Not a Single Top Physicist is Willing to Defend the Official Story!

Debate: "a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers."Those who know the truth are the most confident to debate on its behalf. A case in point was the 9/11 Physics Debate. Behold, on the 911Truth side: mountains of irrefutable evidence; on the side of the official theory: pseudoscience and outright untruths. The oh-so-predictable result: no qualified takers willing to defend the view of the government/media establishment in an open forum.

The Association for Nine Eleven Truth Awareness (ANETA.org) sponsored a "Physics Olympics" debate between two top physicists in the spirit of the winter athletic events in Sochi, Russia.

The contestants would need to be PhDs in Physics from accredited universities and they would also need to be widely referenced by other scientists in scientific journal papers, as measured by the Hirsch Index. The two physicists would argue the resolutions:

1. The laws of physics were broken by the official story, and we need a new investigation, or
2. The laws were not broken; everything was explainable by the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT) put forth by the 9/11 Commission and NIST Reports.

The winner would be determined by audience vote and would receive $1000 towards the non-profit charity of his or her choice. The debate was originally planned for March 1st on Dr. Kevin Barrett's No Lies Radio Show via conference call for the convenience of the physicists, with equal time for each debater to speak.

Researcher and AE911 Truth petition signer Dr. David Griscom is a graduate of both Carnegie Mellon and Brown UniversitiesANETA had many physicists on their side, from among the AE911Truth petition signers and from the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Dr. David Griscom readily accepted the challenge to question the NEOCT. He is a PhD in Physics from Brown University, a former Naval Research Laboratory scientist, a NASA Moon rock investigator, and a fellow in the American Association for the Advancement of Science with over 190 published studies, and he has a Hirsch Index of 52.

ANETA then contacted over 30 university physics departments, including some in the Ivy League, asking for a qualified physicist to debate Dr. Griscom and defend the NEOCT. ANETA received some responses from well wishers, but not a single physicist came forward to argue the opposing side. Dr. Barrett held a show with Dr. Griscom to advertise for opposing physicists, and an article was placed in Veterans Today—and still they had no success.

ANETA also advertised the debate on the James Randi Educational Forum, which claims to be a forum for open debate, currently dominated by NEOCT supporters, but the post was quickly removed by the moderators as being "off topic." Reverend Chris Mohr again posted the advertisement, in the interest of fair debate, but the post resulted in only one volunteer with no science degree and a Hirsch Index of 0, who made ad hominem insults.

A two week extension was given, until March 15, yet no physicist stepped forward to debate on behalf of the NEOCT or to defend NIST. At the noon deadline, the moderator asked Dr. Griscom to give his reasons why the official story violates Newton's Laws of Motion. They were as follows:

1. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was an obvious controlled demolition, immediately severing the vertical support columns, resulting in 2.4 seconds of free fall.
2. The lateral ejection of steel, such as the beams which lodged in the American Express building, over 400 feet from WTC 1, would require an explosive force.
3. The molten steel at ground zero was at a higher temperature than office fires could create, and it persisted for weeks.

Dr. Griscom found a report by an honest scientist at NIST, saying the WTC steel was ductile and would bend, not shatter, and that the plane was the largest strain that the towers experienced.

1. Dr. Griscom was one of the peer reviewers for the 2009 paper by Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, et al., published in a Bentham Science journal. The paper identified nano-thermitic material in the dust from the World Trade Center, and Dr. Griscom said it was one of the best papers of the 1000 he reviewed in his career.

Dr. Griscom won by default and was awarded the $1000 prize, which he donated towards further experiments being done on the WTC dust (see: markbasile.org), to see if the 2009 Bentham study results are repeatable. (Replication is fundamental to the scientific method.)

There has been a widespread assumption (disseminated by the other side) that scientists generally support the NEOCT and its supporters continue to assert this even as efforts to locate a single legitimate physicist to step forward to defend it fail miserably. When the opportunity to speak on its behalf is offered, no one responds. Since 2011, Dr. Kevin Barrett has been challenging University of Wisconsin instructors to defend the official story of 9/11, offering a $2000 honorarium, but with no takers.

If no scientists currently defend the NEOCT, then it cannot be a scientific theory, and we therefore need a new, credible investigation of 9/11 by objective, qualified scientists.

YouTube:

9/11 Physics Debate Intro with Host Kevin Barrett and Dr. David Griscom

9/11 Physics Debate Results: Dr. David Griscom Wins