile David Ray Griffin on Gianni Hayes 24 September 2008 (Thanks to Andrew Johnson for the recordings) (mp3) full audio Audio 21. David Ray Griffin on Debris Filling Basements David Ray Griffin on Gianni Hayes 24 September 2008 (Thanks to Andrew Johnson for the recordings) Question response: Here are pix in the basement of WTC 2: Massive Subbasement Holes - WTC 2 Figure 31(a). Solid red box locates Figure 300. Figure 31. GZ workers descend into the subbasements below WTC2. While there is extensive damage, there is little building debris at the bottom of the hole. There is no sign of molten metal. A worker in the distance walks along a massive core column. (photo filed 9/18/01) Source Figure 31(b). Figure 300 is located in zone 2, above. Overhanging debris was removed before ladder was lowered into hole 2. Here are the remains of WTC 1 and 3: Figure 32. Early fuming (9/12?/01) Source Figure 33. WTC3. Where did the building go? (9/15/01 entered) Source Underground Mall Figure 34. "Hmmm...where do we start looking?" GZ workers begin to search in the mall in first subbasement level. (photo filed 9/19/01) Source Figure 35. "OK, here we go. Let's just start looking." This photo was taken inside the mall. The store sign "innovation" is visible on the left. (photo filed 9/19/01) Source The GZ workers in Figures 34 and 35 are not crawling on their hands and knees through dense debris in ruined subbasements. They are walking upright and not ducking beneath low-hanging ceilings. Does this look like a 1/4-mile tall tower crash-landed or pancake-collapsed into the basement? The lower portion of the steel from the east wall of WTC2, shown in Figure 60, is spread over the ground where the main section of WTC4 once stood. The mall is the first floor below all this steel, yet the mall was not crushed. Figure 36. (old Figure 18(b).) Warner Bros. figures from WTC mall. (Source) Where does Dr. Griffin get 4-6 stories? I have found no pictures that show them to be that high.

index
Question 12 — Dr. Hayes Question Future Events


Dr. Griffin comments here:

Question 12:

(mp3) full audio Audio 22. David Ray Griffin 9/24/08

Again, highly speculative.  One cannot predict the future.









index
Conclusions


 As noted in my opening, I will now discuss the authenticity of the interview and the interviewer, the nature of the responses from the interviewee and my position on the entire show.

 First, based on the various questions asked, including my own, it would appear that the interview and the interviewers were innocent speculators on the events of 9/11.  That Dr. Hayes read verbatim my first two questions and later asked her own question concerning molten metal and the heat of the pile, it would appear that her intentions concerning getting to the bottom of the physical evidence are sincere.  It is quite evident that she has not taken the time to evaluate the only thorough analysis of the physical evidence only concerning Ground Zero presented by her previous guest on September 17, 2008, Dr. Judy Wood.  Any analysis of the official story as well as any other theories concerning the building destruction at Ground Zero must be supported by all of the pictorial evidence.

 With that being said, the interviewee, Dr. David Ray Griffin, would appear to be disingenuous at best and specifically directly attempting to avoid the physical evidence at worst.  The numerous points made during the interview in which such things as pile size, molten metal, Scot Pak explosions, Hurricane Erin analysis and Dr. Griffin’s specific avoidance or answers contrary to the available evidence would suggest that he has ulterior motivations for avoiding this evidence.  He has held himself out as one of the leading researchers of the events of 9/11, yet specific verifiable evidence he has never looked at and considered to be speculative and unworthy of his time?   That he will not speculate on what actually did occur at Ground Zero does not hold water since he does speculate on explosives and particularly the use of thermite/thermate being used to "cut" the steel while at the same time having no support for the self-professed complete disintegration of everything else in the buildings, except the paper that flew everywhere and was unburned.  If Dr. Griffin is going to dismiss as speculative a theory that is fully supported by forensic analysis of the photographic, seismic, and magnetometric data, then he must be prepared to fully support scientifically those things that he does speculate on.  He has not done so, yet continues to repeat the mantra of those whose speculation he supports.

 In summary, Dr. Griffin appears to be a very polished researcher on the events of 9/11/01.  He has written and profited from the writing of numerous books on the subject.  Yet, he is unfamiliar with particular photographic details of the evidence and is uninterested in specific data that might lead to a resolution of what exactly occurred on 9/11/01?  That he would support another "official investigation" which has no better chance of determining who did what than the first one should be evident to everyone.  It is unimaginable that specific evidence such as the media complicity in the cover-up of the Category 3 hurricane headed towards the Northeastern United States on 9/10/01 which made a U-turn on 9/11/01 after slowing, stabilizing, then moving out to sea; the ability to control a storm as evidenced by the four day march from Bermuda to the shores of New York and New Jersey; the lack of media concern about potentially catastrophic storm surge; and the supportable evidence of field effects at Ground Zero is mind-boggling.  That evidence, supported by thousands of pictures, could be downplayed as speculative would appear to border on criminal.  With that said, I conclude that Dr. Griffin is not in search of the truth behind 9/11/01 and further, it would appear that he is part of the official 9/11 Truth cover-up.  His understanding of the subject could not allow him to ignore evidence, particularly that which discounts his own speculation.  All who seek the truth should question his motivations.

---

index
Dustification

Figure 37. "Shaving cream"/"Alkaseltzer" (9/11/01) Source: Shannon Stapleton, Reuters	Figure 38. "Shaving cream" or "Alkaseltzer" (9/11/01) Source

WTC2	WTC1
Figure 39, 40. Here, the building in each picture has lost more than half its height. But, where has this mass gone?

Figure 41. A thick layer of uniform powder covered the streets of Manhattan after the destruction.	Figure 42. The building turns to powder. Material is being launched upward and outward. The whitish material arcs over and begins to fall downward while the southern portion (away from the camera) appears to shoot straight up. (9/11/01) Cropped from Source

Figure 43. Moments after WTC1 turns to powder, people emerge from their hiding places, looking amazed. From the postures, these folks look amazed. They are probably wondering if they are asleep and dreaming. After all, there should be a 110-story building directly in front of them. Where did it go? They are looking across the Vesey Street intersection at the remains of WTC6. In the distance, on the far side of the intersection, a fellow stands in amazement, with his hands on his hips. These people are approximatey 200 to 300 feet from where the 1,368-foot north wall of WTC1 stood. There appear to be no obvious indications that a 110-story building, over a quarter mile tall, had been there earlier in the day. Except for a few pieces of aluminum cladding strewn to the side, some paper and dust are all that remain. Where did the building go? (9/11/01) Source