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: 998

Comment

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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Brian Good on October 18, 2009 at 4:12pm
Dr. Fetzer I am asserting the truss collapse model not for the initiation phase of the collapse, but for the chain-reaction phase. It's axiomatic that by the time we had 60 floors of debris falling on the 50th floor, the 50th floor would crumble and then we'd have 61 floors of debris falling on the 49th, etc. etc.

A more nuanced view of this process would distinguish between the vulnerable floor trusses (which received the bulk of the debris) and the core areas where collapse resistance was concentrated. I hypothesize that honest modeling would show that a core collapse, if it initiated at all, would proceed far slower than the collapse of the trusses and, as debris tangled up in the forest of columns the core collapse should terminate.

In any case, I consider Mr. Bolwynn's framing of the issue to be a grotesque simplification.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 18, 2009 at 2:50pm
Revolutionary Politics » Blog Archive » A danish scientist Niels ...
This site may harm your computer.
Apr 22, 2009 ... The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL)weight. CL = Collapse Load CL (94) = 20 x LL(94) (via John Skilling, WTC Cheif Enginer, ...
revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=453 - Similar
The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims ...
Aug 22, 2008 ... A TwinTower could support 20 times its Live Load, (LL), weight of Force, according to John Skilling, the WTC Chief Engineer who made the ...
www.nowpublic.com/.../world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11- claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-stan... - Cached - Similar
Federal Agency Says It Can Search Your Home Without A Warrant ...
The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL) weight, as stated by John Skilling, WTC TT Chief Engineer: “Live Loads on these Columns can be increased ...
republicbroadcasting.org/?p=2063 - Cached - Similar
Watch Dr. Shyam Sunder Lie to Us… « American Everyman
The Tower could support 20 times its Live Load (LL)weight. CL = Collapse Load CL (94) = 20 x LL(94) (via John Skilling, WTC Cheif Enginer, ...
willyloman.wordpress.com/.../watch-dr-shyam-sunder-lie-to-us/ - Cached - Similar
September 11th - Separating the Truth from the Lies - Page 134 ...
Live Load of one WTC or LL(110) = 5 times the Dead Load of one WTC (DL(110)). ... 20 = John Skilling , Redundent-Structural-Support Force Factor quoted by ...
forums.islamicawakening.com/.../45-september-11th-separating-truth-lies- 134.html - Cached - Similar
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 18, 2009 at 2:46pm
You are most certainly welcome to your position. I would invite you to take a look at my Buenos Aires' Powerpoint presentation and tell me what you think I have wrong. I would observe that you appear to be endorsing the "truss collapse" model, which the NIST still maintains, but which appears to be not merely improbable but contradicted by the observable evidence. No "collapse" took place. Please take a look and get back: http://religionandmorality.net/multimedia/Buenos-Aires/Buenos-Aires.html Thanks very much.
Comment by Brian Good on October 18, 2009 at 2:36pm
Dr. Fetzer, I will resist the impulse to respond in kind. If you have the information on where the 20X live load specification comes from, I would appreciate your providing it. I believe that spec applied only to the perimeter columns, and I don't believe we've nailed down whether it applied in tension or in compression. Also, perimeter columns in different zones had vastly different strength specifications, so the fact that some perimeter columns had a 2000% rating does not mean they all did.

Yes, the towers were designed to support the weight of the building--through their columns. The trussed floors were not designed to support the weight of the building, and when most of the debris of 1/2 the mass of the towers was applied to the the floors remaining in the standing 1/2 of the mass, the floors failed one by one.

Some of us who find the controlled demolition hypothesis compelling and who have given the issue some thought question the failure of the core columns, contending that the subset of falling debris impinging on the core should have tangled in the column forest, effectively halting collapse of the core (but not the trussed floors!)

I stand by my opinion that Mr. Boldwynn has framed the issue incorrectly. The top block did not need to destroy the entire lower stucture. It only needed to destroy enough floors to initiate a chain reaction that destroyed the floors one by one. IMHO that initial destruction required the assistance of incendiaries and/or explosives. Mr. Boldwynn's analysis seems to require that all the lower floors fail simultaneously. It is thus unreasonable.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 18, 2009 at 2:19pm
This has to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read. The towers were constructed in such a way that the lower portions were capable of supporting the higher! Does anyone doubt that? According to John Skilling, the intricate lattice structure was capable of supporting some 20 times its expected "live load", which is the combined "dead load" with furniture, people, and potted plants. What is there not to understand? The idea that, at some point, "the accumulated debris mass of the upper tower is sufficient to take down the lower part of the tower" displays an astounding incapacity to understand the most elementary considerations. If that were true, the towers could never have been constructed in the first place, since the mass of the upper tower would have been "sufficient" to take down the lower part! The fact is (a) the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to weaken, much less melt, the steel; (b) had it been hot enough and burned long enough, since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, such "collapse" as might have occurred would have been gradual and asymmetrical itself; (c) the longer the fires burned, the more mass was converted into energy and the less mass remained for the lower floors to support. So they should have been MORE RESILIENT the longer the fires endured. What Charles has shown is that the supporting capacity of the lower floors was actually dramatically greater than even John Skilling has surmised, which is consistent with everything else we know about the towers, including that the owners of The Empire State Building raised issues about its design, which were motivated by concerns that they would lose tenants. As a consequence, great attention was paid to every detail of the construction of the towers, which is archived in many places. Chuck Boldwyn has done an excellent job of explaining why it could not have happened. You are not the only one to run afoul of the math and physics of the towers. http://lauraknightjadczyk.blogsome.com/2007/11/10/keith-seffens-wtc-collapse-folly-not-even-wrong/ offers an interesting discussion of several flagrant attempts to explain the opposite. And the final comment is by Chuck Boldwny!
Comment by Brian Good on October 18, 2009 at 1:07pm
There's been a lot of general discussion about the towers, but there's been no discussion of Charles Boldwynn's (not Christopher Bollyn's) mathematical paper that inappropriately tries to attack the entire mass of the lower portion of the WTC with the top portion of the tower and predictably fails.

I raise my question again. At some point, surely by the 50th floor, the accumulated debris mass of the upper tower is sufficient to take down the lower part of the tower (with some quibbles about the core). The question is, at what point does the collapse become a self-sustaining chain reaction? The 70th floor? The 80th? By showing that you can't get from "collapse initiation" to "self-sustaining chain reaction' we can break the official story of the collapse.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 17, 2009 at 3:02pm
An interesting article about the design of the Twin Towers has come to my attention. Those who want to pursue the questions involved here, which are central to 9/11 research, may want to check it out using the following link: http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_blueprints_leaked_by_whistleblower.htm . An odd theory of the construction of the towers using a concrete core appears to be making its rounds again. I doubt it would have been physically possible to construct massive concrete structures of the kind that would have to have been involved, since it looks as though the mass of its own weight would have crushed its lower parts.
Comment by Shallel Octavia on October 17, 2009 at 2:52pm
"As for Boldwynn's calculations, his approach seems on the face of it to be flawed because to generate a chain-reaction collapse it was not necessary for the top 16 floors to take down the lower 94. Obviously when the collapse reached the 50th floor, you had 65 floors of debris in motion impinging on one or two floors at a time. The mass of the lighter top 16 floors would be a small proportion of the total mass attacking the 50th floor. The question is when would the chain-reaction become self-propagating--the 70th floor? The 80th? The 85th?"

"The transition to I-beams was in different places for different columns (and a couple of columns were I-beams the whole length of the tower), but the transition to I-beams for the biggest core columns seems to occur roughly around the 70th floor.

This is interesting in a few respects. First, the weight of the upper columns was obviously much lighter (as you would suspect from design principles) than lower columns-- this makes any rapid top-down collapse mechanism all the more difficult." -spooked

Full study: http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/cc501

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

I don't care for bigotry, but if you have committed a crime I don't care wether you are a Semite, Caucasian, Negro, Muslim, Jew, Christian, European, American or Israeli. You will answer for your crimes. Funny how all these groups I have mentioned are worshippers of the same WAR GOD of Abraham. You may call him Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, or Satan.
I call him the greatest threat to humanity.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 17, 2009 at 1:49pm
I am also curious about your criticism of Charles Boldwyn's calculations about the force that would be required to bring about a bona-fide collapse of the Twin Towers. I assume you are aware that steel-structured reinforced buildings like the Twin Towers are not amenable to collapse in the first place. I also assume you realize that the NIST was unable to explain why it should have collapsed. The fires were neither hot enough nor burned long enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.

The design of the buildings was a novel tube-within-a-tube design, whose design was even subjected to legal challenge by the owners of The Empire State Building, who were worried about losing tenants to the Twin Towers. I am unaware of any problems with Charles' research, so I appreciate it if you would also elaborate your concerns about them in greater detail. And when you take exception to something that I or others have written, please quote the sentence(s) to which you take exception and explain what's wrong with it. That would be most welcome.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 17, 2009 at 1:42pm
I take it this is an attack on Christopher Bollyn's SOLVING 9/11? I certainly have no idea why you assert that Bollyn is a "liar". That means he is deliberately making assertions that are false, that he knows to be false, but which he is asserting to be true in a deliberate attempt to mislead or confound his audience. Do you have any evidence that any of that is true? The word "liar" seems to be all too casually employed here. Back it up, if you can, and let us assess the evidence that you would offer to substantiate your claim, if you wouldn't mind doing that.

© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service