Sir Isaac Newton

Message to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler about "Blueprint for Truth"

Dear mr. Getler,

In your column, which can be found at http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2009/09/pbs_yes_and_no.html

you say the following about "9/11: Blueprint for Truth":

"I'm not going to review the films, but on a personal level I find the idea embedded in "Blueprint" of a government conspiracy to blow up those buildings to be preposterous and simply beyond belief and I fault the station for promoting this as part of a pledge drive and presenting it without an accompanying on-the-air program in which critics have their say."

Sir, unless you DO review those films, you have no business commenting on them whatsoever.

In your column, you commit the following logical fallacies in order to sway your readers towards your viewpoint:

  1. Appeal to emotion
  2. Argument from personal incredulity
  3. Special pleading

David Chandler responds to Frank Greening

June 17, 2009
Greening vs. Chandler and Newton’s Laws:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/ChandlerResponseToGreening.pdf

The occasion for Frank Greening’s letter is correspondence with several physicists, chemists,
and engineers discussing arguments I made in a video posted on the Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth YouTube page:

This is my response to his letter.
------------------------------

FG:
Chandler concludes that the block was subject to a net force of 0.64M(upper)g. Prior to the
collapse of WTC 1, the lower portion of the building was perfectly capable of holding up the