The Problem With Harvard Student Activists

waiting to process... this is just a quick mash up, volume leveling especially for richard gage would be nice...

of fauxhawk girl.

And I'd say Mr. Anti-Crank looks pretty cranky himself.

ask her if she thinks it's a little too complicated for her.

Else, ask her to elaborate.

bruce

here's some red meat for the WTCD/blog faithful:

"New 9/11 Truth Film Preview" (think: Prothink)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvbCDsMrSg

The Original Poster of this article didn't link to the source but it should be easy to find,
" Is Germany starting to wake up?"
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=248812

This email attempts to address questions about the physics of the collapse
-----------
1)
At least 3 detailed studies of the WTC collapse have been done. The first two were commssioned by the owner Silverstein and by the insurance company for a lawsuit they were engaged in. I looked at the third study, which spanned 3 years and was done by the National Institute of Science and Technology(NIST). It may be found at:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

The report is quite readable and I would recommend it.

The report provides extensive details and documentation regarding the collapse.

Moreover, NIST claims to have run detailed computer simulations of the plane crashing into the building and they claim to have been able to match the results of this simulation with the observed data. I am not familiar enough with architectural modelling and software to verify this claim but extensive details are provided in the report.

Briefly, the sequence of events they describe is as follows. The plane crashed into WTC1 and cut a gash that extended from the 93rd floor to the 99th floor. It severely damaged many columns and ripped off the fire insulation around the steel columns. It also cut off the water supply to the sprinklers and cut off the people who were above these floors by damaging all stairwells and elevators.

The jet fuel and office furniture raised temperatures to several hundred degrees and in some places to about 1000 C(all units in celsius). At this temperature, the yield strength of steel reduces to about 20% of its normal value. The steel did NOT melt.

The columns and fireproofing damaged due to impact doomed WTC1. This differentiates this fire from other fires in other tall buildings.

--------------
2)
On the question of the time of fall. The report mentions that WTC 1 collapsed in 12 seconds. The report does not discuss this further but I have a possible explanation:

"The pancake theory i.e that each floor fell on the subsequent floor and caused it to collapse is incorrect. According to the NIST report, the way the collapse happened is that about 20 floors in the middle were completely destroyed by impact. The 20 floors on top fell, like a rigid box, and in free fall on the remaining building.

This would have led to pressure waves passing through the steel framework. These waves would travel at the speed of sound(in steel~ 5000 m/s). So, milliseconds after the moment of impact, the steel on the first floor would have started to buckle too. On the whole the collapse was very fast because the impact was transmitted to various parts of the building through waves in the steel framework."

--------------
3)The 'puffs' of smoke are explained, by NIST, as preussurized air expelled as debris fell.

---------------
4)In a debate on democracy now, when David Ray Griffin was asked to name a single structural engineer who agreed with his hypothesis he was unable to. See:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221

"AMY GOODMAN: Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down.

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips right at this moment."

----------
5)Also, the report points out that the collapse of the two towers is an extremely well-documented incident with hundreds of amateur and professional photographers. It is possible to reconstruct many details from the hundreds of hours of footage available.

All this seems inconsistent with the controlled exploisions hypothesis. Several civil-engineering articles have been written about the subject. On the other hand, I could not find serious studies propagating the controlled explosion hypothesis. The evidence for the controlled explosions seems to come mostly from counterintuitive visible effects
and seeming paradoxes like the time of fall.

Our intuition is trained around everyday events like the behaviour of small projectiles and the collapse of a pack of cards. In an event as complicated as the collapse of a large building, many counterintuitive visible effects ARE to be expected; the presence of these is not remarkable.

So, it seems that to challenge the NIST study, one would need to phrase a precise paradox with the physics of the collapse; alternately, a detailed simulation that involves controlled explosions and fits the data better would also suffice.

The only precise paradox, I found, was in the 'time of fall'. This seems to be explicable, as above. Other effects such the weakening of steel girders or the time that the building stood seem to be regenerated by the NIST simulations. Yet other, like 'puffs of smoke' are simply explained in the report. Also, as far as I understand, no simulation with 'controlled explosions' has been done.
------

To conclude I find the evidence for the "controlled explosion hypothesis" scanty at the moment.

Looking back, how timid and not as effective at making our points I was!

Suvrat--I think that's a fair summation of your objections, and they certainly have made me think. I would add, though, to the point on structural engineers, that they are human, and subject to the same psychological effects that prevent many people from suspecting the worst about their leaders and fellow americans. On top of that, people working for NIST are employees of a cabinet level department that was charged not with determining what caused the collapse of the towers, but as their intro paragraph notes, how the towers collapsed after being struck by planes flown by terrorists. I think that groupthink was at play in the preparation not just of that report, but of any report that was prepared by people who are skeptical of the existence of high-level government conspiracies. Also, the bulk of the work on these reports was done relatively early on before people had as clear a sense as now of how deceitful our leaders really are. Once people with reputations to protect go down on record as believing something, most of them are loath to change their opinions, or even consider facts that may lead them to do so. There are obviously multiple ways to make a building collapse, and until I see a study with clear evidence that there could NOT have been explosives involved, I will have to assume that there well could have been, just as it is possible that Osama or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are evil engineering geniuses, and lucky to boot--though perhaps not as lucky as Larry Silverstein, who would seem to be in a class of his own on that score. :)

Perhaps the next big issue to cover would be the failure of NORAD to intercept the planes in time?

And maybe after that an examination of the case for foreknowledge, not just by the administration, but others*?

I would say that the issue of what blew up at the Pentagon would be the most fruitless issue to discuss, since it is probably the most contentious relative to the data available. That said, if anyone can produce any proof that a jumbo jet flew into it I would be most interested to take a look.

gret

* I had to throw this in here because it's really one of my favorite parts of the 9-11 commission report, and is totally representative of the farce it is. Here is the only mention of the suspicious trades that took place before the attacks:

/Footnote: Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face.Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly,much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous (p. 499)./

Incidentally, if anyone still puts any stock in "snopes.com" (no pun intended), check out http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp and tell me what you make of their take on this issue, and why they call 9-11 simply the Attack on America. no joke, they capitalize it. You know what's even more creepy? It was updated YESTERDAY. coincidence theorists take note!!

Oh well, trying to fix the formatting issues I lost my first indignant intro to this email exchange. So with even less enthusiasm.... "Steve" is Steven Bloomfield, the Executive Director of Harvard's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and organizer of the Cambridge Walk for Peace (which is him and a few senior citizens walking around Harvard Yard every Wednesday at noon "protesting the Iraq War".) Guess who the WCFIA counts among its affiliates? Here's a clue:

http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/159

Anyway, I've recently been told that "this approach will get you nowhere". As if this approach was intended to get ME somewhere! I guess because Gretavo was mean, or disrespectful, or, well, just not willing to play the game THEIR way (i.e. all show, no substance, ego puffing) then sorry, no 9/11 truth at Harvard. Because Gretavo doesn't deserve to have "his" issue taken seriously. Anyway, read, learn, copy, distribute, comment, discuss, etc. I don't know how many layers I'll be able to peel back for everyone before a strange accident befalls me, so get it while it's hot! :)

Dear Gentlemen,

I have been away for a day and am now swamped. I have read your thoughtful messages but cannot muster much lengthy intelligent thinking on this in the next few days.

So, with apologies, for now, Tim: I agree that there was something anemic about it all out there in that cold, sad rain. And yet, I admire the spirit of the few. I think "trivial indulgence" is rather harsh, mostly because I have seen the active students and spoken with them as they have been working behind the scenes these last few weeks to do the best they can, which is tragically so unequal to the task. You give them hope, so I hope you don't give up on them completely. Engage them again.

Gretavo: We've met, and I've read some of your literature, and I still don't quite understand what you truly believe happened that day -- or why -- or why you persist as you do. Do you really think that a great injustice has been done to Al Qaeda to implicate them in the plot and the execution of the hijackings and deaths? I realize that there's a political context for everything, and the uses of 9/11 have been false beyond measure, but I believe deeply in the incompetence of human beings -- to a much greater extent than I do in our government's ability to conspire with such expert depravity to kill their own citizens.

Perhaps it is a fault of imagination.

--Steve

*

Timothy Patrick McCarthy wrote:

>Thanks Gretavo, hello Steven. Thanks for writing. Certainly, I am all for
>asking tough questions of the government in pursuit of that ever elusive thing
>called "truth." I do think the official narratives are both insufficient and
>troubling. And I share Howard's interest in getting to the root of all this,
>asking tough questions, and attempting to dispel the myths that swirl around
>not only this war but 9/11 as well. So yeah, I'm aware of Griffin's work and
>find it very compelling indeed. Like you, I am curious about the source of the
>student's incredulity re: Howard's endorsement of the book. Seems viable
>enough to me.
>
>That said, I was deeply depressed after that rally. So lame and poorly attended
>and incoherent, as these events, increasingly, have become. I'm going to take a
>hiatus from rallies for a while. They seem a trivial indulgence for privileged
>students who want to be part of something without actually taking any risks,
>politically or professionally. It saddens me to no end. I'm also not sure how
>much impact these kinds of rallies have any more.
>
>Maybe I'm just getting old.
>
>Best,
>
>Tim
>--
>Timothy Patrick McCarthy, Ph.D.
>Fellow, Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History
>Lecturer on History and Literature (on leave 2007-2008)
>Adjunct Lecturer on Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government
>Senior Resident Tutor, Quincy House, Harvard College
>
>402 Emerson Hall | Harvard University | Cambridge, MA 02138
>617-495-9065/496-3174 (o) | 617-496-2111 (fax) | 617-493-1701 (h)
>http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/timothy_mccarthy (web page)
>http://enterthetimzone.blogspot.com/ (blog)
>
>
>Quoting Gretavo:
>
>
>
>>Dear Tim,
>>
>>You may not remember me but some years ago, not long after the beginning
>>of the war, we had a beer together at Daedalus with a common
>>acquaintance named Merrick Lex Berman. It seems like a long time has
>>passed and yet today at the protest it seemed like not much had
>>changed. I was there today not just because I oppose the war but
>>because I am concerned about the organized antiwar movement's reluctance
>>to face up to the lingering controversy over the events of September
>>11. While no doubt many there think I was videotaping as part of some
>>nefarious plot, in fact I am working on a short video about perceptions
>>(and misperceptions) of the 9/11 issue in the antiwar movement.
>>
>>To illustrate what makes this such a fascinating topic, I will point out
>>the fact that despite certain peoples' misconceptions, the issue of 9/11
>>truth is not at all fringe in any real sense nor incompatible with the
>>antiwar cause--in fact many including myself see it as an indispensable
>>part of that cause. To wit, here is Howard Zinn's endorsement of Prof.
>>David Ray Griffin's /Debunking 9/11 Debunking - An Answer to Popular
>>Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory:
>>
>>/
>>
>> **Howard Zinn**
>> "Considering how the 9/ll tragedy has been used by the Bush
>> administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I
>> believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/ll
>> deserve to be investigated and addressed."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/156656686X/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
>
>
>>One clip from today that I will be including in my video shows one young
>>woman responding incredulously to my claim that Zinn had endorsed such a
>>book. Others will show individuals claiming that Griffin, a devout
>>Christian and retired professor of theology, cannot be taken seriously
>>until "he stops making money from his books." As an author yourself I'm
>>sure you can see the problem with such logic.
>>
>>Other than one or two other ill-informed comments, I don't have much to
>>include so as to provide a balanced account of what antiwar folks today
>>really think about the 9/11 truth movement. I do have quite a bit of
>>material dating from the last several years, but since I am well aware
>>that a great number of people have been excruciatingly slow to even
>>begin to take the issue seriously it is necessary to "take the pulse" so
>>to speak on a regular basis.
>>
>>To wit: you spoke today about the importance of the truth with regard to
>>the war in Iraq. Does that extend to the events of 9/11, which at the
>>the time of the war 69% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had some
>>kind of involvement in? If so, are you satisfied with the existing
>>official account of what happened, or would you support the growing
>>number of calls for a new investigation into the contradictions of the
>>official account, as documented for example by Prof. Griffin in his
>>latest book, /9/11 Contradictions/ - /An Open Letter to Congress and the
>>Press/ (current Amazon sales rank #470) ? I copy the reviews for this
>>newest of Griffin's books below as more evidence not just of the support
>>of prominent antiwar progressives but indeed a much broader group of
>>concerned citizens. For an idea of where I stand publicly on this issue
>>and why please see: http://mujca.com/academicfreedom.htm
>>
>>
>>With thanks in advance,
>>
>>Gretavo
>>Harvard College Class of 1996
>>Harvard Administrative Staff 1998-present
>>
>>ps. I have decided to copy Dr. Steven Bloomfield whom I also met several
>>years ago during my involvement with the Harvard Initiative for Peace
>>and Justice in the hope that he too might comment on the absence of a
>>dialogue about 9/11 within Harvard's antiwar community (or in the
>>general community, which is of course slightly less surprising.)
>>Indeed, feel free to forward this email to anyone who (either of) you
>>think may wish to weigh in.
>>
>>*Book Description*
>>In /9/11 Contradictions/, David Ray Griffin shows that the official
>>story about 9/11 is riddled with internal contradictions. Two
>>contradictory statements cannot both be true. These contradictions show,
>>therefore, that individuals and agencies articulating the official story
>>of 9/11 have made many false statements. Congress and the press clearly
>>should ask which of the contradictory statements are false and why they
>>were made.
>>
>>This book is purely factual, simply laying out the fact that these
>>internal contradictions exist. As such, the book contains no theory.
>>Politicians and journalists who deal with the issues raised herein,
>>therefore, will not be giving credence to some "conspiracy theory" about
>>9/11. They will simply be carrying out their duty to ask why the
>>official story about 9/11, arguably the most fateful event of our time,
>>is riddled with so many contradictions.
>>
>>
>>*Editorial Reviews*
>>**Jim Hightower*, author of /Swim against the Current/ and editor of
>>/The Hightower Lowdown/*
>>"No matter how you feel about who is responsible for the 9/11 attack, at
>>least we need a through independent, unbiased investigation. In this
>>book, Griffin provides 25 useful questions----contradictions worthy of
>>honest answers."
>>
>>**Bill Christison*, former senior CIA official*
>>"David Ray Griffin, writing specifically for members of Congress and the
>>media, has presented the often incredible but true details of 25 major
>>contradictions in the Bush administration's accounts of 9/11. This book,
>>based on careful research but written in a fast-moving, readable style,
>>blows apart the notion that /The 9/11 Commission Report/ presents an
>>accurate account of what happened on September 11. It makes crystal
>>clear the need for a new investigation."
>>
>>**Lorie Van Auken*, widow of Kenneth Van Auken, killed at WTC 1 on
>>9/11/01, and member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11
>>Commission*
>>"When the smoke finally cleared from the pile of rubble on September 11,
>>2001, we were left with a host of burning questions. The 9/11 Commission
>>did not provide the answers, despite their extensive mandate. /9/11
>>Contradictions/ is a work that needed to be written. With characteristic
>>clarity and focus, David Ray Griffin masterfully lays out the most
>>critical of these questions. Now the challenge is to finally get real
>>answers."
>>
>>**Ray McGovern*, former CIA analyst and presidential briefer*
>>"So who cares that the 9/11 Commission chose to believe that Dick Cheney
>>did not enter the White House bunker until "shortly before 10:00,
>>perhaps at 9:58," twenty minutes after the strike on the Pentagon.
>>Surely the vice president would not fib, so the Commission threw out the
>>testimony of several eyewitnesses, including Norman Mineta, the
>>transportation secretary. Mineta must have been making it all up when he
>>testified that he joined Cheney in the bunker at about 9:20 and heard
>>Cheney reaffirm an apparent stand-down order just before the Pentagon
>>was struck. Such conflicting testimony is typical of the many serious
>>"9/11 Contradictions" documented in David Ray Griffin's highly readable
>>book. We need a truly independent investigation to put Cheney and Mineta
>>under oath, along with the still unidentified "young man" who, Mineta
>>reported, kept coming into the bunker and, after telling Cheney "the
>>plane is ten miles out," asked Cheney whether "the orders still
>>stand"----about 12 minutes before 125 people in the Pentagon were
>>killed. What were those orders?"
>>
>>**Paul Craig Roberts*, former associate editor of the /Wall Street
>>Journal/ and assistant secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan
>>administration*
>>"David Ray Griffin is America's bulldog on 9/11. His demand that the
>>amazing contradictions in the story be explained resonates with millions
>>of people."
>>
>>**David L. Griscom*, research physicist, Fellow of the American Physical
>>Society, retired from the Naval Research Laboratory *
>>"Because the 9/11 attacks became the excuse for myriad disastrous
>>changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, unraveling the true history
>>of those events is the paramount exigency of our times. By virtue of
>>pointing out an astonishing number of irreconcilable contradictions in
>>the official story of 9/11, David Ray Griffin's /9/11 Contradictions/ is
>>a must read, not only for the Congress and the press, but also for any
>>American concerned about the truth, because those contradictions suggest
>>that we have not yet been told the truth about 9/11."
>>
>>**Jack Keller*, Emeritus Professor of Engineering at Utah State
>>University and member of the National Academy of Engineering*
>>"This book describes in very straightforward and non-technical terms
>>some major inconsistencies in the government's official story about the
>>events on September 11, 2001. It points out many attempts in the 9/11
>>Commission's report to cover up evidence . . . . As an engineer, I am
>>especially troubled by the cover-up of evidence relevant to the collapse
>>of the three major World Trade Center buildings. I hope that Congress
>>and the public will heed this call for a full and impartial
>>investigation to determine what really did happen on that fateful day."
>>
>>**Joel S. Hirschhorn*, former official at the Congressional Office of
>>Technology Assessment and author of Delusional Democracy: Fixing the
>>Republic Without Overthrowing the Government *
>>"The Congress and the press may not pay attention, but this scholarly
>>yet accessible analysis is must reading for Americans concerned about
>>good government and effective democracy. Every reader will reach the
>>only logical conclusion: 9/11 truth is not yet known."
>>
>>**Catherine Austin Fitts*, assistant secretary of housing in the George
>>H. W. Bush administration *
>>"According to St. Timothy, 'God hath not given us the spirit of fear,
>>but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.' In /9/11
>>Contradictions/, David Ray Griffin, demonstrating once again what a
>>fearless spirit and powerful mind can do, shows the official account of
>>9/11 to be so riddled with contradictions as to be essentially worthless."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1566567165/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books*
>
>

...is NOT helpful to the movement, you armchair activist!