The psychology of conspiracy theorists

[TrogL]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561199.stm

This begs the question: Where do conspiracy theories come from? What is it in human nature that drives us to create alternative worlds peopled by shadowy figures?

...

According to Psychology Professor Cary Cooper we are trying to stave off fear of random violence and unpredictable death.

"They do that because they can't come to terms with the fact that it could be just a few people," said Professor Cooper, who lectures at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

...

We create alternate realities because we reject the world where a single madman can bring down a president, a reckless driver can snuff out a princess... and a few men with knives can terrorise a country.

http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1648616

Some of the results were unsurprising. For example, subjects with high general levels of belief in conspiracy theories were much more doubting of the facts in the articles. That fits with what is already known—that people who like conspiracy theories tend to bat away any evidence that contradicts their point of view.

...

This curious observation is the basis of Dr Leman's hypothesis that there is some underlying process in human psychology that assumes that the bigger the effect is, the bigger the cause must have been.

http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/10/02/king_lennon/index.html

The Internet is made for conspiracy buffs. It is a fundamental principle of geometry that a straight line can connect any two points. On the Net, just type in a search for any two celebrity names, any two cities, any two anything, and you're bound to get something back. And that little something, sometimes, is all you need. So it goes for Stephen King and John Lennon. The Internet simply helps us connect the dots. And one of the Web's key defining characteristics -- the ability to create associations, links, between unrelated information -- can almost, as if by magic, make the degrees of separation disappear.

...

Conspiracy theories do not need impenetrable bonds to survive. They are strings of circumstantial evidence which together create a maze of intrigue. And what better place for conspiracy buffs to congregate in a kind of global support group than the Internet. Yes, the Web offers us a chance to find people of like minds -- even if those minds aren't running on a full tank.

...

All the clues are there, just waiting to be connected. It is the vacuum and the echo chamber folded conveniently into one. Here, urban myths becomes gospel truths. Remember, the crazy man is only crazy until he is proven right.

[Abe Linkman]

1. Whose conspiracy is it, anyway?

"The essence of "conspiracy" is an agreement, together with an overt act, to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in an unlawful manner."

"A consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to acccuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner..."

Black's Law Dictionary

[LARED]

3. The article is about the nature

of conspiracy theories. No one here, or in the article, is talking about a legal definition of conspiracy.

[k-robjoe]

2. just curious

If a person agrees with Dr. Cyril Wecht (quote below), does that make him a conspiracy nut?

"The panel (of experts assembled by the House Select Committee on Assassinations), to the best of my recollection, was in unanimous agreement that there was a slight upward trajectory of the bullet through President John F. Kennedy, that is to say, that the-bullet wound of entrance on the President's back, lined up with the bullet wound of exit in the front of the President's neck drawing a straight line, showed that vertically the bullet had moved slightly upward, slightly, but upward. (...)
under the single bullet theory - with Oswald as the sole assassin, or anybody else, in the sixth floor window, southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building, you have the bullet coming down at a downward angle of around 20-25 degrees, something like that, maybe a little bit less. (...) How in the world can a bullet be fired from the sixth floor window, strike the President in the back, and yet have a slightly upward direction?(...)
To my knowledge, there has never been any disagreement among the proponents and defenders of the Warren Commission report or the critics, about the angle of declination in John Connally - maybe a degree or two. We have that bullet going through the Governor at about 25 degrees downward. How does a bullet that is moving slightly upward in the President proceed then to move downward 25 degrees in John Connally? " - Dr. Cyril Wecht

[nomatrix]

4. This is logic?

"That fits with what is already known—that people who like conspiracy theories tend to bat away any evidence that contradicts their point of view."

People who don't believe in conspiracy theories tend to bat away any evidence that contradicts their point of view.

You have clearly shown that by all the threads you created. Spending years arguing how wrong anyone is who has a different vision.


I suggest you read "Sorrows of Empire- Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic" by Chalmers Johnson. He also wrote "Blowback".

[LARED]

5. Is the BBC's Cooper a seer?

Or a guy that understands human nature.

From your link

Article posted on Monday, 24 September, 2001, 18:09 GMT 19:09 UK

Professor predicts that, in the weeks ahead, US terror attack theories will expand and become attributed to an ever larger group of culprits.

From Google 05/02/04

Results 1 - 10 of about 395,000 for 9/11 conspiracy

===========

Out of 395,000 hits on Google I'd bet there are at least 50,000 individual 9/11 conspiracy web sites. Not to mention that in order to keep the groups and people associated with the 9/11 cover-up and conspiracy alive, I'd guess about 100,000 people had to have known about 9/11 or participated in its cover-up by now.

[Abe Linkman]

6. 50,000 sounds low, but thats more than adequate.

The 9-11 conspiracy was arguably even more historically important than any other in the past 100 years, so why aren't there more than 50,000 individual 9-11 conspiracy web sites devoted to understanding and exposing the bogus information put out by the BUNNYPANTS administration?

50,000 is ENOUGH! Remember: a very large percentage of the public believes what they're told by the Government and the corporate media --
so, they're "comfortably numb" (P.F.) even with the absurd notion that a
cave-dwelling man with a pair of bad radiators is responsible for what happened on 9-11. For THEM, the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy is enough to satisfy their "Lazy Boy" intellectual curiosity.

[gandalf]

7. Do you suggest there are no conspiracies?

It's certainly true that there are more conspiracy theories than actual conspiracies, and that a lot of crap is published in the internet (and a lot of crap is printed in the press). But, nevertheless, conspiracies do exist.

Somehow I get the feeling you want to imply that there are no conspiracies, especially not regarding 9/11. It's my feeling that you should try harder...

[TrogL]

8. Certainly there are conspiracies

The point is that some people, in their zeal to prove their own particular crackpot theory, abandon logic, causality and apparently their sanity.

[rman]

10. But that's hardly typical of conspiracy theorists,

not representative of "the psychology of conspiracy theorists" in general, contrary to what the title of the article suggests.

[rman]

9. "Where do conspiracy theories come from?"

Seems all to obvious to me: conspiracy theories come from suspicion.

Then again, we all know there's never any reason to be suspicious of anything, let alone of the government.

When is some scolar going to make a distincion between obvious crackpot conspiracy theories such as "Hollow Earth", UFO abductions and 4th lower dimensions on the one hand, and on the other hand theories for which there is ample evidence, such as Watergate, Iran-contra etc?

[TrogL]

11. You've hit it on the head

"ample evidence"

There is ample evidence that wordly, educated terrorists (ie. not "cavemen") financed by OBL trained at Florida flight schools and subsequently hijacked airliners and crashed them into various buildings.

There is some evidence that the Bush administration looked the other way, allowing this to happen (LIHOP).

There is vague evidence that the Bush administration helped (MIHOP).

There are a variety of heavily photoshopped pictures purporting to show that missiles were used, that different planes were involved, etc.

There are a variety of theories, some involving holographs, based upon no evidence whatsover.

There is ample evidence that Wellstone's flight crashed due to pilot error. (ie. no conspiracy)

There are other crackpot theories that claim Wellstone's flight was brought down by magic rays for which no evidence exists.

There is ample evidence that a well funded group of conservatives/Religious Right has taken over the government of the United States in a bloodless coup (VRWC/RRR).

There is evidence of an ongoing war to control the worlds petroleum resources. This started in the Caspian sea and has since expanded to, among other places, Iraq. (Great Game)

[dinyc]

12. conspiracies

Shouldn't there be some kind of shared responsibility here though? Doesn't the government and media encourage this thinking? The government's obsession with secrecy and the media's unwillingness to delve into any kind of investigative check on what the leaders of this country are up to, leave many people with the impression that they aren't getting the whole story.

Dr. Rice said in the aftermath of 9-11 that no on imagined anyone would hijack a flight and put it into a building even though anyone who had done any casual reading into terrorists in the 1990s had come across Project Bojinka. Of course people are going to assume she was lying. No one wants to believe that the National Security Advisor is ignorant of this kind of threat. So logically she and other people in government create this "credibility gap", which some people take to extremes. They figure the government/media is lying about everything.
(I'm not one for the "missiles hit the WTC" or "there were mini-nukes in WTC7" btw)

I also believe it's possible that some of the wackier stuff is part of a disinfo agenda. The recent "Powerdown" allegations come to mind. The fact that there is so much crap swirling around what happened on 9-11 helps to either confuse or piss people off so that anyone suggesting anything remotely out of step with the official line is dumped into the same pile.

Daniel Hopsicker, who I think has turned up some interesting bits of info regarding 9-11, recently commented on this — The Red Herrings of 9-11.
http://www.madcowprod.com/index53.html

[Bolo Boffin]

13. My favorite sentence in this article

Any 9/11 “expert” whose revelations don’t frequently use the word “Saudi” in conjunction with the word “Florida” is peddling a red herring.

[demodewd]

14. No evidence

There is no evidence that the Arabs trained at Florida flight schools hijacked the planes on 9-11.

[OudeVanDagen]

15. reply to #14

"There is no evidence that the Arabs trained at Florida flight schools hijacked the planes on 9-11."

I'll stay within the field of my expertise and state that there is no evidence for explosives at the 9/11 WTC collapse.

[demodewd]

18. Breaking wind?

What is this squib here? is the building just breaking wind?

[OudeVanDagen]

20. come on now

I've explained it to you before ... it's called venting ... something engineers experienced in collapse (my field of expertise since WW2) will understand. BTW demodewd, thank you for posting another pictionary for venting ... I appreciate your cooperation and for saving me so much time.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Evidence

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/usbinladen-1a.pdf

[demodewd]

17. Evidence?? No.... sorry but no.

This is your evidence???????

9. On September 11, 2001, co-conspirators Mohammed Atta, Abdul Alomari, Wail al-Shehri, Waleed al-Shehri, and Satam al-Suqami hijacked American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, and crashed it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. (In this Indictment, each hijacker will be identified with the flight number of the plane he hijacked.)

10. On September 11, 2001, co-conspirators Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, a/k/a "Banihammad Fayez," Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Hamza al-Ghamdi, and Mohald al-Shehri hijacked United Airlines Flight 175, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, and crashed it into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York.

11. On September 11, 2001, co-conspirators Khalid al-Midhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Hani Hanjour, Salem al-Hamzi, and Majed Moqed hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, bound from Virginia to Los Angeles, and crashed it into the Pentagon.

12. On September 11, 2001, co-conspirators Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Saaed al-Ghamdi, and Ahmed al-Nami hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, bound from Newark to San Francisco, and crashed it in Pennsylvania.

This is not evidence...these are just statements...not evidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Perhaps you should look at the documents again.

There's quite a bit more detailed evidence that the four items you mentioned.

[demodewd]

22. Planted disinfo...not concrete evidence...

So and so bought a knive on Sept sometime blah blah blah... not admisable evidence to find anyone guilty. Dick Cheney did it.

[OudeVanDagen]

21. in reply to #17

"This is not evidence..."

Hmmm ... evidence, huh?

Where's your evidence that explosives were used? Where's the residue? Where's the tear-out, delaminataions etc etc. Where is it? I can still find WW2 residues in London, Berlin, and .... thanks to members of this forum ... in debris of WW2 London shipped to the US and used as landfill .... so why, demodewd can't any residue be found in Manhattan? You want evidence ... but never provide any yourself. Talk is cheap.

[DulceDecorum]

23. Fresh Kills landfill

has been sealed off by certain parties.
And THAT is the reason why there is "no residue."

[LARED]

24. The power of the net coupled with imagination

The Internet simply helps us connect the dots. And one of the Web's key defining characteristics -- the ability to create associations, links, between unrelated information -- can almost, as if by magic, make the degrees of separation disappear.

http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/10/02/king_lennon/index.html

[OudeVanDagen]

25. expand your horizons

I'm not going to knock your inexperience and lack of knowledge in structural collapse, but IF explosives ... and there would have had to be quite a bit of it ... were needed and used to bring down those structures there would have to be ample residues left behind ... chemical fingerprints all over lower Manhattan ... in every nook and cranny of hundreds of buildings .... so, where is it? There isn't any.

IF explosives were needed and used to destroy those structures there would have been evidence ... "macro-evidence" visible to the eye and with less than 10X magnification .... of tear-out and delaminations in the steel, so where is it? There isn't any. Where is the micro-evidence? There isn't any. All micro evaluation shows is that the steel experienced post production thermal load ... a prolonged exposure to heat ... and not high heat for that matter. Where's the chemical fingerprints for explosives? No where.

That is the problem .... there just isn't any. No proof ... no evidence ... SO comments such as; "Fresh Kills landfill has been sealed off by certain parties." are made and are made without any proof and without any foundation ... manufactured ... any excuse to fit the story ... the "theory du jour."

Why would the Kills be "sealed off?" FYI there is an active investigation still underway ... very much underway. The collection site is visited by investigation teams, by enginners, and by scientists from around the world. The majority of collapse investigations are still "open" ... only preliminary reporting so far ... everything is being checked and rechecked. The untrained general public must be kept out during this time ... for safety and security ... souvenir collectors ... so the Kills have been kept opened for the eyes and ears of the people; the news media. All the major news networks have had unlimited access, as have the locals and even C-SPAN. "Sealed off" is an untrue statement ... completely false ... one that can not possibly be substantiated. FYI the collection site is also visited by community leaders from all over the US seeking and selecting steel for their 911 monuments. If YOU were an investigator or researcher with valid credentials OR a member of the news community the gates would be open.

Next, in response, claims that "evidence was destroyed" will fly. Again, another untrue and unfounded statement used to support a false story. Sure there are statements and snip-quotes by untrained inexperienced photo-opers and publicity hounds about destruction; but is that really what happened at WTC or was there a strict following of protocol with mapping, photography and evaluation before the steel was moved or lifted? Which makes sense? We are living in a society that has rules ... and the rules of our civilized society demands a proper investigation. Suggesting something else has happened is your right ... but you are also indicting thousands of honest people.

[Abe Linkman]

27. Useless to argue with unknown opponents about "why" issues

The other side can always give a reason "why" YOU are in the wrong. Children, con artists, disinfo agents and others -- can always respond to a "why" question...with a "because" answer.

Same reasoning whenver you try and argue with an unknown opponent over technical issues.

It's even more problematic trying to do so on a forum where the rules forbid questioning someone's motivation, agenda, or reason for arguing in the first place.

[OudeVanDagen]

29. yeah, you're right

So I'll state my motivation and agenda and reason for "arguing" ... I'm dead set against the outright lies and manufactured facts being perpetrated about: 1. the "destruction" of WTC evidence, and 2. about the collapse. I've used my expertise and my years of experience for the second and what my own eyes saw on 911 and during the weeks and months thereafter for the first. I don't know anything about the hijackers, cavemen, the planes, the plane registrations, or the passengers and crews social security numbers, or their ability to use cell phones .... so I keep my mouth shut about it; but I'll speak loudly and often about what I do know ... which due to my age and physical condition forces me into a Bob Dole imitation by banging the keys on the keyboard with a pencil jammed in my hand. It's tiring but I'll fight for the truth when it comes to those two aforementioned issues .... things I actually know about. That's unique here ... seems everybody's an expert on everything. Not me.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

30. Here we go again

"According to reports that we have heard since, there has been no comprehensive investigation. One expert in fire engineering concluded that there was virtually a nonexistent investigation. We haven't examined any aspects of the collapse that might have impacted rescue worker procedures even in this last month.

Second, reports have emerged that crucial evidence has been mishandled. Over 80 percent of the steel from the World Trade Center site has already been sold for recycling, much of it, if not all of it, before investigators and scientists could analyze the information."

-----------
"I am concerned that no clear protocol was in place for building investigators who were attempting to understand how the two buildings collapsed. While I understand that Ground Zero is first and foremost a crime scene and rescue area, we must also allow investigators the ability to fully examine evidence that will give us a greater understanding of why the buildings collapsed. I was disappointed to learn that investigators were unable to examine recovered pieces of steel from the Twin Towers before they were recycled."
--------------
"The FEMA BPAT encountered numerous obstacles during its investigation, including an inability to examine the steel, either removed from the site during the early search and rescue work or shipped to recycling plants, and the denial of access to building design, construction, and maintenance documents."
----------------
"The American Society of Civil Engineers team, whose report is due in April, admits they may have lost data due to the decision to recycle the structural steel."
--------------------
"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site"
-----------------
"The efforts of NSF-funded researchers were impeded by the same obstacles the BPAT team encountered: an inability to examine the steel, either removed from the site during the early search and rescue work or shipped to recycling plants"

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm

Each of these statement was made by a different collapse investigator. As for explosive residue, do you have the report showing that explosives were tested for? and that these tests came back negative?? Didn't think so.

[OudeVanDagen]

31. second verse same as the first

yeah, here we go again .... well, the same old tired "facts" you're posting will get the same old tired answer .... look at the dates of the statements, and who it was that said them .... come on, wake up ... enough said.

Of course the collapse reports include subversive act investigation protocols ... which one has the explosive residue ... none. You want them .... click away ... use that mouse ... follow the money ... (how many millions thrown at NYC 911 WTC ... who got it ... for what) ... use your head ... use FOI, use RTK ... I don't do links and won't do your homework. Want the truth ... look .. it's not nearly as hard as it sounds.

[demodewd]

32. re:links

If you have a case present it. Do links. Inform with backup. I want to see visual examples of "venting". A thorough examination citing numerous experts. Lots of citings...quotes...get to it...be responsible. Let's go...hut hut hut hut....

[OudeVanDagen]

33. okay

you go first .... show me a link proving your theory that "they" gassed the passengers of those planes .... or any "theory du jour" that you have. thank you.

[demodewd]

38. theory vs fact

The possible (emphasis possible) gassing of passengers is a theory ...just that. "Venting" to you is an obvious fact. so get to it...some good photos with explanations from experts...please.

[OudeVanDagen]

49. suggestions ... again

A great majority of my responses have encouraged forum members to read up on pre and post 911 structural collapse incidents ... I've listed some that were well covered by the press and where there were litigations with eyewitness and expert testimony.

Those incidents that I've mentioned numerous times and the excellent ... for the most part ... news coverage can be found with simple web searches ... and will describe and define venting ... which is also ... an unfortunate choice of words for the content of these threads ... also called blow out. A book plaguepuppy linked in the Collapse Dynamic thread has accounts of venting ... the Hartford collapse.

Photos of venting, again as I've mentioned before, can be found by searching some very recent collapse events ... Taipei for example in March ... or Cairo. Luckily tourists had video cams and digi-cameras and caught the events .... published in newspapers ... shown on CNN and Fox. Geez, doesn't anyone ever turn off that playstation?

As I've stated numerous times before ... info is just a click away.

A quick study of those pre/post 911 WTC collapse incidents will be very valuable to better understanding WTC; the importance of structural connections, structural elements, dampening, tension and compression, thermal and dynamic loads, and factors in the modulus of elesticity ... not to forget terminologies and an exposure to investigation protocols. Without some understanding of other events it is impossible to understand WTC.

I'm not making these suggestions over and over and over again just to hear myself talk ... I'm doing it 'cause you're asking ... so click that mouse.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

50. Its amazing

that one can be so full of shit and hot air at the same time. Tell us more about your adventures as an eighty year old member of an army corp of engineer team dispached to the WTC. :eyes: Please don't provide any evidence or links as is your M.O. Just yammer on about how "I don't do links" and "ALL the steel was inspected"- just take my word for it.:boring:

[OudeVanDagen]

52. your choice

My collapse experience began in the ACE after WW2. I'm not ACE now, and haven't been since McCarthy's first rant. Screw government work. I wasn't dispatched to WTC ... never said I was. My office is on Broadway ... I, like hundreds of others simply went over. Now if you have questions my good friend, just ask ... I'm here to help.

[demodewd]

54. Then click away away away....

If its just a click away...then click away..you brought up the topics...you support it..click away...no need to condescend here ...we're not your minions.

[OudeVanDagen]

58. huh?

"..you brought up the topics..."

Who started threads "Thermite and Core Collapse" and "Where's The Smoke Soot and Stains" .... etc etc etc .... not me demodewd, not me!

[LARED]

34. Perhaps before you set up standards for others

you should meet those standards yourself. "Be responsible" is excellent advice.

[demodewd]

39. A lock

Much of my posting is theoretical and I'm always open for new ideas. Are you? From what I observe..you're a shill for the "official version"..that's a lock and has been for a long time.

[LARED]

41. I'm a fairly open minded person, but

I have a fundamental rule regarding open-mindedness.

Never let your brains fall out in the process.

[Abe Linkman]

42. Take your open-mindedness to the thread titled: "Mr. R's Timeline" #57

That's fine, "lared". Now, may I direct your attention to the thread titled: "Mr. Rumsfeld's Timeline" and Message #57 therein.

I'm sure the reason you have yet to respond to that message is that you simply haven't seen it yet. Would you kindly go there now, and then respond to it...substantively?

Thank you, I'll watch for your response. Your "partners" have been silent on this one, too. Maybe your erudite response will motivate them to turn their attention to it, and really show they're worth what they're all about.

[demodewd]

43. you are limited...too bad for you.

Your "open mindedness" is limited to the conventional box of thinking that you function in.Is the possibility of intelligence false flag operation a possible explanation for some of the geo-political events that so sway the thinking of the masses? I don't believe you consider this a valid area of investigation so of course you are closed to the possibilities of a conspiracy beyond what is given to you by the ligitimate corporate-globalist authorities. Thats where you begin... thats where you end. The arabs hijacked the planes....Nick Berg was beheaded by Al Qaeda...The US Cole was bombed by AlQaeda operatives....etc ...etc. Why????? Because the government and corporate media said so.Thats enough for you and the small box you think in. So what brains you may have and I know you are intelligent(notice I am not demeaning like YOU )spin around in your limited and I dare say naive perspective.

[MercutioATC]

44. Yeah, LARED...it's silly to keep your brains in your head...

...instead of letting them fall out.

You closed-minded patsy, you...


;)

[demodewd]

46. false flag operations..

What false flag operations are you possibly suspitious of in regards to US intelligence/miltary? Or are you naive too?

[MercutioATC]

55. I'm simply resistant to letting my brains fall out of my head...

...and I'm supporting LARED for feeling the same.

[demodewd]

59. An answer please

What false flag operations performed by our government do you believe in or are leery of?

[TrogL]

60. WTF is a "false flag operation"?

Is this some new conspiracy theory you people have cooked up? :crazy:

[demodewd]

61. re: false flag operation

A false flag operation...attributing culpability to a group or country for committing an assassination or terrorist act when the real culprit is the accuser or another party. i.e.attributing the assassination of JFK to the "lone gunman" Oswald who was considered a traitor or double agent with Soviet connections when the real culpability lay with the CIA/mafia or some other party(ies).

[LARED]

62. False Flag

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/spybook/spy/970101.html

False Flag

Approach by a hostile intelligence officer who misrepresents himself or herself as a citizen of a friendly country or organization. The person who is approached may give up sensitive information believing that it is going to an ally, not a hostile power.

[LARED]

56. What false flag ops are you talking about? n/t

[Abe Linkman]

45. Naive? I don't think so. None of the others, either.

Anything's possible, but being intentionally naive after ALL of what they've read here on these boards? I don't think so. Maybe you were just trying to be polite.

[demodewd]

47. intentionally naive?

No one elects to be intentionally naive...unless you're feigning ignorance...which I believe you don't. Tell me ...Lared ...of a false flag operation you may be suspitious of in regards to our government and it's intelligence/military apparatus.

[demodewd]

48. don't worry

You need not worry about that.

[OudeVanDagen]

upon further review

With apologies to the intent and topic of this thread:

Reading accounts that begin with; "Upon our arrival we were immediatley turned away ..." begs the question: How many Boy Scouts do you need to help an old lady cross the street?

Yeah, WTC attracted people who wanted to help from all walks of life, and it certainly triggered the engineering establishment into action; but how much sugar can you fit into a 5 pound bag and how much salt do you put in the soup? How many investigators can you use and put to good use during the process? Send 40 when 25 is adequate? What about relief, rotation of crews? Looking ahead at months and years of work does one deploy everyone available or does one have a reserve that can relieve and rotate? Actually there was, after a rough start, good command and control. There were sufficent numbers of experienced investigators present and working under extreme circumstances in an extremely dangerous area. Members of FDNY for example were turned away stirring protests "Bring Our Brothers Home" was the chant as they demanded the opportunity to locate and find the remains of their commrades. There were at that time just too many firefighters present and the City wanted and needed to reduce their numbers. Well the same held true for the construction workers, the engineers, and for the volunteers that signed up at the Javits Center. Numbers had to be limited .... safety was reason enough.

After mapping, measuring, identifying and marking and photographing pieces of every imaginable shape and size heavy equipment of all types lifted or moved pieces exposing more, and then more again. Items had to be cut with saws and torches; but only after they were inspected.

This site was not a lab; while valuable new information was obtained and better techniques evolved, those allowed in were selected on experience and expertise and followed uniform procedures and protocols. Why should doors swing open and welcome the uninvited ... those wishing to use a rescue and recovery site as their lab ... and those without proper experience.

Was this a site where work should stop, come to a halt just so some lab rats can, for example hook up their fibre light cable to check some beams for straightness? Who do you want doing your taxes? The Middle School Math team?

Every event has bad information coming out of it. No one is entirely happy with their assignments. No one is ever happy getting turned away when; they're not needed, when they arrive too early to relieve others, when they lack credentials and training, or when they want to turn the project into their lab, or when they expect/demand to assume command and control and do things differently. This was not an effort where chest thumping "my way or the high way" need apply.

People and organizations have pasts and reputations ... and attitudes and problematic issues ... that aren't always condusive to the immediate task at hand. Not eveyone and not every organization is a good fit. When that happens, when they arive, when they are sent home they belly ache. Just check those dates of those statements and look who made them.

[parasim]

35. Huh, interesting...

Quick couple of questions, since you're an expert on building demolition. (don't worry, though, I don't believe anybody is who they say they are on a messageboard anyway, so it doesn't really matter so much to me whether you are or not)

Since you say that there is no evidence of "chemical fingerprints" all over lower Manhattan that must mean either A) These residues that are embedded into nooks and crannies of hundreds of buildings after such an event dissipate over time or B) there has never been explosives used to demolish a building in lower Manhattan. Which of these is correct? or am I simply missing something?

also, I know you "don't do links", but perhaps you can give me an idea as to where I can find out more info on chemical residue from explosives used to demolish buildings or info on buildings that have been demolished in lower Manhattan during 2001. I've been googling all eveing and can't seem to find anything.

Or you can ignore my requests and pass me off as just another tinfoiler looking to find any excuse to fit my story. That's ok, too.

[OudeVanDagen]

36. always a pleasure

Yes, indeed ... a pleasure to offer some hopefully constructive information. My expertise is not actually in demolition; it's in structural collapse ... the two are related, but distant cousins. Collapse is something ... completely unplanned ... that happens every day somewhere in the world; perhaps caused by fire, flood, storm, bad engineering, lousy craftsmanship, poor material choice, neglect or war ... but in all honesty I'm new at it, still learning because I've only been at it since WW2 starting with the ACE, Army Corps of Engineers. Something new to learn each day.

Chemical fingerprints for explosives do dissipate over time; depends on the products, quanity and mixes used, plus weather and climate for the region. However, there are parts and areas of buildings that retain the chemical residues for extended periods of time; in the overlap in rows of shingles, in the caulk and sealants of sash and curtain wall panels, in mortar joints of masonry, between slate or stone roof tiles, in roofing stones and etc etc. Buildings in cities that suffered bombings during war will display no residue on the exposed weather and wind washed surfaces, but will offer easily measured large amounts in the aforementioned areas.

That is the problem for anyone advancing the explosive induced collapse theory ... no explosive chemical residues ... anywhere ... just gypsum and silicas.

I know of no demolition with explosives in Lower Manhattan. The City's underground infrastructure prohibits that method. Everything is underground; water, sewer, gas, steam, electrical, phone, subway and etc etc. The only event I know of occurred a few years ago and was the Maspeth Tanks in Queens. NYC has been a great lab for structural studies ... out with the old and in with the new ... usually; and thanks to labor unions, out is done the old fashioned way by wrecking ball and jackhammer. The building boom of the 80s saw numerous new towers rise where old structures were demolished ... but brick by brick. After the 80s there was ...and there still is .. a new building stall in NYC. Not much of anything was happening in 2001 ... new construction was dead. Very little ... if any demolition and new construction was going on ... not much now in the works either.

[parasim]

40. Thanks for the info

It certainly sounds like you know what you are talking about. Plus your reply gives me a lot of keywords to use in my continued search of explanations to the "oddities" in the collapse of the twin towers.

The reason why I am so curious about this is because when I saw one of the buildings collapse on the television, I could have sworn that I saw an explosion prior to the collapse. Also, I've read a number of accounts of "explosions" being heard prior to the collapse from people that apparently were in the buildings, as well as this account by a Mr. Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology:

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/albuquerquejournal091101.html

(I provide this link because the original article is apparently no longer online)

The odd thing about Mr. Romero's comments are that although he seemed rather adamant about the feelings he expressed in this article, ten days later the paper printed a retraction and said that Mr. Romero changed his mind and stated "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/albuquerquejournal092101.html


That seemed quite odd to me so I hope you can understand the reason for my questioning. Your assertions that there never were any demolitions with explosives in Lower Manhattan certainly would explain the lack of chemical residue from explosives.

Since you didn't provide a link to the findings that determined that there was none, I'll have to look around myself to be fully convinced, but that's ok, I'm used to it.

[OudeVanDagen]

51. prior to the collapse

Your comment; "I could have sworn that I saw an explosion prior to the collapse." isn't at all bothersome to me ... but what you saw wasn't an explosion caused by explosives. What you and millions of others ... myself included ... saw is a collapse sequence called venting. A structural collapse has several sequences. First and foremost a collapse is caused by motion. A structure must be built either very wide and very strong to prevent motion or be flexible so that it will bend but not break. WTC was the latter.

After the collision and fire, structural framing members were exposed to thermal loads or to an elastomeric temperature which caused drift or a misalignment of floors. The drift was enough to disassociate the three key structural elements; the core, outer walls, and roof trusses. Roof trusses ... massive key structural elements ... connected the outer walls to the core to control motion. All three elements had to be connected if motion was to be controlled ... dampened. The drift, which was induced by thermal loads disassociated the three key elements. A structure that can not dampen motion will collapse.

Below ... and even above ... the drift area are extreme destructive forces called tension and compression ... an overload of the weights and forces that the framing members are capable of carrying ... which is what the modulus of elasticity describes. That tension and compression is the leading edge ... a knife of sorts ... to a collapse sequence. It's unseen because the walls mask it from our eyes. It's happening to the columns and beams behind the walls. IF this happens on a masonry structure ... one of bricks and blocks; cracks will appear. It's not seen at WTC, just the venting that followed it.

These forces cause columns to bend, break, snap, floors to fall and those energies create venting or blow-out ... what you saw and what you believed to be an explosion. Then what you saw and called collapse is the next sequence when the debris begins to fall.

There are several sequences to collapse. Seeing the debris come down is preceded by all those other sequences described above. Collapse speed affects visuals. Venting precedes debris falling but as collapse speed increases the debris ... it's weight ... catches up with venting. Venting ... a dramatic visual effect, but not an explosion.


WTC collapse reports ... prelims, collaterals and etc have all followed long established investigation protocols that have always included procedures for subversive acts ... or explosives. Collapse investigation is done for three reasons: 1) To find out what happened 2) To prevent it from happening again, and when applicable 3) To help prosecute the parties responsible.

Every collapse investigation has subversive act procedures ... involving multiple government agencies and their contractors ... labs. The laws of a civilized society demand a complete investigation.

Sometimes an investigation reveals substandard construction materials or poor craftsmanship or a flagrant noncompliance with codes. A loss of life in a collapse event with those causes will lead to prosecution; as will an event caused by subversive act, but it ... like other evidence ... must be present. There is no evidence for explosives.

The easiest way to locate WTC collapse reports is to follow the money. Forget government agencies for now ... you need to file FOIs Freedom Of Information applications or RTKs Right To Knows ... and forget the PPs or Propriety Papers of the insurance companies; no one will see them until a judge says so ... so stick to the colleges and private labs that received 911 funds ... then purchase their published reports. If you're just looking for a confirmation for explosives you'll be wasting time and money.


Forget Van Romero; lots of people put their mouths in motion before they put their brains in gear, haven't we all said something we've regretted?

[parasim]

53. Again, thanks for the further information

Interesting information you have provided, to say the least. Particularly the stuff on "venting", as you call it.

If what you are referring to is what is shown in the photo in comment 18 above (I'm assuming it is based on your reply to that post), that is not the event that i was referring to when I said that I could have sworn I saw an explosion prior to the collapse of one the buildings. As odd as that looked to me, I never thought it was an explosion. What I was referring to was a flash of flame that came shooting out a floor or two below the floors that were hit by the aircraft prior to the moment the building started to collapse, not as it was collapsing.

I know that I saw this that morning and a couple of replays of it on the news. I remember distinctly telling my son who was watching the replays with me, "See that explosion? The terrorists must have planted bombs in the buildings as well!" or something to that effect. He saw and remembers it as well.

Unfortunately, I wasn't recording it and oddly, I never saw that footage again. I kept looking for it everytime they replayed the collapsing buildings on that and on subsequent days, but they only showed the video right after that flash. It piqued my interest once again recently when a guy who was in one of the buildings that day was interviewed prior to the 9/11 Commission Hearings said that he thought that he heard explosions that day just before the building collapsed.

Anyway, I'm sure that if I had the video to show you, you very likely would have a logical explanation. It's just that that has bugged me since that day.

As for forgetting about Mr. Romero or any of your other conclusions as to what I saw, thanks for the advice, but I'm not quite ready to erase those dots quite yet. I mean no offense, I assure you.

[OudeVanDagen]

57. he heard explosions

"It piqued my interest once again recently when a guy who was in one of the buildings that day was interviewed prior to the 9/11 Commission Hearings said that he thought that he heard explosions that day just before the building collapsed."

Structural collapse isn't a silent event ... one of the many sounds it offers is exactly like explosions.

Also; multi-story powered structures ... by that I mean buildings with internal electrical substations and transformers. WTC by itself used more electricity than most cities and had transformers ... which are filled with oil and do explode when superheated or overloaded.

I am familar with that flash of fire you have very well described. It happened just before debris began falling .... what you choose to call the collapse. Remember; the collapse wasn't just debris falling, that part was preceeded by venting. The flames and burst of energy we saw was venting from an area on fire.

[dinyc]

26. Fresh Kills

Landfill had already closed in early 2001.

The largest landfill in the world is New York City's Fresh Kills landfill located in Staten Island. In the face of a lawsuit over the air pollution consequences of the giant dump, and fearing that cleanup costs will be impossible, a 1996 state law required Fresh Kills to close by January 1, 2002. It actually closed early, in March, 2001, and was reopened on an emergency basis the following September to take World Trade Center debris.

Not a big mystery. People have been complaing about it for years. Anyone who ever got a whiff of it knows why it is no longer open. :)

You also gotta figure that they would have to keep future Ebay sellers from getting hold of any 9-11 memorabilia.

[OudeVanDagen]

28. old enough

I am old enough to remember when the landfill opened .... it was intended to be a temporary collection area ... it allowed the closing of the Fresh Meadows landfill made famous in the Great Gatsby and of other less notable but no more offensive smaller ones in Queens and Brooklyn. Good old Robert Moses, then NYC's Park Commissioner and "Master Builder" said; "The Fresh Kills Project is not merely a means of disposing of the City's refuse in an efficient, sanitary and unobjectionable manner pending the building of incinerators. We believe that it represents the greatest single opportunity for community planning in the City." (I am old enough to also remember when the City's solution to garbage was to buy barges and dump it at sea). Well ... Fresh Kills never became the garden center, playground, or park promised by Moses; but it .... because of it's vast area, location, waterway access, and because of the material handling capabilities available it became a natural, but perfect collection area for the WTC debris. It has never been "sealed" as was suggested ... protected yes, but anyone with real 911 WTC business; news, science, investigation can get in ... happens every day, after all: technically speaking the case is still open.

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 10:25:38AM EDT, Thursday, May 13, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
3 days,
13 hours,
34 minutes, and
22 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.