WTC Building 7 Easily Fits into the Memory Hole, With Room to Spare.
July 19, 2008
Readers of Nineteen Eighty-Four know about the memory hole. That was where Winston Smith dropped historical evidence that the regime wanted to suppress.
The greatest technological defense against the memory hole in man's history is the World Wide Web. Yet the memory hole works almost as well as it ever has. The closer to government money we get, the better it works.
Think of the collapse of Building 7 on September 11, 2001. This was not only the third tallest building to collapse -- the twin towers being tied for #1 and #2 -- it is the largest elephant ever to have entered the living room and remained, officially unnoticed.
We now know this much about the memory hole: it is deeper than 47 storeys.
Orwell made a far more profound observation about the way we understand reality. His insight ultimately undergirds the memory hole. He wrote the following in a 1946 essay. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
This was a very clever quip about one of the most amazing aspects of human existence. Its existence is what lets the memory hole strategy work. It is the most important single factor in the power of both the establishment and the conspiracy, and especially the conspiratorial elements within the establishment.
SNIFFING OUT NONSENSE
Here is the nose factor in action.
1. The planes hit before 10 a.m.2. Building 7 went down after 5 p.m.
3. There is still no official government explanation of how this collapse was physically possible.
On July 4, 2008, the British Broadcasting Corporation posted an article on its website: The evolution of a conspiracy theory. In that story, we read the following.
An inquiry by the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building for emergency generators. But its report said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed. That was in May 2002.The task has now fallen to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) based at a sprawling campus near Washington DC. For more than two-and-a-half years, scientists there have been studying Tower 7.
Inevitably the officials have been criticised for being slow and even of being frightened to publish.
But the lead investigator at NIST, who heads up their World Trade Center inquiry, Dr Shyam Sunder, says that two-and-a-half years is typically how long an aeroplane crash investigation takes. He added that only in the last few years did they begin to hear criticism from the "truth" movement.
"It's only at the very end in 2005 that this group became more vocal and we found them coming to some of our meetings. But for a long time they were not even present. It wasn't the delay that really caused them, they just woke up one morning and decided to take this on as an issue."
So far, so good.
Not!
Re-read it. I will now give you a tip: "Nose alert! Nose alert!"
Here is what the article tells us.
1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA -- of Katrina fame) worked on the project of producing an explanation. It could not come up with one that was plausible. It abandoned the project as a lost cause in May 2002.2. It takes two and a half years to investigate a plane crash.
3. It is now 2008.
4. The "truth" people did not show up at the NIST meetings until the end of 2005.
5. July 2008 minus December 2005 is 2.5 years.
A good nose job would sniff out the following: "There was a memory hole gap of over three years: from May 2002 to the end of 2005."
If the elephant in the living room is the collapse of Building 7, then what should we call the silent creature in the closet that did not investigate the elephant for three and a half years?
Let us go to NIST's website. Still on line (this week) is a press release of June 29, 2007.
The NIST investigation team initially worked simultaneously on both the WTC towers and WTC 7 collapses. In June 2004, the team shifted to full-time study of the towers to develop needed simulation methods and other research tools and to expedite completion of the WTC towers report. Work resumed on the WTC 7 study in October 2005.
Nose alert! Nose alert!
Recall the statement of Mr. Sunder: "It's only at the very end in 2005 that this group became more vocal and we found them coming to some of our meetings. But for a long time they were not even present. It wasn't the delay that really caused them, they just woke up one morning and decided to take this on as an issue."
The NIST did not begin a full-time investigation of Building 7 until October 2005. The "truth" people showed up in "late 2005." So, the "truth" people started showing up as soon as the US government assigned the NIST the task of providing a plausible explanation, since it had been 41 months since FEMA had officially given up.
The journalist writing for the BBC missed this chronology. So, he wrote the report dutifully, as the NIST -- a foreign government's agency -- wanted it written.
This is what passes for journalism at the BBC.
Here is my main point: It takes considerable attention by readers to sniff out the nonsense in those five paragraphs. I dare say you missed it.
I missed it the first time I read them.
This is why the memory hole technique still works, despite the Internet.
The BBC has always had a problem with the collapse of Building 7, beginning 26 minutes before it collapsed, when the BBC's on-screen reporter announced the collapse of "the Salomon Brothers Building," while the image of Building 7 was visible on-screen behind her. Then the transmission was cut off. The BBC also broadcasted a video purporting to be scenes immediately after the collapse of Building 7. These were time-stamped: at 21:54, Greenwich Mean Time, or 4.54 p.m. in New York. The building collapsed at 5:20.
Gremlins stole both of these videos and dropped them down the memory hole. The BBC reported that the lady's broadcast had been lost. Fortunately for the historical record, there are copyright-challenged people who recorded both and spliced them together in their post on YouTube. I call this "fishing for really big fish in the memory hole." Sometimes, someone catches a whopper.
BUT THE MEMORY HOLE NEVER FILLS UP
Does the memory hole still work? Test it. Ask someone you know what the words "Building 7" mean to him. That should end the questioning.
If he says "9/11," ask him what he knows about Building 7. That will surely end the questioning.
The government has stalled on providing an official explanation for almost seven years. People forget. Those who don't are easily dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
This is the memory hole in action. Forgetfulness it its ally. The nose phenomenon is its foundation.
People cannot follow simple chronology, as the chronology of September 11, 2001 reveals over and over, in event after event of the day. That which is publicly verifiable in terms of chronology reveals this: There is no explanation that fits the facts. So, Establishments seek to bury some facts, and conspiracy theorists emphasize others. But no one has produced anything plausible that explains chronology.
And you think we can discover motivations? Among how many seemingly unconnected groups? Among how many individuals within these groups?
BY THE NUMBERS!
Then we get to the oddest thing of all, which is rarely mentioned by anyone, and never in the mainstream media: the unexplained increase of non-random patterns in random numbers generated by 37 computers around the world. The random-number monitoring project is directed by scientists at Princeton University. As the news unfolded, patterns started to appear. The news kept getting worse. Randomness panicked and finally fled.
Plug this into your preferred system of cause-and-effect.
In a 2002 scientific paper written in what occasionally appears to be English, four scientists reported the following.
The post hoc analyses presented here indicate possible extensions of this research. For example, the September 11 results imply that there is a correlation between the intensity or impact of an event and the strength of deviations present in the data. The September 11 event is arguably the most extreme in the database in terms of its social, psychological, emotional, and global impact. As the analysis has shown, it also exhibits the largest and most consistent deviations in the database on the statistical measures we have investigated.
How? Why? The scientists haven't a clue. They admitted this in precise language that was guaranteed to avoid nose alerts.
It will be important to develop strategies to test this conjecture over the full set of replications and in newly acquired data. The September 11 analysis also suggests that the effect detected in the formal replications is distributed over the database and is not isolated to the prediction periods. The statistical significance of these excursions is limited to roughly three normal deviations. Thus, as isolated, post hoc analyses, none of these individually would be sufficient to conclude a causal or other direct link between the September 11 events and the measured deviations. In light of the formal result, however, these analyses do suggest that independent metrics spanning the database and consistent with the experimental hypothesis may reveal other correlations with our statistical measures. This suggestion is supported by the news index analysis in which deviations in the RNG data correlate with an objective measure of news intensity. It is likely that more sophisticated metrics with optimized statistical power could provide independent verification of the results generated by the ongoing experiment as well as the capability to probe secondary correlates in the data.
Got that? Neither do I.
THE WEBSITE WE NEED
There are lots of websites on 9/11. The general public still does not seem to care what happened. Explanations proliferate, but public awareness seems to have a half-life of about six months.
We have far more conspiracy theories on 9/11 than we can keep track of. We have no official theory at all. We are still waiting for the NIST's theory of Building 7's collapse.
While we are waiting, I recommend the following website. It would be devoted to only one question: What could not possibly have caused the collapse of the towers.
The site would have three sections: North Tower, South Tower, and Building 7.
The site would be overseen by a committee that is made up of at least two people in each of these fields: chemistry, engineering, physics, logic, and chronology (the reporting and recording of chronological events). Each of the two must disagree with his alter ego on how the collapse did happen.
There would be forums for debates over what cannot possibly happen and why, this time, somehow it did.
The goal of this site is to undermine all explanations that try to explain why that which could not possibly have taken place did in fact take place. The establishment explainers and the conspiracy theorists can save a lot of time by not discussing the possible motivations and plans to engineer what did not actually take place.
In this sense, this site would be devoted to saving time -- the theorists' time, as well as the readers' time.
The site would prohibit all discussion of how the events did take place or could have taken place. It would be a purely negative site. In short, "Block off the rabbit trails."
We have way too much under our noses as it is.