The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll (NY Magazine)

[kpete]

March 27, 2006 issue of New York Magazine


The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day.
By Mark Jacobson


Free fall: The speed at which the towers came down—they were almost in free fall—suggests controlled demolition rather than catastrophic collapse.


1. 11/22 and 9/11

They keep telling us 9/11 changed everything. But even in this Photoshopped age of unreliable narrators, much remains the same. The assassination of President John Kennedy, the Crime of the Last Century, occurred in plain sight, in front of thousands—yet exactly what happened remains in dispute. The Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald, fellow traveler of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, shot Kennedy with a cheap Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. The commission found that Oswald, who two days later would be murdered by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, acted alone.


The Plane Truth
A list of 9/11 conspiracy theories, from nuts to soup.

Yet, as with so many such events, there is the sanctioned history and the secret history—players hidden from view. In the Kennedy murder, the involvement of shadowy organizations like the Mafia and the CIA came into question. This way of thinking came to challenge the official narrative put forth by the Warren Commission. It is not exactly clear when the grassy knoll supplanted the sixth-floor window in the popular mind-set. But now, four decades after Dallas, it is difficult to find anyone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman.


But if Oswald didn’t kill the president, who did? So 11/22 remains an open case, an open wound.


Now here we are again, contemplating the seemingly unthinkable events of September 11. An official explanation has been offered up: The nation was attacked by the forces of radical Islam led by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda jihadists. Again, this narrative has been accepted by many.


But not all.

much, much, much more at:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html

[Redstone]

1. The Chemtrails did it!

Redstone

[donsu]

5. the bushmilhousegang did 9/11 and chem trails are real - wake up

nt

[Redstone]

9. Sorry, I gotta go; Redstone's Rule #2 says I have to.

"Never argue with someone who sees things that aren't there."

Redstone

[longship]

2. Not again.

The speed at which the towers came down—they were almost in free fall—suggests controlled demolition rather than catastrophic collapse.

Any first year physics student can describe why this is just not true.
Haven't we had enough of these threads?

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[file83]

13. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the NIST report.

"Near free fall speed" doesn't mean "Exact free fall speed". It could mean anything from just >10sec up to around 18sec. If an object takes 8 seconds longer to fall 1300+ feet, 8 seconds faster than "free fall", that's pretty damned fast. Just as fast as any building falling from a controlled demolition.

[bpilgrim]

3. thanks to the internets this story will not only never die it will gain

wide readership.

the truth is out there...

peace

[SaveElmer]

4. Its about money IMO...

These conspiracy theories make money for people. Books are published etc...there is a vested monetary interest in keeping them going...even one as ridiculuous as this.

[bpilgrim]

6. it's about unanswered questions in regards to the crime of the century

there is nothing ridiculous about LIHOP nor MIHOP

peace

[rman]

20. That can be said about any book,

but writing a book and making some money off of it doesn't mean the book was written only to make money.

[bpilgrim]

7. loose change - video

covers many of the outstanding questions very well...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

peace

[meganmonkey]

8. You know what the biggest conspiracy theory of 911 is?

That a bunch of random dudes were able to simultaneously hijack 4 airliners and crash them into their intended targets with a 75% success rate and with fricking box cutters as their only weapon.

Seriously, people.

:popcorn:

[Grateful for Hope]

10. My sentiments exactly n/t

[longship]

11. That's an argument from incredulity.

It basically is meaningless.

It's like the guy, who when dealt a bridge hand, calculates that the odds of precisely that hand coming up are 1 in 635,013,559,600 and decides that his hand is impossible.

Same argument. In both cases it's fatuous.

[file83]

14. Umm, false analogy. Sorry.

There are some things in this world that don't happen. WTC 7 falling down for "NO reason" is one of them. However, since you are seemingly aware of the man's flaw in your "straw man" argument, then you realize (as do I) that when you draw a hand in bridge, every hand is EXACTLY as likely to come up as any other hand. To claim otherwise, as you point out, would be folly.

But having a building fall down for no reason is NOT as likely an out come as having it remain standing. Otherwise, there would be AT LEAST ONE steel structure building prior to or after 9/11 than would have fallen due to small fires/minor structural damage. But there has never been such an occurance. NEVER.

My point is, if that guy playing bridge drew a hand that contained 4 Ace of spades (from one deck of cards that only contains 1 Ace of spades), then you would KNOW that someone was cheating. It's impossible.

Hence, we KNOW that the Government is NOT telling the truth about what happened on 9/11. Someone is cheating.

[longship]

18. No reason? Hmmph!

Two of the world's largest and tallest buildings collapse into rubble right next to WTC 7 and you claim that there is "NO reason". There was a 20 story high hole in the facade of that building after the WTC 1 and 2 towers collapsed. This was the same side of the building that was emitting a wall of smoke as a vast proportion of the then gutted insides burned.

No reason? What are you smoking?

[file83]

19. A "20 story high hole in the facade" will NOT compromise the structural

integrity of the building. That's why they call it a "facade". The facade does not support the structure of the building.

That being said, even if the damage was bad enough on that ONE SIDE to cause the building to fall, it still would not explain (no reason) why the building collapsed perfectly into it's own footprint. Think about it this way, if you knock out 1 leg from a four legged chair, the chair may or may not remain standing. But if it does fall, it's going to fall over, not straight down. Same goes if you knock out 2 legs.

Does it not cause you to scratch your head that even the USG has given NO REASON as to how the building fell in the fashion it did? :shrug:

[longship]

22. Now we're back to the "footprint" deal.

Physics, my friend. Physics. A subject with which you seem to be sorely lacking in knowledge. You want the building to topple like a freaking domino? That *cannot* happen in a building of that height.

Buildings are very rigid and strong along the verticle axis but not so rigid and strong in the horizontal axis. That's okay because buildings sit vertically. Gravity actually helps the building hold together with the stresses translating through the support system to bedrock. Lateral strength only needs to be enough to account for normal sources of instability, like wind, etc. If a building like WTC 7 attempts to tip over, gravity exerts an increasing sheer force (exerted horizontally) to the point that the building can no longer hold together laterally and it falls apart before it can fall over.

The equation is simple. Where A = the angle of tip and G = the force of gravity, the sheer force is equal to G * sin A. Even a tip of 10 degrees exerts a continuous sheer force of .17 G in one direction.

Buildings aren't designed to hold together with lateral forces like that. That's why all buildings taller than a certain height cannot fall except for into their own footprints.

QED

[longship]

23. More

Beyond 30 degrees tilt (sin 30 = 0.5) the lateral sheer force would be more than the verticle force holding the building together. Long before that, the building would rip itself apart.

These are inescapable facts. One cannot claim that there had to be "controlled demolition" for the building to fall into its footprint.

Physics doesn't lie.

[file83]

24. But the building didn't tip at all, so the "lateral sheer" argument...

...doesn't apply to this situation. Sorry, but if you can show any proof that the building attempted to tip even a few degrees, then maybe that argument would pertain. But I've never seen nor read about any such evidence of tipping. If such data exists, then my conclusions are based on flawed research. So, please, inform me of such data if you know of it.

Like I said, if the building had tilted AT ALL during it's fall, then I could understand how your argument that the floors "sheering" would account for it's destruction.

But the building fell STRAIGHT DOWN. Take that fact with what you said yourself:

Buildings are very rigid and strong along the verticle axis but not so rigid and strong in the horizontal axis. That's okay because buildings sit vertically. Gravity actually helps the building hold together with the stresses translating through the support system to bedrock.

So, take that FACT with the fact that the building fell straight down, doesn't it seem a little peculiar to you that the building collapsed at all? How do ALL those support structures that WERE NOT COMPROMISED by falling debris suddently & simultaneously COLLAPSE, and in turn, allow the building to fall straight down? It defies all logic and reason and, I might add, the very argument you present.

Look at the areas that were compromised again (the red circled objects are the compromised support columns), think about it, and get back to me:

[longship]

25. But that, in itself does not demand that there were explosives

There are other modes for the building to collapse that way. Almost none of originate with a controlled explosion. Sorry, guy. If you make a claim that there was a controlled explosion you have to supply evidence of such. It takes considerable effort to accomplish controlled demolition. I'll not wait for you to supply supporting evidence that those efforts were made because it doesn't exist.

I feel like a stuck record here. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That you do not have. That is prevelent in all MIHOP conjectures. No evidence means that I must reject your conjectures.

Are there some fishy things with 9/11? You bet.

Did the 9/11 commission whitewash some facts? You bet.

But to jump to the conclusion that some totally unsupported conjecture is the answer is something I just cannot do. I have to go with what *all* the evidence supports. So very much of the so-called evidence is just not there. Much of the so-called evidence is outright contradicted by witnesses. Much of the science is shoddy, or outright incorrect. Many of the MIHOP arguments are totally illogical--filled with special pleading, straw men, and other fatuous crap. I am a mathematician trained in physics. I cannot go down the MIHOP path until these issues are resolved.

Yes, ChimpCo is as evil as any administration has been. But I cannot go along with you on this. It just is not there, no matter how much we would want it to be.

[file83]

26. I can respect your position on this. There is one thing I'd like to add..

I agree that "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Absolutely.

I find it extraordinary that the the fall of the WTC 7 building was completely overlooked by the 9/11 Commission.
I find it an extraordinary claim that the WTC 7 building collapsed the way it did under the supposed circumstances it was in.
I find it extraordinary that people conclude, without any evidence of cause, that ALL of the support columns collapsed simultaneously as if by some sort of miracle.
I find it extraordinary that the 9/11 Commissions Budget was only $15 million, yet Ken Starr's Independent Counsel inquiry budget into Clinton's philandering was $40 million.

The only extraordinary claim here is that the building collapsed for no known reason. You speak of 'evidence' that supports the 'natural fall' theory, but it too is only speculation. No reason has been given, other than official conjecture (without any evidence, let alone 'extraordinary evidence') that it was the diesel tanks that blew up, causing the building to fall.

You admit that the 9/11 Commission "whitewashed" some facts. Yet you find it "extraordinary" to think that if they had brought down the WTC 7 building, that they would "whitewash" that "fact" too? If they were going to "whitewash" anything, wouldn't that be their first choice?

The official claim as to why they didn't look any further into the WTC 7 collapse was because of "budget and time" contraints. Isn't that convenient? I find it extraordinary that Congress would only approve a $15 million investigation into the country's largest and deadliest terrorist attack on our soil in history.

Being a mathematician trained in physics you of all people should be able to "do the math" in testing the hypothesis that the building was brought down by some form of controlled demolition. Your formulas don't allow for political bias nor cultural taboos.

Gather the data from the fall, do the math, and PROVE mathematically that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the building was brought down by some form of controlled demolition. Short of that, the WTC 7 MIHOP theory must be left open as a mathematical possibility, regardless of how "unthinkable" it is to consider that some part of the USG MIHOP.

[longship]

27. Your questions are very, very good ones.

The way I see it, the whole problem with MIHOP is the conclusions which MIHOP proponents ask people to accept. But many of the questions being asked are yet begging for answers. Maybe a way to find common ground here is to focus on the unanswered questions which we all know have been a very real problem.

However, some of these questions have already been answered. Specifically about WTC 7, there are a few that have been answered which the MIHOPers are still asking. Possibly this is a matter of people being misinformed, or just not finding some obscure bit that might provide some sense to the matter. However, especially with regards to WTC 7 there seems to be some problems in that many of the studies done on the towers were not able to be done on WTC 7. Whatever the reason for this, it certainly has left things open to speculation.

Myself, I think that one cannot automatically presume that this lack of info was not a result of the chaotic situation in the days following 9/11. The fire fighters, who were in bulk the people doing the work at ground zero, were more than a bit overwhelmed by the task at hand. I am absolutely positive that this resulted in decisions being made that required that some things not get investigated to the level that in hindsight they should have.

This WTC 7 knowledge gap has since been filled by wild conjecture and suppositions which under normal conditions would not survive. But I am not ready to conclude that these ommissions were deliberate without some actual evidence that they were.

After all, it was the fire fighters who were doing the work--it's their job. These are people just like people you know, not partisan government stooges. They work for a living because they *have* to work for a living. They choose to save people's lives in disasters like this because they have some selfless desire to do so. Hundreds of them perished on 9/11. Thousands more of them put their lives in high risk to clean things up and try to determine why things happened the way they did. MIHOP conclusions dishonors these efforts by portraying the very people who risked their lives as being part of a huge global coverup. That's just another thing about MIHOP that makes me cringe.

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated.

By the way, proving a negative is near impossible. Rather, it is incumbent on the person making a definitive claim to provide substantiation to support that claim. I know that MIHOP people think they have this support. However, much of it (e.g., unwitnessed missile attacks when thousands witnessed airliner collisions) doesn't make sense given what we *do* know. One must not cherry pick the data and one must not make stuff up where various facts contradict one another.

Instead of proposing ridiculous conclusions, let's all get together and continue to ask the questions. That's a path I would gladly walk with the MIHOPers.

[stickdog]

28. What questions about WTC-7 have been answered and by whom?

Please let us all know ASAP.

[longship]

31. An example

Let's just look at one simple conclusion... The so-called squibs.

The building was collapsing when those puffs of whatever were observed. As a ceiling collapses onto the floor below the air between them has to go somewhere. It is squeezed out any openings at high speed (broken windows, etc), carrying with it dust and debris. So what some people call squibs is explanable as a normal effect of a collapsing building. That means that the conclusion that they *are* squibs is likely mistaken since these puffs of ejected material would occur regardless of whether the building was brought down deliberately or not.

[stickdog]

32. I've never seen any squibs on WTC-7.

:wtf: are you talking about?

[longship]

34. Google "squibs wtc7" and you'll find it.

Of course, it's nonsense for the reasons I gave.

[eomer]

35. It doesn't look to me like the WTC 7 squibs were caused

by floors collapsing on top of each other.

If you look at this video, it looks like the upper floors maintain their integrity during the time that the squibs appear. The collapse is clearly from the bottom of the building and the top part of the building is intact as it starts to descend.

Also, in the first video and even more so in this one, you can see that the squibs start at about 8 floors from the top of the building and then proceed up the building to the top. But this is at odds with the floor collapse theory, which is described as a floor at some level failing and falling on top of the floor below it, which causes it, in turn, to collapse. Then, as the explanation goes, those two floors fall on top of the next one down, which collapses... and so it progresses with a growing stack of floors falling sequentially onto each next floor down the building. This kind of floor failure would create squibs that start at some particular floor and proceed down the building one floor at a time rather than up the building as actually occurred.

Even if the floors were somehow able to collapse starting at 8th from the top and proceeding sequentially up the building to the top, this still wouldn't explain the squibs appearing sequentially up the building. The problem with this explanation is that there wouldn't be an underneath floor for the collapsing one to squeeze against to cause the air to be squeezed out. Since the 8th floor from the top would have collapsed first then the 7th floor from the top can't land on it a fraction of a second later since it (the 8th from the top) is already in descent.

It seems that floors would have had to travel rapidly upward rather than downward in order for floors slamming against each other and squeezing the air out to be the cause of the squibs seen in the video.

So this explanation just doesn't add up for me -- I don't see how air could be squeezed out in that upward sequence by floors falling on top of each other.

[longship]

36. Well, I don't know how you can say it *is* squibs.

I know it doesn't look like it, but the pic mostly used to document the squibs is taken from a large distance, it's a video capture anyway. There's many explanations for this thing, including a bad vid cap. Saying it's squibs is a bit of jumping to conclusions. Certainly without any confirming evidence you cannot credibly say it is squibs. Unfortunatly, jumping to conclusions is precisely and solely how MIHOP conjectures work.

[eomer]

39. The video seems pretty clear to me.

I see puffs ejected from the upper right corner of the building in a rapid and evenly timed succession. Doesn't look like artifacts of a capture to me.

As to jumping to conclusions, the reason I'm here is to form an opinion about what caused the things we've seen in the videos, from the things that we all agree happened (the buildings collapsed) down to the more detailed things we think we see (like puffs of smoke being ejected). You can call it jumping to conclusions if you want but I'm just doing my best to weigh whatever evidence I can find and establish my best explanation for it. I can always attach a level of likelihood to my best explanation and to alternative explanations.

You and some of the other proponents of the official story seem to want everyone to ignore any theory that hasn't been proved. But that approach would eliminate all theories including the official one. What is this forum for in that case?

[longship]

41. Let me set my opinion straight.

I am decidedly *not* a proponent of the official story. My sole interest in the 9/11 MIHOP deal is as a proponent of good science, logical argument, and responsible advocacy. Since almost all the MIHOP conclusions have been falsified I am interested in why advocates of things like "controlled demolition at the WTC" adhere to their opinions in the face of zero evidence for such a thing. They think that the Pentagon was hit by a missile in spite of the hundreds of people who witnessed a large airliner crashing into it and zero witnessed a missile. Why?

In my opinion, these things are aberrations in the body politic of the same ilk that give rise to people believing that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, or that Iraq had WMDs. Misinformation has somehow migrated to the status of definitive information. MIHOP has achieved a memeic status. As a meme, it seems to be immune to any modification. No fact or event seems to be able to loosen people's belief in it. In spite of this, there is absolutely no way that MIHOP is correct.

As I wrote in a post above, the questions MIHOPers ask are good ones. I am open to ideas, just not ones which violate known facts and the evidence we *do* have here. There, MIHOP crosses *way* over the line.

[eomer]

42. Has controlled demolition of WTC 7 been falsified?

Do you really mean it's been falsified or are you just saying there is insufficient evidence to prove it (which is quite a different thing)?

You say:

No fact or event seems to be able to loosen people's belief in it.

What fact or event falsifies the hypothesis that the WTC 7 collapse was due to controlled demolition?

[longship]

43. Do you mean other than the fact that there's no evidence?

It's not up to me to falsify all the MIHOP delusions. Instead, it's up to the MIHOPers to substantiate their irrational, lunatic claims. This they cannot do because all their conclusions are built on hearsay, bad science, and outright deception.

There's not a single shred of evidence for a WTC 7 controlled demolition. First, when might this have been done? Certainly not prior to 9/11. Such a thing cannot be hidden. It would have been witnessed by the thousands of people occupying the building daily.

When the attacks on the towers happened, WTC 7 was evacuated immediately. Luckily, because when the towers collapsed, it would have been a tragedy if there had been people inside WTC 7. Certainly nobody went in there after WTC 1 collapsed. With fires on many floors and a gaping twenty story hole, anybody professing a desire to enter the burning building would have been mad as a hatter. Regardless, the firemen on the scene would not have allowed it.

MIHOPers like to say that there were only small fires and that the building was barely damaged. But the documentation they offer is almost invariably views of WTC 7 from the side away from the towers. The few pictures that exist of the other side show WTC 7 that is greatly damaged with substantial fires with smoke pouring out of the entire front facade. Descriptions from on scene firemen back this up. WTC 7 was horribly damaged by the WTC 1 collapse. Fortunately, it had been evacuated prior to the WTC 1 collapse and nobody was again allowed to enter until it too collapsed.

I put "WTC controlled demolition" up there with the "Pentagon hit by missile" as the silliest and most easily debunked 9/11 MIHOP claim. First, there were no witnesses to such a thing. Second, there was no need. Third, there was no opportunity to implement such a thing. Nothing I've heard from the MIHOP crowd changes that situation. That goes for WTC 1 and 2 controlled demolitions, too. Never happened.

[eomer]

44. So you're not claiming it's been falsified then -- what you're saying is

that there's not a shred of evidence to support it.

But we were just discussing one shred, which is the puffs that can be seen in the video. The timing and location of the puffs are difficult to explain by anything other than demolition charges.

Another shred is the pools of molten metal in the rubble.

Another shred is the sulfidation of WTC 7 steel.

Another shred is the way the building dropped straight down into its own footprint.

Another shred is that it fell at all when no skyscraper (other than the two earlier that day) had ever collapsed due to fire.

Another shred is the fact that the roof of WTC 7 fell to the ground at almost free fall speed.

I haven't seen anyone debunk any of these pieces of evidence.

[longship]

45. The timing and location of the puffs

Is consistent with the fact that the fucking building was collapsing. That's the air being forced *out* of the building by the fact that the freaking ceilings were falling. You would see the damned puffs regardless of source of the collapse. So saying the puffs mean that there were squibs is *WRONG*.

QED.

[eomer]

46. The puffs run up the building in a very straight line and precise timing.

Puffs caused by the rising air pressure in the building would tend, I think, to show irregularity in timing and location. I don't believe they would run up the building in a straight line and in precise timing as seen in the video.

Controlled demolition charges, on the other hand, would be expected to run up the building in a straight line and in precise timing.

[longship]

47. Idiocy!

That is special pleading. What you are claiming is that a completely normal observation in this situation somehow has a special meaning in this instance. That is not a conclusion one can draw without other information. So, tell me what *other* information do you have that gives credance to your claim that WTC 7 was blown up.

When were the explosives planted? Where are witnesses to this? Name one person who was on the scene and has come forward. You can't.

Well, that kind of does it for your conjecture that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Without evidence you've got nothing but a belief in something that wasn't there. It's idiocy to keep believing something that can't be true.

[eomer]

48. I don't agree it is a normal observation under the official theory.

It is the expected behavior if caused by demolition charges.

It is an unexpected behavior if caused by the rise of air pressure in a collapsing building. In fact, it seems to me to border on impossible to have been caused by rising air pressure. You would think the rise in air pressure would be irregular from one floor to another and you would also think that the pressure required to cause various elements of the building (windows?) to fail would vary from one floor to another. They would vary at least enough to throw the timing off. Rising air pressure just does not seem to me a possible explanation of what I see in the video.

No one was caught in the act planting explosives. That is in no way proof that explosives weren't planted.

And on your final point, you seem to grant the official story default status. I don't. Even if I couldn't find much evidence of CD, I would still keep it on the list of possible explanations because the evidence to resolve the question either way -- that it did occur or that it did not -- was destroyed by the government. When the government executes a cover up of information then I'm going to construe the facts against them.

[longship]

50. I don't give a fuck about the official theory.

I only care about the truth. MIHOP ain't anywhere near the truth.

Invisible missiles that nobody has seen. Invisible controlled demolitions which nobody saw being planted. Disappearing airliners full of people. A conspiracy of thousands and not one whistle-blower. MIHOP is complete rubbish.

[eomer]

51. "MIHOP is complete rubbish."

To conclude that a theory is "complete rubbish" you would need some facts that are in direct contradiction. Otherwise the theory is extant.

What were the facts that are in contradiction? It seemed from your first posts in this exchange that you felt you had some facts like that but I don't think you've given any yet.


_{edit: clarify wording}

[longship]

54. I conclude that it is complete rubbish because

Not one smidgeon of the MIHOP conclusions are defended by the evidence. It's all made up shit.

Invisible missiles. Disappearing airliners. Invisible explosives. Made up. All of it.

[eomer]

57. But there is evidence.

I don't know about invisible missiles or disappearing airliners -- they're not on my radar screen, so to speak.

But regarding controlled demolition -- there is evidence. You may disagree with the interpretation of the evidence but it is just not a true statement to say there is no evidence.

For example, there are numerous eye witnesses who say they heard explosions just before the towers fell. That is evidence. You may propose an explanation other than demolition charges for that evidence, but the fact remains that it is evidence that is at the very least somewhat supportive of a controlled demolition. No reasonable person can call it "no evidence". Call it "misleading evidence" or "evidence that appears to support CD but actually has another explanation" or some other reasonable characterization if you want, but to call it "made up" is simply not a true statement.

[eomer]

49. On conjecture.

Your approach:

official story = default answer
controlled demolition = conjecture

My approach:

official story = one candidate explanation
controlled demolition = one candidate explanation

[Grateful for Hope]

52. Exactly

And, thank you for your well thought out posts. You were able to articulate what I have not been able to do.

Bravo!

[eomer]

53. Hey thanks!

I'm sort of thinking out loud since I haven't been through this stuff before. Glad it made sense to someone. That either means there was some logic to it, or else you're just as confused as I am, in which case I can use the company. :crazy:

[Grateful for Hope]

58. There was definitely a great deal of logic to your thinking

Thanks!

[longship]

55. controlled demolition -- conjecture with zero support.

nt

[file83]

37. Thanks for your thoughtful and friendly response. Another question...

...if I may. (If you don't respond to this, I understand, but please at least read it. I completely respect/understand your points and don't want you to think you need to keep repeating yourself. But because my ideas are the less "conventional" ones, I feel I must explain! :-))

I understand that proving a "negative" is near impossible, generally speaking. However, if it is possible to show, mathematically, that controlled demolition could very well explain the nature of the WTC 7 collapse (or even that it's the 'best' explanation), then wouldn't that necessarily place the burden of proof on "natural collapse" theorists to prove that the building did fall down from the natural consequences of the damage it sustained from the debris of the North Tower collapse?

Understand what I'm saying? What I mean is, if the best mathematical explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 was "controlled demolition", then why is "natural collapse" the default explanation of which all other theories must battle against? Why does "natural collapse" theory stand and "controlled demolition" theory fall down since BOTH have no supporting evidence?

Secondly, negatively implicating the first responders (aka firefighers, FDNY) has never been a prerequisite for MIHOP, but I must explain why. The concept is called compartmentalization. Instead of explain the theory, let me give an example of how compartmentalization would work in a possible MIHOP scenario.

Say you are at the top of the fire department chain of command on 9/11, and you are the guy in charge working with local/state/federal emergency officials. It's the afternoon, and you have a meeting with "top" federal officials concerning WTC 7. As the head honcho, you already know that WTC 7 contains offices of the CIA and US Secret Service. What they tell you is very simple, and for reasons of national security, you must NEVER repeat this information to anyone outside this room, they tell you.

This is one hypothetical scenario:

"The building has been evacuated, this puts the security of the offices at great risk of being infiltrated. The protocol for this kind of situation is that the building must be demolished. The building has always been prepared for this kind of contingency. We've had it rigged for years. This information is only given out on a need to know basis, and you need to know, but only so you can give out the orders to remove all firefighting personnel from the building and create a perimeter so we will pull the building.

This must be done to safeguard the highly classified information contained within this building. It's also a safety issue, by demolishing this building, we are protecting rescue workers that need to begin rescue operations around the North Tower ground zero site. If we don't pull this building, we won't be able to begin rescue operations.

But for reasons of national security, you must not repeat this information, because the public response could both be unpredictable and potentially hostile. Do you understand?"

Of course you would. It's a win-win-win situation.
You:
1) can get to rescuing people at Ground Zero faster/safer.
2) you won't have to risk/divert any more resources to battle the fire in WTC 7.
3) you might save the buildings around it and protect the public by "controlling" it's fall.

My point is, WTC 7 MIHOP does NOT require a negative/anti-american motivation by FDNY nor other first responders.

[longship]

56. Forgive me for responding to my own thread.

But I've got to get this off my chest.

You MIHOPers are harming our case to get at the truth. By your insistence in spewing ridiculous garbage that nobody with half a brain would take seriously.

I want this government to be held accountable for the *real* 9/11 problem. That the ChimpCo administration ignored clear and unambiguous warnings--possibly deliberately, possibly through their complete and total ineptness--and allowed terrorist to strike at the heart of our country.

I'm pissed about ChimpCo allowing this to happen. But I am even more pissed off at the lunacy which has become known as MIHOP. By spewing your rubbish--and let's make this clear right now, that's all it is--you allow ChimpCo and anybody else to label the very important movement to find the truth about 9/11 as a bunch of kooks who think:

• The WTC towers were engineered with explosives in them.
  
• That the WTC buildings were collapsed by controlled demolition.
  
• That the 9/11 airliners did not hit the buildings but somehow disappeared.
  
• That a missile hit the Pentagon in spite of the fact that every single one of the hundreds of eye witnesses saw an airliner.
  
• That the hero firemen on the scene in New York are somehow in on a huge conspiracy.
  
• That somehow the most incompetent and inept government in the history of all governments is somehow competent enough to engineer and pull off the most mind-bendingly complex conspiracy in history.
  
• Etc., etc., etc.
  

When the cries for truth about 9/11 begin to get loud enough and all we hear is about MIHOP lunatics you'll know the damage you've done. You harm our case with your illogical staying with a story that should only be filed alongside Creationism, flogiston, and alchemy. (Or, if you prefer, space aliens, Bermuda triangle, and crop circles.)

Well, I want the truth about 9/11 to come out and I'll do everything to make sure that this MIHOP crap is not seen as a mainstream belief in the progressive viewpoint.

[eomer]

59. Your complaint here seems to be about conflation of theories

and the concern that a true theory can be discredited by association with false ones.

Yet you are quite a conflationist yourself.

In this brief exchange, I count six posts where you intentionally conflate the theory that we're discussing, controlled demolition, with a bunch of other theories. You attempt to discredit CD by associating it with other theories.

The way to get to the truth is to take each theory independently and to carefully evaluate its merits based on facts and logic. That is how we can sift through the abundance of theories and determine which ones are true and which ones are false. You apparently wish for us to throw out all the MIHOP theories in one big bundle and not look into any of them. That is not how to establish truth. The way to establish truth is to look into each theory, one at a time, and evaluate the extent to which it comports with facts and logic. Some of the theories will get thrown out. Some of them will be retained for further analysis. Maybe someday we will narrow it down to only one theory that can be resolved with all the facts. But each theory must stand or fall on its own merits and not on vague generalizations about a whole category of theories.

In other words, put away your broad brush and let's get back to work.


APPENDIX 1: Posts where you conflate controlled demolition with other theories

#36:

Unfortunatly, jumping to conclusions is precisely and solely how MIHOP conjectures work.

#41:

Since almost all the MIHOP conclusions have been falsified I am interested in why advocates of things like "controlled demolition at the WTC" adhere to their opinions in the face of zero evidence for such a thing. They think that the Pentagon was hit by a missile in spite of the hundreds of people who witnessed a large airliner crashing into it and zero witnessed a missile.

#43:

I put "WTC controlled demolition" up there with the "Pentagon hit by missile" as the silliest and most easily debunked 9/11 MIHOP claim.

#50:

Invisible missiles that nobody has seen. Invisible controlled demolitions which nobody saw being planted. Disappearing airliners full of people. A conspiracy of thousands and not one whistle-blower. MIHOP is complete rubbish.

#54:

Not one smidgeon of the MIHOP conclusions are defended by the evidence. It's all made up shit.

Invisible missiles. Disappearing airliners. Invisible explosives. Made up. All of it.

#56:

a bunch of kooks who think:

• The WTC towers were engineered with explosives in them.
  
• That the WTC buildings were collapsed by controlled demolition.
  
• That the 9/11 airliners did not hit the buildings but somehow disappeared.
  
• That a missile hit the Pentagon in spite of the fact that every single one of the hundreds of eye witnesses saw an airliner.
  
• That the hero firemen on the scene in New York are somehow in on a huge conspiracy.
  
• That somehow the most incompetent and inept government in the history of all governments is somehow competent enough to engineer and pull off the most mind-bendingly complex conspiracy in history.
  
• Etc., etc., etc.
  

[longship]

61. Well,

Given that NONE of your theories hold any water whatsoever, it's elementary whether the theories are mixed or not.

I'll bite here. I'll take them separately.

Is there any science that would warrant a claim that the WTC towers (all three of them) could collapse (deliberately or otherwise) into anything other than their own footprint? No, none at all.

Is there any evidence for controlled demolition in the WTC? No, none at all.

Is there any evidence that controlled demolition was necessary to bring down the WTC towers? No, none at all.

Is there any evidence that anything other than an airliner collided with the Pentagon? No, none at all.

Is there any evidence that missiles were involved on 9/11? No, none at all.

There. That pretty much takes care of MIHOP.

Now, I'd entertain discussion on whether ChimpCo ignored clear warnings about an impending attack. We have evidence and even documentation about that.

MIHOP is looney toons.

[eomer]

62. What are the specific arguments that bring you to the conclusion

that none of the evidence discussed in Jones' paper is evidence of controlled demolition?

[eomer]

71. Dupe

[Old and In the Way]

63. Well, I think this is evidence of something.

<>

What caused those initial spikes that were 20X the amplitude at the front end of the collapse event?

A larger blow-up shows the big spike, followed by 5-6 smaller, bur still significant spikes. I would think that the event, if it happened the way the official story goes, would show a ramp up (attack) and a quicker ramp down (decay).

If it was a controlled demolition, here's what I think the seismic graphs tell us.

Initial spike - take out a bunch (not all) of the footings. Those footings were sunk deep in the ground, down to the bedrock. If cutter chargers were attached to the footings, I'd think that'd explain that huge spike. It wouldn't make sense to take out the footings completely, otherwise the collapse would clearly be seen starting from the bottom.

The next 5-6 spikes would be timed charges equally spaced starting from the top all the way down, maybe every 15-20 floors. That would also explain why there'd be no interior column standing after the floors started to pancake.

One other point....the 1st plane hitting is quite a bit more intense, seismic wave-wise, than the 2nd. Both were the same make of aircraft and 175 was traveling significantly faster, yet it doesn't register nearly as much as 11 does. I think that is because 11 hit the core very directly, while 175 hit at angle and a lot of the mass didn't hit the core. I bring that up because it seems to be a good indicator on how well the core could conduct energy to ground.

[longship]

64. A MIHOP deception revealed.

The so called "spikes" and their explanation as a justification for controlled demolition is amongst the shoddiest exploitation of data that I've ever witnessed. It can *only* be that the manipulation of the data is *deliberate*.

When one looks at the actual seismographic data (instead of the gross misrepresented data presented by the MIHOP crowd) the fact that the MIHOP crowd will do anything, including lie, to promote their bizarre and ridiculous claims becomes all too apparent.

The so-called spikes on the MIHOP documents are actually compressed so that they look like spikes. When one looks at the data uncompressed, one sees the real story, and it's one where there is no controlled demolition.

Here's the collapse of WTC 2 from Columbia University's seismographs:


Here's the collapse of WTC 1 from the same source:


And here's the collapse of WTC 7:


Especially note the time stamp at the top of each frame and the time scale across the bottom. Now, are these spikes? Or do they show an ongoing collapse that extends for several seconds. Nota bene, that these also effectively debunk another MIHOP claim, that the buildings collapsed in free fall.

It makes me furious to see these graphs compressed horizontally on one after another of the MIHOP sites. They totally misrepresent the data so that the broad, seconds long vibration as the building collapses is seen as a single shock.

MIHOP is a deliberate misrepresentation. MIHOPers are liars. Pure and simple.

The real issue here is not whether MIHOP is true or not. It's simply the question: Why do MIHOPers deliberately LIE?

And why should I believe anything from the MIHOP crowd when their information is so flagrantly manipulated to misrepresent the facts?

[Old and In the Way]

65. Deception?

Hey, it wasn't my intent to deceive. I understand that your charts are scaled differently and have a better time resiolution, so it shows the information differently. But is there clipping of the signals on your chart? That spike seems to be significantly more intense than what shows up in your charts. Do they really reflect each other, is there some logarithmic scaling on your chart (amplitude axis?)...or is one been modified? Your charts would certainly seem to support the official version better, I'll grant you that.

[longship]

66. So sorry. Not deception.... LIE!

mt

[longship]

67. You claimed it was a SPIKE!!!

And that claim is used to justify that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

But now I've shown you the source documents on which the MIHOP distortions are based. So do you admit that there's no spike? Do you recant the controlled demolition? No.

Instead, you spew out some rubbish about clipped signals. This is precisely the same waveform on the previous poster's post except that it's not compressed. The source is the same, Columbia Univerity, which has a seismograph at their lab on the Palisades, just up-river. It's identical data, so stop spewing rubbish about clipping. I'm beginning to get very impatient with the utter stupidity here.

I understand that you didn't deceive intentionally. But somebody in the MIHOP crowd is using you to spew their deceptions, their lies. They have some political agenda which is something outside the intent to get to the real truth behind 9/11. You're being made a fool of here by repeating stuff about which you don't know that whole story.

Ignore the MIHOP lunatics. Go to the source material. Find out the real facts.

The towers were brought down by airliner collisions. WTC 7 was brought down by severe damage due to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The Pentagon was hit by an 757 airliner.

Now, is the official report all correct? Hell, no. Much is missing. ChimpCo ignored the warnings. Why?

There is so much we *can* document as wrong. We need to focus on that, not lunatic ravings of some fringe idiots who see global conspiracies everywhere and are willing to lie, deceive and make ridiculous things up to serve their perverse benefit. Group them with alien abductee people, faith-healers, and psychics and move on.

[Old and In the Way]

69. "I'm beginning to get very impatient with the utter stupidity here."

Really? Who made you the hall monitor? What an ass.

[DemonFighterLives]

74. You were very rude to Old and In the Way

Your Administration theories are the lunatic theories, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Mathematicians don't act this way. Who do you work for again?

[eomer]

70. I agree that there's not evidence of CD here, but there wouldn't be.

From a Columbia University report on the seismic activity of the WTC events:

A truck bomb at the WTC in
1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically,
even at a station only 16 km away.

So it seems that demolition explosions at WTC wouldn't necessarily show up as measurable seismic activity.

By the way, I don't think your conclusion is valid that this data shows the collapse took longer than free fall. CU, according to their report, concluded that the seismic waves traveled to the Palisades observatory through two paths and therefore two different distances traveled. The seismic activity shown in the graphs aggregates the activity from the shorter path with the activity from the longer path (sort of like an echo). So the apparent length of the events in the graphs cannot be taken as the actual length of the source events, as you did. Here's the section of the report explaining that aspect:

Anderson and Dorman also observed strong lateral refraction of Rg waves caused by the
contrast in shallow rock properties at the boundary of the high and low velocity rocks of the
Manhattan Prong and Newark Basin. Waves propagated to Palisades followed paths through
both provinces, resulting in multiple arrivals of Rg. On the basis of polarization analysis, several
of those wave packets arrived from quite different directions than those predicted for straight-line
propagation. Seismic waves at PAL and MANY also are more complex than those at the other
stations of Figure 3, probably indicative of arrivals refracted through the two terrains. At MANY
10s separates two arrivals.

From the video of the collapse of WTC7 it is clear that it fell in roughly 6 seconds, or about free fall rate. The seismic activity for WTC7 as measured at Palisades lasts much longer than 6 seconds so you can see there is not a direct relationship between the actual event and the seismic event measured some miles away.

Columbia University report that I'm citing is here.


_{Edit: typos}

[eomer]

72. Back to my previous request that you support your claim about CD:

What are the specific arguments that bring you to the conclusion that none of the evidence discussed in Jones' paper is evidence of controlled demolition?

[sabbat hunter]

29. this again?

you cannot prove a negative.

instead those that believe in demolition or controlled demolition need to prove that it occured. beyond the picture of WTC 7 collapsing. evidence of explosives being used. witnesses who saw explosives being planted etc.

but it is impossible to prove that explosives were NOT used.

it is why one is innocent until proven guilty.

[stickdog]

33. The burden of proof is on our government to explain what happened

on 9/11 and answer its citizens' very legitimate questions about all the strange events of that day.

Instead, they waved their hands concerning WTC-7 while destroying all the evidence as quickly as possible. Why?

These actions don't rise to the level of a conviction, but they certainly suffice for an indictment and trial.

[sabbat hunter]

40. that i have no problem

with, but you cannot ask them to prove something DIDNT happen. you can ask them to prove their case however.

then as the opposition, those who believe in controlled demoltion make their case,

[DemonFighterLives]

73. Rofl

:rofl:
And I have a bridge to sell you on the Great Lakes!

[meganmonkey]

15. I wasn't trying to prove anything

I was just summing up what I think is the truth in one sentence.

If you haven't seen the new edition of Loose Change, I recommend it.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

[Grateful for Hope]

16. It's an argument

which is also based on knowing how much the Bush administration has been lying to us -- even as recently as this week during those speeches that Bush made. Like, "I don't think I have ever made a connection between Saddam and Iraq", and "Saddam would not allow the inspectors in".

In addition, the administration has never offered any satisfactory proof to support their version of the 9/11 events.

[jschurchin]

12. Can anyone explain what caused......

WTC 7 to collapse in the manner which it did?

[bpilgrim]

17. there are 2 types of collapse... CLEAN -vs- DIRTY

and there are only 2 that come under the CLEAN category...

1. DESIGN (flaw or planned)
2. Controlled Demolition

that is it... everything else is 'DIRTY' (non symmetrical)

a DIRTY collapse is exactly what we should have seen if the official story is to be believed (unexpected collapse from random damage)

that we saw the exact opposite, 3 times!!! screams for an independent investigation or we need to rewrite our physics & engineering books and evacuate all our high rises ASAP.

SELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION

Fire Engineering Magazine

BY BILL MANNING

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

more...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=133237&VERSION_NUM=1

peace

[savemefromdumbya]

30. a neighbor of mine saw it collapse

he was pretty close to it and said that it was detonated.

[longship]

68. Do you mean other than the 20-story diameter hole in it?

And the whole south facade spewing smoke from the unchecked fires throughout those 20 stories?

Do you mean other than the fact that the building was ripped to shreds by the collapse of two 110 story skyscrapers nearby? (Each collapse dissipated some 1,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy!!)

What more justification do you need?

[seemslikeadream]

21. Thanks kpete

Thanks for the post saving it for my journal, jah bless

kpete (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-24-06 10:18 AM
Original message
The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll (NY Magazine)
March 27, 2006 issue of New York Magazine


The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day.
By Mark Jacobson


Free fall: The speed at which the towers came down—they were almost in free fall—suggests controlled demolition rather than catastrophic collapse.


1. 11/22 and 9/11

They keep telling us 9/11 changed everything. But even in this Photoshopped age of unreliable narrators, much remains the same. The assassination of President John Kennedy, the Crime of the Last Century, occurred in plain sight, in front of thousands—yet exactly what happened remains in dispute. The Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald, fellow traveler of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, shot Kennedy with a cheap Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. The commission found that Oswald, who two days later would be murdered by nightclub owner Jack Ruby, acted alone.


The Plane Truth
A list of 9/11 conspiracy theories, from nuts to soup.

Yet, as with so many such events, there is the sanctioned history and the secret history—players hidden from view. In the Kennedy murder, the involvement of shadowy organizations like the Mafia and the CIA came into question. This way of thinking came to challenge the official narrative put forth by the Warren Commission. It is not exactly clear when the grassy knoll supplanted the sixth-floor window in the popular mind-set. But now, four decades after Dallas, it is difficult to find anyone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman.


But if Oswald didn’t kill the president, who did? So 11/22 remains an open case, an open wound.


Now here we are again, contemplating the seemingly unthinkable events of September 11. An official explanation has been offered up: The nation was attacked by the forces of radical Islam led by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda jihadists. Again, this narrative has been accepted by many.


But not all.

much, much, much more at:

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html

[Gabi Hayes]

38. I skimmed through that article, and it was pretty superficial, actually.

lots of pages, I know, but there's so much to deal with that she just hit the tips of the myriad icebergs

not informative for anybody with more than a basic idea of what went on

am I wrong about this?

didn't care for the tone, either; dismissive, mostly of alternate theories....made fun of "conspiracy nuts" most of the time...not always, as in case of one of the Jersey Girls' belated impression of said "nuts"

[ClayZ]

60. Thanks!