9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Zan Overall Confronts Dylan Avery Re: Israeli Involvement

NOTE: Since there is an acute aversion in the 9/11 research
community to addressing indications of Israeli involvement in
9/11, it may be unsurprising that even Dylan Avery might be
averse to them, too. I have addressed this question in, "Is
9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?", which is accessible via google
and which I shall post here, if I have not already done so. I
recognize this is a complex issue, but one that needs to be
addressed. I have no reason to think Zan is anti-Semitic.

DYLAN AVERY CHALLENGED RE ISRAELI INVOLVEMENT
IN 9/11
-by Zan Overall.

On September 11. 2009, Dylan Avery premiered his latest
edition of “Loose Change” at the Granada Forum in
California. He is known for being averse to the idea that
Israel had a part in planning and executing the 9/11 “attack.”
During the Q & A after the premiere, out of some twenty
questioners, four brought up evidence of Israeli guilt for 9/11.
I was the first questioner. Here is a transcription taken from
the Granada Forum video. The video showed only Avery, not
the questioners.

*******************************************************************
Zan Overall (ZO): Dylan, thanks for everything you’ve done
(Dylan Avery (DA) responds with a big, happy smile.) but until
Israel is named as the principal agent behind this you have
done no more than a police department that arrests drug
dealers on the street (DA’s big smile is replaced by a quizzical,
vaguely amused look) and Mr. Big is well and safe in his
penthouse.
(ZO got the words “Mr. Big” out but DA cut in talking over the
rest of the sentence.)
DA: I think I see where you you’re going with that. Were you
here before the beginning of the film? Did you hear what Chris
had to say about us being labeled as racists?
(This Chris had mentioned that 9/11 Truthers had been called
racists for allegedly spreading the idea that Arabs were not
intelligent enough to pull off 9/11. I ignored his question not
wanting to get sidetracked from the Israeli angle.)
ZO: I have a question for you. (DA remains silent, politely
waiting for the question.) Christopher Bollyn, a man whom you
respect--------
DA: (interrupting) I haven’t read a Christopher Bollyn article for
a long time, sir. I’m here to talk about evidence.
(Some talking over each other occurred.)
ZO: I have a question for you!
DA: Well, let’s………(Smiling amusedly and holding out his
hands in a “get on with it” gesture, although his interruption
had kept me from asking the question moments before.)
ZO: Christopher has written a book called “Solving 9/11.”
It’s not a book. It’s an electronic book and can be accessed.
(I should have given the bollyn.com website and should have
made it clear that the book puts the blame for 9/11 on Israel
and its Jewish and Gentile Zionist helpers here in this country.
I think the context of the preceding exchange made that clear.)
I’m asking you : will you read that? Perhaps you’ll change your
mind.
DA: (Matter of factly) Probably not.
ZO: (Very emotionally) “Probably not???!!!!” You haven’t read
it and you say you won’t change your mind?
DA: (Making a soothing, oil-on-the-waters gesture with his right
hand) Hey, relax. You asked me a question and I answered it.
ZO: (Very loudly) PROBABLY NOT???!!! (A female producer
touched my arm and asked me to calm down.)
DA: (Laughing) You’re right. That’s my answer. Next!
Questioner two (Q2) That will be hard to follow. Are you an
anti semite, Mr. Avery?
DA: (Smiling) No, I am not. (Laughter in the audience)

(Q2’s non sequitur question was pointless since the implication
of Avery’s defense of Israel would make him a “pro semite”
rather than an anti semite. DA’s answer was intriguing in light
of the fact that Dylan Avery is Jewish. I understand he says he
is an agnostic but that philosophical position says nothing
about his family background or his sympathies for Israel.
I find DA’s simple denial that he is an anti semite intriguing in
that he could have gotten a much bigger laugh by answering
“I’m not an anti semite. I’m Jewish!” That seems to be the
natural answer. Was DA not wanting to say that because it
would make people in the audience wonder if his denial of
Israeli involvement in 9/11 was motivated by his Jewish ties.
I’m sure the average 9/11 Truther in that very enthusiastic
audience had no idea DA is Jewish. I had no idea until that very
day.

In googling “Is Dylan Avery Jewish” I came across these
websites and postings. I offer them here FYI. One of them
argues that a number of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement are
motivated to oppose the idea of Israeli guilt for 9/11. The author
says that the motivation is their Jewish identities or ties.

http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=3285

http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/#PPM

(To be continued)

Views: 862

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 20, 2009 at 9:19am
For any section of the buliding--the top 10 floors of the North Tower, the top 20, the top 30, and so on--the 100, 90, 80 floors beneath them, respectively, were designed to carry them at least 20 times over, according to John Skilling. So we don't need to introduce Charles Boldwyn's analysis here to understand that what you are saying is complete and total rubbish. Not only would a gradual, sagging collapse of some upper floor segment not be sufficient to bring about the collapse of any lower floor--not even one!--but, by Charles' calculation, it would have require 588 16-floor segments to acquire sufficient mass to bring the buildings down. So please differentiate the cases for us. Do you acknowledge that any kind of pancake collapse would have been impossible? But it is your position that Charles' disproof is nevertheless flawed because, for example, his figure of 588 16-floor segments is too large? That it should only have been 488 or 388 or 288 or 188 or 88, for example? He also calculated that, for the top 16-floor segment of the North Tower to acquire sufficient kinetic energy to bring down the rest of the building, it would have to have fallen from 120 miles in space--and even then would have acquired sufficient kinetic energy only if it were falling in a vacuum! So I no longer have any idea what you think you are claiming, except that it appears to be completely wrong. I am completely baffled.
Comment by Brian Good on October 20, 2009 at 4:31am
Hi Stuart, no I'm not disputing CD theory. I'm merely disputing Mr. Bolwynn's simplistic and flawed formulation of the issue.

Dr. Fetzer, no I'm not agreeing with NIST. Their simplistic formulation (Bazant's) is also laughable, put not as obviously flawed as Mr. Bolwynn's.
Comment by Stuart Miller on October 19, 2009 at 9:54am
"I am not asserting a pancake collapse. I am asserting that halfway through the collapse the debris from the upper half of the building attacked the lower half at its most vulnerable point--the floors. Mr. Bolwynn's failure to allow for this are a fatal flaw in his analysis.This is the same flaw that was present in Dr. Wood's "billiard ball" thesis--that she failed to recognize that at some point the debris mass would so thoroughly overwhelm the structure that freefall acceleration would commence."

Mr Good, i'm confused as to what you are trying to achieve here. Do you seriously believe that freefall conditions could have been achieved (by the method you describe) due to the conventional collapse of 110 stories in 10 seconds, and that the mass of that building could virtually disappear from sight in that time?

I ask because this is key to the issue.

Given that there was not enough material remaining after the collapse and that we know that the towers didn't hit the ground hard enough for it to be a conventional collapse or indeed for it to support your idea of pressure invoked freefall, how is your point of relevance to the evidence?
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 19, 2009 at 8:43am
Unless we are interested in truth. I think you are missing the word "nor", where your sentence should read, "Since explosvie pulverization is a part neither of conventional collapse theory nor of Mr. Bolwynn's (sic) model, invoking it to defend Mr. Bolwynn's (sic) model is incorrect". As I see it, Boldwyn is explaining why something that did not occur could not have occurred, even though NIST has not only claimed that it could but that it did. You, I take it, agree with NIST. But you are both mistaken. It did not happen and could not have happened, given the design of the buildings.

That would remain the case even if Charles Boldwyn's argument were wrong. I will invite Charles to join this discussion, since he can confirm the arguments I have made. Here is point 7 of "Why doubt 9/11?": Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.
Comment by Brian Good on October 19, 2009 at 1:47am
Dr. Fetzer, your refusal to discuss the transparent fallacy in Mr. Bolwynn's mathematical model is amusing. Even if what you say is true, that only explosives (or other energetic influences) distressing the lower floors could explain the total pulverization of the concrete, that does not defend Mr. Bolwynn's illegitimate model in the least.

Mr. Bolwynn's model is an attack on conventional collapse theory, and as such must be designed to resist response from conventional collapse theory. Since explosive pulverization is a part neither of conventional collapse theory or of Mr. Bolwynn's model, invoking it to defend Mr. Bolwynn's model is incorrect.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 18, 2009 at 9:33pm
Your theory, such as it is, has no basis in physics or engineering. I have explained this several times now. And if anything like what you are saying were true, there would have had to have been a massive stack of pancakes around 14 floors high. But the towers were destroyed below ground level. Your account is misconceived. It is not even consistent with the observational data. What is your background and training that you persist with these fantasies? I am concerned about you. You again appear to have no idea what you are talking about.
Comment by Brian Good on October 18, 2009 at 9:23pm
Dr. Fetzer, I would like to stay on the point that Mr. Boldwynn's framing of the issue is incorrect. You want to deflect the point to a debate on CD theory in general (which I'm not disputing). I'd like to read your paper. I'll put it on my "must do" list and maybe get to it in January.

You are complicating the issue when you claim that pulverization of concrete demolishes truss theory. While it may be true that the concrete could not be pulverized in the lower floors by natural forces, that assumption is not justified. The pulverization of upper floor concrete can not likely be explained by natural forces.

I am not asserting a pancake collapse. I am asserting that halfway through the collapse the debris from the upper half of the building attacked the lower half at its most vulnerable point--the floors. Mr. Bolwynn's failure to allow for this are a fatal flaw in his analysis. This is the same flaw that was present in Dr. Wood's "billiard ball" thesis--that she failed to recognize that at some point the debris mass would so thoroughly overwhelm the structure that freefall acceleration would commence.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 18, 2009 at 4:39pm
And not to make the obvious point but, if your "truss collapse" model were correct, then there would have to have been a massive stack of trusses ("pancakes") at the site, which was not the case. In fact, if you had watched my Powerpoint presentation, which you are apparently determined not to do, you would have seen an example of the residue of a bona-fide pancake collapse. The towers were destroyed below ground level. Indeed, as Charles Pegelow has observed, a steel-structured, reinforced building like one of the towers is not amenable to a pancake collapse. That point is made in "Why doubt 9/11?", which is featured on the top left of the home page for Scholars. I invite those who are new to the study of 9/11 to review it. I think you should, too.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 18, 2009 at 4:31pm
The truss-collapse model is inconsistent with the observable data. I am surprised you would endorse such a flimsy account of the destruction of the Twin Towers. I suggested you watch my Powerpoint because Judy Wood has a nice sketch of the truss-collapse model with the dustification-from-the-top model, where both models are included there. One fits the observable data, the other doesn't. Your pretensions to being scientific, alas, are not borne out by your performance. The first floor, by the way, is designed to support the 109 above it; the second, the 108 above it; and so forth, which suggests your argument is a non-starter, which is how I see it.
Comment by Brian Good on October 18, 2009 at 4:30pm
I am not endorsing the truss collapse model as an account of the destruction of the towers. I am pointing out that Mr. Bolwynn's model is shown to be unrealistic by the intuitively obvious and axiomatic statement that by the time the collapse got to the fiftieth floor the trussed floors would not be able to resist the attack of the debris.

I do not believe that the truss collapse model can explain collapse initiation. I think the truss collapse model is pretty inescapable by the time the collapse reaches the 50th floor--though it does not explain what took down the cores.

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service