Ground Zero

Two Manhattan projects and two definitions: ground zero and Ground Zero.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right

to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

– George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)

Have you ever heard that a site in Manhattan where the former World Trade Center used to stand bears a truly strange name: “Ground Zero”?

If you haven’t heard it yet, here is information for you: starting from about 4 PM, September 11, 2001 (even before the WTC-7 has collapsed) the site where the Twin Towers used to be has been dubbed “ground zero” – both officially and unofficially.

Almost immediately after the Towers’ collapse (precisely at 11.01 AM) the then New York Mayor R. Giuliani has urged all citizens to stay at home if they can and ordered an immediate evacuation of the entire population of Manhattan south of Canal Street. When his order for evacuation was re-transmitted via TV-channels (for example by CNN) it sounded very strange: it resembled nothing else than a typical civil defense alert – used during a real war in which weapons of mass destruction supposed to be used.

About the same time some strange guys dressed in full “lunar-looking” haz-mat suits were first noticed at that ground zero. And it was actually them – these strange “lunar-looking” guys who first began to call that spot by that strange name: “ground zero”.

Usage of this strange term in connection with demolition grounds of the former World Trade Center continued even up this day. However, a certain transformation occurred with this strange term soon, as if someone has realized his mistake and wanted to correct it: the term was elevated to be written with Capital Letters and as such it eventually found its way into many post-9/11 dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Now it is no longer “ground zero”, but “Ground Zero”.

But what about pre-9/11 English language? Do you know what this strange term “ground zero” used to mean before the WTC destruction and how many different meanings it used to have prior to 9/11? I guess you don’t know. So, here is it:

Above: all possible meanings of “ground zero” term as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.

There are few more definitions from various sources. Here are entire, unabridged definitions – “as is” – exactly as provided by respective dictionaries:

“ground zero” n. a point on the surface of land or water at or directly above or below the center of a nuclear explosion.

Collins English Dictionary, Major New Edition (Third Edition 1991, ISBN 0 00 433286-5 Standard).

 

“ground zero” n. a point on the ground directly below the center of a nuclear explosion.

Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus, 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6).

 

“ground zero”. The place on the earth’s surface directly at, below, or above the explosion of a nuclear bomb.

The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (Edition 1981, ISBN 0-395-31256-6).

 

“ground zero” n. The point of detonation of a nuclear weapon.

The American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition (published July, 2001, ISBN 978-0-440-23701-3, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2003276350).

  

“ground’ ze’ro” – the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.

Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Edition 1989, printed in 1994, ISBN 0-517-11888-2).

 

“ground zero” – the point on the ground vertically beneath or above the point of detonation of an atomic or thermonuclear bomb.

The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796).

 

“ground zero” n: the point above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

The Merriam-Webster and Garfield Dictionary (Paper back edition 1999, ISBN 0-87779-626-2).

 

“ground zero” the surface area directly below or above the point where a nuclear bomb is set off

Webster’s New World Dictionary (Student Edition, 1981, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 76-4634, ISBN 0-671-41815-7).

 

“ground zero” n. the point on the surface of the earth at or directly below or above the centre of a nuclear explosion.

 Penguin Student Dictionary (first published as The New Penguin Compact English Dictionary 2001, reprinted in this edition without supplementary material… ISBN 0-141-02818-1).

 

“ground zero” = point on the ground directly under the explosion of a nuclear weapon.

Dictionary of Military Terms (Peter Collins Publishing 1999, ISBN 1-901659-24-0).

“ground’ ze’ro” – the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.

The Random House College Dictionary (Edition 1966, printed in 1973, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 68-19699).

 

“ground ze-ro” /,.’../ n [U] the place where a NUCLEAR bomb explodes, where the most severe damage happens

Longman Advanced American Dictionary (new, first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0).

 

“ground zero” n: the point above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary (Second Edition, 1989, ISBN 0-87779-449-9)

 

“ground zero” The point on the ground vertically beneath or above the point of detonation of an atomic or thermonuclear bomb: also called hypocenter.

Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary (1980, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-93030).

“ground zero” noun 1 [C usually singular] the exact place where a nuclear bomb explodes: The blast was felt as far as 30 miles from ground zero. 2 [U] the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City, which was destroyed in an attack on September 11, 2001.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition. (2nd Edition 2006, ISBN-13 978-0-521-60499-4 – this is a post 9/11 edition, widely available).

Are you surprised? If you don’t believe your eyes and prefer to run to the nearest book store to buy some dictionary, don’t be in a hurry. When you arrive to such shop you will be surprised even more, because it is no longer possible to find any dictionary with pure old definition of this strange term. Those dictionaries printed before 9/11, such as mentioned above, that contained the only true meaning of “ground zero” term have been long time ago removed from book-shelves and replaced with some newer ones.

Unfortunately, the very English language was one of the first victims of the 9/11 perpetration… So, instead of rushing to a book store, try to ask some of your friends if they have any – in case of good luck you might succeed in finding some old big English dictionary that was not victimized by the linguistic part of the 9/11 cover-up.

Now, at last, you know what the “ground zero” is and you might guess about true meaning of the “Ground Zero” term when used with Capital Letters… As well as you might guess about true causes of a strange sickness – leukemia – endemic to that place, that majority of the Ground Zero responders suffer from.

You can download an archive (14 Mb file size) with contains 40 articles describing health problems among the responders: http://www.911-truth.net/911_cancers_all.zip

However, this is not all. Strangely enough, “Ground Zero” was used with capital letters even before the WTC thermo-nuclear demolition. Many people know about it – especially those from the US military.

The very middle of the huge Pentagon building complex used to bear the same strange name: “Ground Zero”. Even before September the 11th. This name survived from the Cold War times. There used to be the so-called “Ground Zero Plaza” and the “Ground Zero Cafe”- right in the middle of the Pentagon. Guess why?

Because the Pentagon was absolutely rightfully expected to be the main target of a Soviet nuclear strike in case of a major nuclear war. That is why the central yard of the Pentagon was mockingly dubbed “Ground Zero” in advance. And it was used with capital letters, of course, because it was proper noun – the name of the cafeteria.

Usage of the “Ground Zero” term in connection with the central yard of the Pentagon is described in a fairly good manner in this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_zero

Ironically, this mocking name narrowly missed to become the true one on the very same day – September 11, 2001 – when the last greeting from the Cold War era has delivered to that place a half-megaton thermo-nuclear warhead that “luckily” failed to explode.

Here there is a genuine 9/11 news release  now on  YouTube that how the strangest nuclear term “ground zero” has been first indiscreetly introduced to general public.

[YouTube video insert here] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLqUIYNVomY

Note, that it happened even before the WTC-7 collapse, since NBC’s Anne Thompson (who appears to become the first reporter to use this nuclear name) referred in this clip to the Twin Towers’ collapse as the “first explosion” and the “second explosion”, while the “third explosion” (the WTC-7 demolition) was yet to occur, according to her.

Here there is yet another revealing video-clip about usage of the term “ground zero” on September 11, 2001, evening.

[YouTube video insert here] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE2NJscLjuY

And here http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/arce.focus/index.html you can see one of 9/11 contemporary news articles where seditious words “ground zero” are used “as is” – with low case letters, i.e. still as a definition, and not as a proper noun. Should the abovementioned web page disappear, you can always download this September 12, 2001, CNN article saved in either PDF (http://www.what-is-ground-zero.com/CNN_Reporting_from_ground_zero_12-09-2001.pdf ) or in CHM (http://www.what-is-ground-zero.com/CNN_Reporting_from_ground_zero_12-09-2001.chm ) formats.

What is ground zero?

Etymology of this term is easily traceable. In a military specific part of English language there was a term “zeroing in” with meant exact aiming of a weapon onto some target. With advent of aviation bombs and especially missiles this term changed a little bit – in regard to missiles, bombs and other projectiles. The exact spot on the earth’s surface that is aimed by such a projectile began to be called “ground zero”. It had nothing to do with either “explosion”, or “devastation”, but exclusively with “aiming of a projectile”.

When first atomic weapons came into the existence they were first made in a form of aviation bombs and missiles. Logically, the term “ground zero” expanded to embrace the exact hypocenter of an atomic (and later also hydrogen) explosion – since it was exactly “ground zero” as an aim of a projectile carrying its atomic load, so that “ground zero” in an old sense of “aim” and “ground zero” in a new sense: “hypocenter of a nuclear explosion” – always coincided.

Once again this term has expanded, because nuclear bombs would more likely explode above the ground, rather than on its surface. “Ground zero” began to mean not just an exact spot on the earth hit by a projectile before a nuclear explosion followed, but rather projection on to the earth’s surface of a hypocenter of such a nuclear explosion – be it above the ground, or even below the ground. Later it was also expanded in the same sense to embrace underwater nuclear explosions.

As you can expect, soon “ground zero” has completely lost its initial meaning (a target of a projectile) and the people ceased to use this term in that particular sense. The second meaning (a spot on the ground of-, or a projection to the ground of an exact hypocenter of a nuclear or a thermo-nuclear explosion) was to be its only meaning for the next 56 years since an atomic bomb was first tested. The “ground zero’s” initial meaning was totally out of use – practically no dictionary (with the rarest exception) did include the former meaning when defining “ground zero”.

However, majority of big dictionaries in the second part of the XX century used to define this term by only its second meaning alone, which became the only meaning of these term: “a hypocenter of a nuclear (or a thermonuclear) explosion or its projection to the earth’s surface”.

Strangely enough, “ground zero” used to be traditionally associated with the so-called “Manhattan Project” of 1942. It was so all the way down starting from 1945 and till about noon time of September 11, 2001. Ironically, since 9/11, this term began to be associated with another “Manhattan Project” – that of 1966, which has proven to be so disastrous only 35 years later…

Do not be surprised that almost all new English dictionaries, printed after 9/11, began to describe “ground zero” as allegedly having more than one sense. Some of them even “remembered” its very first and completely forgotten meaning (“aim of a projectile”), which was completely out of use for 50 years.

In addition, at least 3-5 new meanings have been ascribed to this term, ranging from alleged “great devastation”, “great disorder” and “busy activities” to some alleged “basic level” and “starting point”.

Some preferred another approach: editors of a new Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, for example, defined “ground zero” as a “place where a bomb explodes” without mentioning anything at all that such a “bomb” supposes to be only a nuclear or a thermo-nuclear one:

Above: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (edition 2003, ISBN 0 582 77649 X).

An example of this term’s usage offered by this dictionary is particularly impressive: have you ever heard that a certain explosion of a “bomb” could flatten buildings within 25 km (15.5 miles) radius? It is hardly possible, unless a “bomb” were something like 45 megaton (45.000 kiloton) in caliber or even mightier. Yet, the word “nuclear” is not there anymore…

In addition to all of it, now almost all dictionaries – either big or small – began to include this (to be exact “these”) definitions.

The term “ground zero”, obviously because of being too specific, prior to the September 11 affair existed only in really big English dictionaries – such as Webster’s Unabridged, full Collins, full American Heritage, and similar (and there it has only a single meaning). It did not exist in smaller dictionaries – such as those intended for students and for advanced learners (the only exception was the Longman Advanced American Dictionary – mentioned above).

For example, “ground zero” was absent in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries of 4th, 5th and 6th Editions, published before September 11, 2001. Even Oxford’s 4th special “Encyclopedic” version (that was about 50% larger compared to a normal one) did not include any “ground zero’s” definition. Only Oxford’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of 7th Edition first published in 2005 began describing this term at last:

Above: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edition, 2005 (ISBN 0-19-431650-5).

This is the first Oxford ALD dictionary that began to include “ground zero” definition whatsoever. The previous OALD’s edition – the 6th, published in 2000, has not featured any “ground zero” definition yet. Here we can see it’s third, misleading definition that looks so “innocent”.

Post-9/11 editions of Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, all kinds of new Merriam-Webster’s Dictionaries, majority of new American Heritage Dictionaries, new Collins English, Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, and many other new dictionaries and encyclopedias after the September 11 affair all began to include “ground zero” and to define it in a sense that it might allegedly have more than one meaning, trying all their best to divert attention of their readers from the former nuclear (and only nuclear) nature of that term.

Above: Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. First published in 2002. (ISBN 0-333-75288-0).

Here we can see yet another misleading definition that looks so “innocent”; however it is conspicuously different from the 3rd misleading definition in the above mentioned Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edition. Apparently, various spin-doctors appointed to deal with different editors of dictionaries in a variety of publishing houses did not have any well-coordinated policy and therefore their individual “creativity” is clearly visible.

By the way, editors of the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary have to be praised for not cheating their readers: they were brave enough to resist all these psudo-linguistic efforts and dared not to include any misleading definition of “ground zero” into their post-9/11 dictionary; it was done so in a sharp contrast to all other dictionaries editors at service of 9/11 cheaters:

Above: Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 2006. (ISBN-13 978-0-521-60499-4). This appears to be the only honest post-9/11 English dictionary that does not feature any additional misleading definitions such as alleged “idiomatic” ones.

It was reported that there were even attempts to prove that “ground zero” was allegedly used to describe that location long before the September 11, 2001.

All these post-9/11 linguistic efforts in regard to “ground zero” are understandable, indeed. That strangely revealing name, rashly awarded by Civil Defense specialists to the demolition grounds of the former New York World Trade Center, was obviously too revealing to leave that term in future editions of dictionaries with only its former sense alone…

But we are not so stupid, hah? And all of us know cause-and-effect relations on which the very concept of logic is based: cause always goes first, while consequence follows and it can not be otherwise.

If “ground zero” was legally re-defined after the 9/11 events, does it mean that the WTC “kerosene-pancake-collapse” grounds were called by this strange “idiom” because of its alleged tertiary sense so conveniently offered to us by the abovementioned dictionaries for “advanced learners”? Of course, not. The designation “ground zero” (then still in low-case letters, by the way) was awarded to the WTC grounds BEFORE the dictionaries were re-printed. Do you agree with this logic?

Thus when we talk about “ground zero” in regard to the former WTC we could only perceive the true sense of this disputed term from pre-9/11 dictionaries, and not from the post-9/11 ones. I hope everyone agrees with this method?

Now let’s review several big pre-9/11 dictionaries (as I have mentioned, due to this term was too specific prior to September the 11th, it was not included in small dictionaries).

Pre-9/11 definitions of “ground zero” in various big English dictionaries (there was not even a single dictionary of English idioms that contained the “ground zero” idiom, so all the dictionaries mentioned below are standard English dictionaries, except only the Dictionary of Military Terms):

 

Above: Collins English Dictionary 1991 (ISBN 0 00 433286-5 Standard)

Above: The American Heritage Desk Dictionary 1981 (ISBN 0-395-31256-6)

Above: Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Edition 1989, printed in 1994 – ISBN 0-517-11888-2)

Above: Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus – 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6)

Above: Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus – Thumb-indexed Edition (first published 1993, ISBN 0 00 470303-0)

Above: Dictionary of Military Terms – Peter Collins Publishing 1999 (ISBN 1-901659-24-0)

Above: Penguin Student Dictionary (first published as The New Penguin Compact English Dictionary 2001, ISBN 0-141-02818-1)

Above: Longman Advanced American Dictionary (new, first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0)

The Merriam-Webster and Garfield Dictionary (Paper back edition 1999, ISBN 0-87779-626-2)

 

Above: The Random House College Dictionary (Edition 1966, printed in 1973, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 68-19699).

Above: Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary (Second Edition, 1989, ISBN 0-87779-449-9)

Above: Webster’s New World Dictionary (Student Edition, 1981, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 76-4634, ISBN 0-671-41815-7).

Above: The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796)

Above: The American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition. (Published July, 2001, ISBN 978-0-440-23701-3, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2003276350.)

Above: Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary. (1980, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-93030.)

As you can see, none of the available pre-9/11 English dictionaries contained any additional definition of “ground zero” that might allow using this highly tailored term in any idiomatic/metaphorical/figurative sense.

“Ground zero” could only be used in specific situations where nuclear explosions were involved – primarily it was used in nuclear science-, military-, ABC-, or Civil Defense jargons.

Government-appointed spin-doctors and various kinds of shills now try very hard to prove to the gullible public that “ground zero” was allegedly used even before September 11, 2001, in a sense different than that described by the abovementioned English dictionaries. They even tried to concoct various backdated texts and to insert them into public databases and even to libraries.

Thanks to their efforts, you might encounter quite a few “innocent” books where “ground zero” was allegedly used prior to 9/11 in an alleged metaphorical sense or in a sense that was ascribed to this term only after 9/11.

Should you encounter such “innocent” concoctions, don’t allow yourself to be duped. All these concoctions are backdated. “Ground zero” has never had any other sense than described above and has never been used in any English language – whether formal or colloquial – in any figurative sense. It could only be used in its sole direct sense.

Even when “Ground Zero” words were mockingly used to call the central yard of the Pentagon, even in this case they had not been used in any metaphorical sense – it was merely a kind of a black humor, since the middle of the Pentagon was rightly presumed to be the first target of the would be Soviet thermo-nuclear strike during those years of the Cold War.

One of my readers, an American, contacted me and told me that he remembered that in his young age, in the ‘50s, during those first atomic tests, he and other boys used “ground zero” expression colloquially. For example, boys those days could shout a phrase “I will make a ground zero out of you if you don’t give me that toy!” I have no doubt that this is true and those days young boys could indeed use this type of expression. But if you are a logical person, you can see that even when it was used colloquially in this particular sense it had something to do with the nuclear nature of this strange term. Because boys back in the ‘50s were apparently impressed by an unprecedented level of destruction an atomic explosion could create and they knew that a spot of such an atomic explosion was called “ground zero”, so they began to use these words merely as a strong expression.

However, “ground zero” has never been used by adults in any “non-nuclear” metaphorical sense as alleged by today’s linguists who reprinted all dictionaries, produced even back-dated texts, and sincerely hope that we will be duped by their efforts. They will not be able to dupe us despite their verily heroic efforts. The alleged “metaphorical” or “idiomatic” sense of “ground zero” is missing not only in all without any exception standard big unabridged English dictionaries and encyclopedias printed before 9/11, but in all without any exception dictionaries of idioms as well. Do you really believe if “ground zero” were indeed used in idiomatic sense before 2001, such an idiom would not be included in especially dedicated dictionaries of idioms? Please, don’t be so naïve…

But what is the most important, in pre-9/11 standard English language “ground zero” was nothing else than a legal definition. If some place was called “ground zero” that only meant that it was a place where a nuclear (or thermonuclear) explosion has taken place.

It was therefore legally admissible in the court of law. If something was called “a place of a nuclear explosion” it only meant that it was indeed “a place of a nuclear explosion”.

However, it all suddenly changed after the spot of the WTC nuclear demolition was called using the appropriate words by the Civil Defense specialists on duty (alerted by a sudden surge of radiation levels), and these seditious words were inadvertently leaked to the general public…

Post-9/11 manipulations with “ground zero”.

 

One of the best and the most illustrative examples of post-9/11 manipulations with “ground zero” definitions is represented by this screenshot below (the original web page was located here:  http://everything2.com/title/Ground+zero ).

As you can see the first definition of ground zero was posted by user “Quizro” on 15 of February, 2000, and that definition was very straight – perfectly compatible with all contemporary English dictionaries. It contained neither any secondary meanings, nor any implication that these highly tailored words could be used in any metaphorical sense.

However, very soon after September 11 events – i.e. on 07 of October, 2001, this web page was visited by a shill appointed by the US Government nicknamed “mrichich”.

This was undoubtedly a part of the wider operation by the governmental spin-doctors to re-define the seditious words so thoughtlessly leaked to the general public in connection with the WTC nuclear demolition.

To begin with the spin-doctors capitalized “Ground Zero” used in connection with the WTC demolition grounds and attempted to convert it into a proper noun as opposed to the previous Civil Defense’s designation. It was more important than it might appear at the first glance.

The problem was that “ground zero” in low case letters was nothing else than a LEGAL DEFINITION ascribed by Civil Defense specialists to the WTC demolition grounds. The low case letters definition was as clear as “a place of where the former World Trade Center was destroyed by a nuclear explosion”. You could go to the court of law and sue the US Government straight away. All what you would need to have with you as evidence is a couple of contemporary news releases and a couple of big English dictionaries.

Therefore for the spin-doctors to convert the legal Civil Defense’s definition into a Proper Noun was more than a serious task. After that the spin-doctors attempted to re-write where possible most of the earlier articles where “ground zero” was used still in low case letters (meaning articles where “ground zero” was used as a definition rather than a Proper Noun). That is why not too many news articles dated by 12, 13 and 14 of September, 2001, are available today on the Internet where “ground zero” is used in low-case letters (however, a link to one of such seditious CNN articles is available above).

The next step was to remove from circulation all big English dictionaries (since “ground zero” term was too specific to be used in any and every dictionary and before 9/11 it was mostly used only in full, big, unabridged and encyclopedic dictionaries). The spin-doctors succeeded with removal of these old big dictionaries and decreased their circulation at least to a certain extent.

The next logical step was to produce some bogus secondary definitions of “ground zero” and to create an impression that these words were allegedly used in secondary and in metaphorical senses even before the 9/11 events.

For that reason texts of several books were modified to include usage of “ground zero” in an alleged idiomatic sense and these backdated books were placed into the Library of Congress. (The Library of Congress serves as a legal depository for all existing books – the fact that a book dated by such and such date stands on a shelf of this Library is a legal proof that such book indeed existed on that specific date and its text is indeed genuine. If you wish to understand how important it is, perhaps, you need to watch “Wag the Dog” movie – in this highly revealing film it is shown how spin-doctors who just concocted a bogus backdated “folk song” made sure to insert its backdated recording into the Library of Congress – because this is the most important step to “legalize” anything bogus and backdated.)

Understandably, after targeting the Library of Congress the next logical step of the spin-doctors would be to target the Internet – these bogus backdated texts with alleged idiomatic usage of “ground zero” must have been “popularized” on the Internet.

In addition, the newly created secondary definitions and alleged “idiomatic” senses of “ground zero” must have been urgently popularized either.

General public should begin to use the “ground zero” not only in a sense of a place of a nuclear explosion, but in many other senses and it should happen as soon as possible.

However, on the web page of which a screenshot is above the spin-doctors encountered something extremely dangerous – the former sole definition of “ground zero” that must have been urgently dealt with.

Therefore a shill nicknamed “mrichich” was urgently dispatched to deal with the matter.

All you have to do is just to read his post, to compare the second post with the first post and to keep in mind that all of it took place in the immediate aftermath of the WTC nuclear demolition which the US Government was trying to cover up at any cost.

Honestly, I don’t even have much comment, since the second post is self-evident in both – its meaning and in its purpose.


It shall be known, however, that besides those standard big unabridged and encyclopedic dictionaries akin to those described on the first page, all famous publishing houses make so-called “dictionaries of idioms” as well. Actually, if “ground zero” would have any secondary meaning, it would be mentioned as such in all standard dictionaries, because they are big enough to contain all meanings, including idiomatic ones.

In addition, if “ground zero” were known to be used before 9/11 in any idiomatic sense, it should have been included in at least some dictionaries of idioms. Strangely enough, no dictionary of idioms published by any company prior to September 11, 2001, has ever listed “ground zero” as any kind of “idiom”. Neither Longman’s, nor NTC’s, nor Collins’, nor Oxford’s, nor Cambridge’s nor American Heritage’s dictionary of idioms, nor that of any other publishing house, has ever mentioned “ground zero”…

In comparison with the second post in the above screenshot, the third post could be considered innocent. The middle yard of the Pentagon was indeed called “ground zero” even before September 11 attacks, but it was by no means “idiomatic” or “figurative” usage. It was just quite a rude joke – very typical to the “barracks humor” of military men. The center of the Pentagon was definitely the very first target of the possible Soviet nuclear strike – the very first thermo-nuclear warhead falling at hypersonic speed from stratosphere should aim to the middle of the Pentagon precisely. That is exactly it was mockingly called “ground zero” in advance and the eatery located there was called “Ground Zero Cafe” accordingly.

The fact that the exact spot where the so-called “plane” hit the Pentagon is too called “ground zero” is understandable as well – because the Soviet “Granit” missile that hit the Pentagon during 9/11 events was indeed equipped with a 500 kiloton thermo-nuclear warhead (which “luckily” failed to explode), so there is nothing wrong calling that place “Ground Zero” either – because the same kind of the military black humor would apply to the case.

However, it had nothing to do with any humor when the spin-doctors appointed by the desperate US Government attempted to re-print all without exception English dictionaries with a view to re-define “ground zero”…

 

ground zero – comparing pre- and post- 9/11 dictionaries

 

You can see from screenshots below how “ground zero” definitions were manipulated with in various post-9/11 English dictionaries.

To begin with, let’s consider Longman dictionaries. As you can see, after 9/11 Longman Publishing decided to forgo any “nuclear” allusion in regard to “ground zero” term and ceased to use word “nuclear” whatsoever in its definition (the only black and white dictionary is the pre-9/11 one). However, Longman Publishing preferred not to ascribe any secondary meanings to “ground zero” – its meaning still strictly limited to “explosions” and to the spot of the former World Trade Center.

Example of mutation of meanings of “ground zero” from 2000 through 2007 in various Longman’s dictionaries:


Above: Longman Advanced American Dictionary (first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0).

Below: Longman Advanced American Dictionary (second edition 2007, ISBN 978 1 40582 9540).

Note, that the two dictionaries above are the First and the Second editions of the very same dictionary: “Longman Advanced American Dictionary”, printed in 2000 and 2007 respectively.

Here you can see a pure cheating of its reader: either before or after “ground zero” definition other words’ definitions (“ground work”, “ground water”, “group1”) including even samples of their usage are all exactly the same. But not that of “ground zero”.

Above: Longman Dictionary of American English (Third Edition 2004, ISBN 0 582 79448 X).

Below: Longman Dictionary of American English (4th Edition 2008, Third impression 2010, ISBN 9781405884662)

And one more latest Longman’s dictionary:

Above: Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (3rd edition 2005, 2nd impression 2006; ISBN 0 582 85312 5).

Please note, that before it was the word “NUCLEAR” that was printed in capital letters in “ground zero” definition. Now it is another word, printed in capital letters: “TERRORISTs”. That is how the meaning of the words has mutated in Longmans dictionaries from 2000 through 2006…

Here are a few more examples of mutation of “ground zero” definitions. These changes in definitions are especially interesting in the below examples, because here we have a chance to compare editions of similar dictionaries published before- and after 9/11. And these shameless changes are especially notable, because they seemingly have nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and with its sacred grounds now spelled with Capital Letters. Additional meanings are NOT about the WTC.

Example 1. Post 9/11-changes of “ground zero” definitions in Random House College Dictionaries.

Above: The Random House College Dictionary (published 1973, no ISBN available, but only the Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 68-19699).

Below: The Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (first edition 1991, but this is an updated edition 2005, ISBN 0-375-42600-0).


It is also interesting to compare this post-9/11 “broadened” definition of “ground zero” with that in the biggest of all these dictionaries – the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language – available above.

Example 2. Post 9/11-changes of “ground zero” definitions in The Merriam-Webster Dictionaries.

 “Broadening” of meanings of “ground zero” in two Merriam-Webster Dictionaries.

Above: The Merriam-Webster and Garfield Dictionary (published 1999, ISBN 0-87779-626-2).

Below: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (New edition 2004, ISBN 978-0-87779-930-6).

Please, note that other definitions are identical – such as that of “ground swell”, “ground water”, “ground work” and “group 1” – but not the definition of “ground zero”. Note also that an additional “meaning” here differs from that in the above Random House’s attempt.

Example 3. Post 9/11-changes of “ground zero” definitions in Collins English Dictionaries.

“Expanding” of meanings of “ground zero” in 2 Collins English Dictionaries.

Above: Collins English Dictionary – published in 1991 Major New Edition (ISBN 0 00 433286-5 Standard).

Below: new Collins English Dictionary (Ninth Edition 2007, ISBN 978-0-00-722899-7).

 

 

Make sure to note that all definitions of the word “group” below our targeted term are absolutely identical. But “ground zero”, in addition to the justifiable third meaning, has “strangely” acquired the second meaning in the after-9/11 edition of the same dictionary.

It would be understandable, if some extra definitions were added in regard to the demolition grounds of the World Trade Center – like it was in the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition – mentioned above, or like it was done in some Longman’s dictionaries.

Strangely enough, it was not the case in the two examples above with the Random House’s and the Merriam-Webster’s concoctions. It was other extra definitions (which moreover, conspicuously differ from each other) added to the original meaning of “ground zero”.

And it seems that neither of these two conspicuously different additional meanings has anything to do with Manhattan’s Ground Zero.

Though, as you could guess, in reality there was a direct relevance between such a strange “broadening” in the former definition of “ground zero”, and a nuclear catastrophe that occurred on 9/11 in Manhattan that earned such a strange nuclear name to that place.

Those so-called “good guys” from the FBI who did all their best to conduct the unprecedented 9/11 cover-up, simply could not afford to leave this most revealing definition with its former sense without “broadening” it at least a little bit.

And we have to understand them, indeed… If they would not do such a “broadening” of the definition of “ground zero” it would not be only the FBI agents alone who would demand full haz-mat suits to be issued to protect their precious selves – like those FBI agents mentioned by poor John Walcott in this article:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-11-21/news/death-by-dust/5

Apparently, every ground zero responder and every Manhattan resident would demand his full has-mat suit too. Along with comprehensible explanation on what really happened at “Ground Zero”.

I guess from now on the reader could realize, at last, that “ground zero” designation of the WTC demolition spot had nothing to do with post-9/11 meanings of that strange term, but had to do exclusively with its FORMER meaning.

And from now on when you encounter, for example, the “ground zero” designation of the spot of 1995 Oklahoma bombing, you will be able to realize that back in 1995 “ground zero” did not have any idiomatic meaning and words “ground zero” was merely a Civil Defense’s designation. And when such a place was designated as “ground zero” it only meant that a deep crater in front of the Alfred P Murrah Federal building was indeed a hypocenter of a nuclear explosion that destroyed that building…

Do you still wish to argue? But don’t forget one important point: cause always goes first, while consequence follows and it can not be otherwise. Ground zero definition was expanded only AFTER September 11, 2001. That is why BEFORE that date ground zero had no other meaning than a place of a nuclear explosion…

——————————

About author:

Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former Soviet citizen, a former commissioned officer of the so-called “military unit 46179”, otherwise known as “the Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR. The Special Control Service, also known as the Soviet atomic (later “nuclear”) intelligence was a secret military unit responsible for detecting of nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former USSR as well as responsible for controlling of observance of various international treaties related to nuclear testing and to peaceful nuclear explosions. After September the 11th Khalezov undertook some extensive 9/11 research and proved that the Twin Towers of World Trade Center as well as its building 7 were demolished by three underground thermo-nuclear explosions – which earned the very name “ground zero” to the demolition site. Moreover, he testifies that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolition scheme” of the Twin Towers as long ago as back in the ’80s – while being a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service.

 

More here:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/10/16/gordon-duff-when-will-the-crimes-of-911-end/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/10/gordon-duff-nuclear-terror-the-khalezov-effect-video/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/08/jb-campbell-dimitri-khalezov-on-9-11/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/09/72207/

Important information and download links: http://www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com

Download videos and other important files (direct): http://911-truth.net

YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/DimitriKhalezov

Very important information regarding “Merchant of Death” Victor Bout:

http://www.911-truth.net/Victor_Bout/Most_shocking_interview_English.pdf

Updated information, Forum, etc: http://www.911thology.com

Contacts: http://www.dkhalezov.com/

 



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on February 15, 2011, With Reads Filed under Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

51 Responses to "Ground Zero"

  1. eddy  March 5, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Hi Dimitri, it’s way off topic, but do you have an opinion on Smolensk? To me it looks like there should have been a lot of survivors, there were none, and no sign of 90 bodies in the only video on the internet. The conspiracy theorists think the Polish officials were killed somewhere else.

  2. penlope  February 26, 2011 at 7:33 am

    http://www.excommunicate.net/what-was-faust-really-about/

    Because you can find it even at Goethe! Earlier times it was better known than today?

  3. Truth Seeker  February 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Dr. Nur I did some research and come up with the same perps.

    It is interesting that Rockefeller was heavily involved in the financing of the building WTC complex, but this fact is hidden in most mainstream publications of the WTC. it also is very strange all the Illuminati imaging that was placed throughout the WTC building, the almost shrine like imagery of this mystery religion paying homage to the 72 Demons of Solomon he summoned to create his temple called “Lesser Key of Solomon”(Ars Goetia).

    But when you have Trillions of Dollars at your disposal, you write the rules and are above the law. The only thing they own is the system, they still have to get the rest of the world to go along with the plan. So all the satanic magic in the world, can’t hide the fact that the whole thing is unfolding before their eyes.

  4. Dimitri Khalezov  February 25, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Dear Dr. Nur. the original link that your article refers to is here:
    http://www.reformation.org/ground-zero.html
    Note that the link above has nothing to do with me and my claims. It appeared on the Internet well before I came public, so it could be considered as being a totally independent claim. Look – that guy claims almost the same thing I do. The only difference that he positioned his nukes (huge hydrogen-bomb-barrel-sized ones, far from being “mini-nukes”) 30 meters below the Towers, while I positioned them 50 meters below the Towers.

  5. penlope  February 25, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    Very, very cool!
    Thank you!

  6. DR.NUR  February 25, 2011 at 8:31 am

    FOR CONFIRMATION OF PREPLANNED DEMOLITION PLANS AT THE BUILDING TIME OF WTC,HERE IT IS!! AND KHALEZOV IS RIGHT AND I FOUND THIS MYSELF. HE WAS STILL A TEEN AT THE TIME AND SO WAS I. SO HE DID NOT MAKE IT UP. PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY HERE AND THOSE WHO ARE TOO LAZY TO READ SWITCH TO HARD LIQUOR THANKS.. AND THOSE WHO KEEP DENYING WE WILL KNOW WHO ARE THE HEAVY DRINKERS!: http://Www.just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/building-wtc-to-detonate-it.html
    and http://www.factsnotfairies.blogspot.com

  7. Dimitri Khalezov  February 25, 2011 at 7:50 am

    To answer the above question. Look. I was born in 1965. Your question whether or not the nukes were placed under the Twins deals with the year 1966. How on Earth could I know it? I could only guess. Would you accept my guessing? My guessing is that the nukes have been under the Towers since their construction was completed, or shortly before their main steel frames were erected (since it is logical to presume so). But exactly I don’t know, of course.

  8. Truth Seeker  February 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Boy isn’t the Ego a funny thing! And you wonder why we are so easy to manage by creating diversity.

    I think Alan Sabrosky said it best in an interview early 2010. Getting into arguments about what was used and how it was used is insignificant. The facts still remain that most reporters and people initial instincts on 911 were that is was done by controlled demolition. Any scientists that does not get his/her paycheck from the government, universities, or large corporations agree the physics are impossible for the governments story.

    In this same interview, Alan Sabrosky said from a controlled demolitions expert (building 7) opinion it was clearly a control demolition and “if one building was prewired for demolition, they all were prewired for demolition”. As to who did it, he further says only those who had the technology, accessibility, resources & capability to evade without getting caught. That totally eliminates 95% of all the countries in the world, especially the Arab ones. Who did it get blamed on… the same ones the Israeli’s have been blaming since Israel’s inception in 1948. Who benefits? Only one nation on earth… well actually the NWO does to, but that’s conspiracy. Why did the Media blackout on the 911 investigation? Look who owns the media and who they would implicate if they truly did their job and investigated like they did 30 years ago…

    This new information does nothing but put a new twist on the same old story. The same criminals are still responsible.

    The only question that has not been answered in DIMITRI KHALEZOV recent claims is, why were nuclear devices planted in the substructure of the building in 1966? Were there always plans to take down the Twin Towers at some point in history? If so, who really paid for and was behind the Twin Towers.

    And the drama continues…

  9. eddy  February 23, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    in this video, the fake ‘witness’ calls it ‘ground zero’, shortly after the collapse

    http://www.youtube.com/user/OzzybanOswald

  10. DR.NUR  February 19, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    IRAKI ARMY REPORT” ..The infamous battle of the Baghdad airport took place in the first week of April 2003. It was the final battle of the “official” conquest of Iraq. Even the Iraqi army admitted it was the deathblow. We call it the Battle of al-Hawasim (“the finals”). The same phrase, since then, is used to refer to any thug, thief, or criminal in the chaos of life after Saddam.

    Our entire army was concentrated in the south of Baghdad waiting for the American troops to come on land. But the American 101st Division of air-transported vehicles landed at the airport west of Baghdad and surprised Saddam’s army. The Iraqi response was to send the entire National Guard (the equivalent of the US Special Forces in training and skill) and all of Saddam’s freedom fighters directly to the scene. Many Arab men also voluntarily joined up to meet a certain death.

    Very few Iraqis survived the airport battle, which made it a myth on the tongues of the entire country. Rumors swirled around, mixed with stories from the few survivors, about the epic fight that took place at Saddam’s international airport. But now even the earth cannot tell us the truth about what happened—the land was completely burned by mysterious American weapons. After the war, the American army brought many bulldozers filled with new soil to cover the evidence before the eyes of thousands of Iraqis and to bury the thousands of stories that took place on the famous airport road, aka the Highway of Death. CONTINUE TO http://www.viceland.com/int/v14n3/htdocs/weapon.php?country=us

  11. DR.NUR  February 19, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    “My most certain and most radical conclusion is that the American Public has been lied-to about the reality of the Battle of Baghdad, which began with an Iraqi attack (as promised by Saddam) against the U.S. 3/7 Cavalry Squadron, the advance unit for the 3rd Infantry Division, on the morning of April 5, at the Baghdad airport. The battle lasted three days, and the media conveniently covered the Private Jessica hoax to keep from telling the public something sure to suppress its war lust: that hundreds of U.S. soldiers were dead.

    Since the Battle of Baghdad, there has been a concerted policy by Army public affairs and the media to suppress any reference to the battle, as well as a consistent effort to suppress the number of reported U.S. casualties.

    CAPTAIN ERIC MAY “..However, according to news sources overseas, including American military operatives and various investigators, all was not what it seemed at Baghdad Airport. They claim that the Battle of Baghdad was largely covered up as something the American public should not see, with U.S. news coverage instead focusing on a staged photo-op rescue of captive Private Jessica Lynch and later the pulling down of the Saddam Hussein statue, as symbolic of an easy victory.

    “The biggest story of the war became a non-event when the truth of the matter was that it was simply too bloody an event to report.” Captain Eric H. May, a former intelligence and public affairs officer in the military, was quoted.

    “The bogus rescue of Private Lynch was merely a distraction from the truth,” said May. “And the staged photo-op of the pulling down of Saddam Hussein’s statue was nothing more than a way to cement into people’s minds that it was an easy victory. But what about the hundreds of soldiers who gave their lives on the battlefield? Their story was not told. Theirs was the real truth of this segment of the war.

    The truth is that the battle started April 5, the night that Baghdad Bob said that they had counterattacked us at the Baghdad Airport and there was a sustained fight that went on for several hours. The best evidence from international sources, scientific sources, is that US position was becoming untenable at the Baghdad Airport and they used a neutron warhead, at least one. That is the big secret of Baghdad Airport.

    If one looks into international data, there are reportings of enhanced radiation of some livestock, and of human metabolic effects – death and disease. It explains why, after the Battle of Baghdad, we got fragmentary stories of things like truckloads of dirt being moved out and moved in. It made no particular sense at the time, until one puts it into perspective, as a decontamination operation. Again, that part of the Battle of Baghdad, the fact that we went nuclear, explains a lot of things that came out afterwards and also explains why it is that it had to be covered up. You can’t go to a country to try to make sure that nobody tries to start a war with WMDs against you and WMD ’em. It’s a highly embarrassing position to be in.

    Baghdad laid bare that USA really wasn’t going into a limited war at all, it was going into a world war, and prepared to use nukes. Incidentally, since the nuking of Baghdad Airport, the Bush Administration has retrofitted our military doctrine to allow for the use of tactical nukes in that sort of situation.

    From a strictly tactical point of view, using a neutron warhead killed the Iraqis who were in the open, while giving U.S. forces, who were inside armor, a chance at survival. Had I been one of the commanders on the battlefield at Baghdad Airport, one would have preferred the neutron option to being overrun and destroyed by the Iraqi forces. But war is never simply tactical. As Clausewitz, the Prussian military philosopher, puts it, “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” It’s on the political level that the nuking of Baghdad Airport was a disastrous decision.

    Unlike the nuking of Japan, which was admitted to the American people, the nuking of Baghdad was kept from them, meaning that we had decided to keep them in the dark about the conduct of the war. Further, the Arab world knows very well what we did in Baghdad,.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q0wZ34nukj4J:www.irishrepublican.net/forum/showthread.php%3F27774-Battle-of-Baghdad-Propaganda-routed+ERICMAY+BAGHDAD+NUKE&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.fr

    Mr. Hooper, every point I have made above has been confirmed by U.S. officers, reporters and editors since I began my inquiries at the end of the Battle of Baghdad (marked by the contrived pulling down of Saddam’s statue for the cameras, April 8).

    I have attached:

    My two op-eds from the Houston Chronicle opposing intervention in Iraq (and predicting disaster if we did intervene).

    My two essays (which no one is willing to publish) about the Battle of Baghdad.

    My last published op-ed (July 8) continuing my gloomy prognosis for the war and questioning the motives that led us to it.

    Iraqi Resistance Report IV, which I discovered in August, but which confirmed my real-time analysis of April about the Battle of Baghdad.

    My most recent letter to Thom Shanker, New York Times Reporter, who plays word games in English and will talk truth about matters only in Russian (a language he and I share) because of fear for his career.

    A list of media indicators from the days of the Battle of Baghdad implying the existence and severity of the battle.

    Again, thank you for hearing me out both last month and this morning. I know that the material I’ve attached is about two newspaper pages of reading, but I promise you that you will read no more informative two pages in the United States today – or for the last year. Please call me at your convenience to discuss these matters further, and please feel free to distribute the material in any manner you deem fit. Not a word that I have written is derived from secret information, nor am I (now a civilian) in any way impeded from the free expression of my conclusions. I believe that if the truth about the subversion of our First Amendment to prolong a hazardous war (perhaps destined to become a world war) were understood beyond the current silent circles of compromised information professionals, our “crusade” would soon end.

    With respect,

    Eric May http://www.ghosttroop.net/islamicorgs.htm

    http://www.irishrepublican.net/forum/showthread.php%3F27774-Battle-of-Baghdad-Propaganda-routed+ERICMAY+BAGHDAD+NUKE&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.fr

    FOR IRAKI SIDE: http://www.viceland.com/int/v14n3/htdocs/weapon.php?country=us

    FOR OTHER INFO LINKS SEARCH DR.NUR: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/10/gordon-duff-nuclear-terror-the-khalezov-effect-video/comment-page-1/#comments AND http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/08/jb-campbell-dimitri-khalezov-on-9-11/

  12. DR.NUR  February 19, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    For the dictionary yes you are right although there is always the possibility it has or will take a figurative meaning in time. More interesting to me and others is your actual scientific knowledge on nuclear and political facts such as the use of the micronukes in so many events as covered in so many articles of late australian journalist-scientist Joe-Vialls who was apparently martyred for it and other topics such as “DU sickness”in Irak veterans about which I wrote this as a comment on another page on this topic:”The DU debate is a totally false debate as long as the issue of real nukes being used daily as micronukes by Israel and US and bigger nukes such as used in the Battle of Baghdad is not addressed (the 3000 US soldiers whose deaths were classified “secret” were nuked as “friendly fire”with the 20000 iraki national guard heros who blocked the airport passage. The US survivors have a blog at http://www.ghosttroop.net ). To me as a medical doctor the DU “sickness”in veterans shows al signs of regular alpha (for plutonium) radiation illness and they should wake up and sue for it as it is and stop believing the lies they have been fed. For more info go to Gordon Duff and JB-Campbell articles on former soviet-army nuclear intelligence expert Col. Dimitri Khalezov and read my links in comments there… It is time to shake the monster and wake up! Yes,you have been fighting to enrich the liar-criminals of the military-ziocon-plunder-murder-narcopetrol-talmudic-farce-and-fraud-complex! You’ve been had as a canon fodder!”.

  13. JB  February 19, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Hi Dimitri,

    You’re doing a great job with these articles. I’m really looking forward to the next one.

    I too question the motives of “Name Required” and how “Name Required” came up with that quote from an old movie so quickly.

    -JB

  14. Gordon Duff  February 19, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Dimitri Khalezov has shaken the foundations of the various lie factories, foreign and domestic, with his double revelations of the nuclear demolition plan for the WTC and Sears Tower as well as the confession of Mossad assassin and mass murderer Michael Harari of conducting the 9-11 massacre. For these two things alone he should be accorded the highest respect and appreciation for not only the priceless truth he offers but for his courage and determination to present the truth despite the obvious danger to him. When I read the various malicious attacks on Dimitri from anonymous strangers who haven’t the courage to reveal their own names, the obvious ideas occur to me and to most other readers.

    I don’t use Facebook but do appreciate the policy of requiring one’s real name. I would require the same of VT commenters because it makes us more accountable for what we write. There would probably be fewer irresponsible and unpleasant comments but when unpleasantness is required, it is taken more seriously over a real name.

    Has “Name Required” appeared before? Or is he/she a specialist brought in to try to deal with Dimitri’s well-taken point on the official altering of this specialized term? How does this specialist come up with a twelve-year old piece of dialogue? Screenwriters, of which I am one, often come up with new uses of words and terms just to be different. Somme people now use “ground zero” to mean “square one.” I’ve heard people say, “Well, we’re back to ground zero,” when they mean “square one.” But I haven’t seen that movie.

    The 9-11 truth movement is top-heavy with phonies, shills, lightweights and malcontents. And time-wasters. As Bob Nichols warned me in another thread, these people are likely paid, probably pretty well, to cause anyone whose facts threaten the killers, to waste the truth-teller’s most precious possession, his/her time.

    Dimitri answers all critics openly and thoroughly and defends his facts formidably, as they must be defended. This is just one small part of his presentation. The task of the attacker is to attempt to discredit the truly dangerous aspects of Dimitri’s double revelations. Anyone who anonymously attacks the only actual witness in the whole world of the nuclear demolition plan and of the Mossad killer who exploited it is working for the killer, whether for pay or his/her own gratification. It is doubtful that he/she is what Lenin called a “useful idiot.”

    jb campell

  15. Dimitri Khalezov  February 19, 2011 at 4:41 am

    To “Name Required”.

    Regarding your statements (I quote you):

    ———————————————
    Here are a few more dictionaries:

    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
    Copyright 1996, 1992
    0-395-44895-6
    PE1628.A623 1992

    ground zero
    1. The target of a projectile, such as missile or a bomb
    2. The site directly below, directly above, or at the point of detonation of a nuclear weapon.

    >Note, that the primary definition here, fits exactly with public story >of 911: towers targeted by planes used as missiles/bombs
    ———————————————

    Yes, with the above one I agree. This dictionary indeed does exist. I know it. If you read carefully my actual article above you will notice that I explain to the reader that the first, historical definition of ‘ground zero’ is indeed that of “a target of a projectile”. However, with an advent of atomic bombs the first definition was out of use completely and the most of dictionaries printed in the ’60s, 70s, ’80s and ’90s did not even include the first, nearly forgotten meaning. The second meaning (“a place of a nuclear explosion”) became its main and the only meaning and as such it was presented in near 99% of all dictionaries. The first, original meaning was relegated to “historical meaning” (comparable to the historical meaning of the word “gay” in a sense that was before the homosexuals hijacked the word) and it was no longer used in practice. But, as a historical reference it was indeed used in some rare (again R-A-R-E) dictionaries. The one mentioned by you above is just some of such RARE dictionaries that included the first, historical meaning, in addition to the actual, practical meaning. If you think that I am backing on my own claims under your pressure, you are badly mistaken. Read my actual article above carefully and you will see that I admitted this point in my article well before commenting started.

    However, it is not so with the dictionary mentioned by your below. This one is clearly fake and backdated. I have Random House’s Collegiate of both – pre-9/11 and post-9/11 editions. They are in front of me now. And the one you are trying to pass for the alleged “pre-9/11 one” is in reality the POST-9/11 one. If anyone needs screenshots from either of the two I have, let me know via an e-mail, I will send them to you for verification. So, dear “Name Required”, your effort with the below quoted dictionary is futile.

    I quote you again:

    ———————

    American Heritage College Dictionary
    Copyright 1997, 1993
    0-395-44638-4
    PE1628.A6227 1993

    Same definition as the previous.

    Random House Webster’s College Dictionary
    Copyright 1996, 1995, 1992, 1991
    0-679-43886-6
    PE1628.R28 1995

    ground zero
    1. the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes
    2. Informal. the very beginning or most elementary level

    ————
    And to address the last point of yours. You claim that by indulging into this argument with your over the ‘ground zero’ definitions and manipulations with them I could allegedly “undermine my own theory”. You are badly wrong on this point. First of all, I can not undermine my “theory” because I do not act in a capacity of an “expert”. I act in a capacity of an “eye-witness”. And eye-witnesses traditionally do not produce “theories”. They produce “eye-witness’ testimonies”. See the difference? When I spend my precious time on this particular argument I do it not in order to “defend my theory” as it might appear to you. I do it in order to attract attention of innocent people to at least three different important points which are as follows:

    1) A manipulation attempt with ‘ground zero’ definitions has indeed taken place in the aftermath of the 9/11 events. You can compare mine (not yours, but mine) pre-9/11 dictionaries with corresponding post-9/11 dictionaries and you will clearly see that the manipulation attempt has indeed taken place. The US Government was caught red-handed in such an attempt (for example, leave aside disputable Merriam-Webster’s and Random House’s dictionaries and compare only abovementioned Longman’s and Collin’s ones – the pre- and post- 9/11 ones – and you will clearly see the actual manipulation attempt we successfully caught the US Government red-handed with).

    2) The shills who desperately try to protect the US Government in this sense indeed do exist. These shills are by no means silly volunteers, but highly-paid professionals, seasoned in conducting arguments, most probably they are lawyers by their original profession, considering their actual abilities to argue. And as being lawyers they can’t be cheap.
    3) These shills are being paid monthly (and perhaps handsomely) from the pocket of the gullible US taxpayer who does not even suspect that he actually covers expenses of his own cheating.

    And I guess I managed to prove successfully either of the three points above – and I proved them irrespectively of the fact if the disputed dictionaries are indeed backdated or not. Of course, they are backdated. But it does not actually matter in the light of all said above.

    Do you agree with my points now, dear “Name Required”?

  16. J. Bruce Campbell  February 19, 2011 at 3:49 am

    Dimitri Khalezov has shaken the foundations of the various lie factories, foreign and domestic, with his double revelations of the nuclear demolition plan for the WTC and Sears Tower as well as the confession of Mossad assassin and mass murderer Michael Harari of conducting the 9-11 massacre. For these two things alone he should be accorded the highest respect and appreciation for not only the priceless truth he offers but for his courage and determination to present the truth despite the obvious danger to him. When I read the various malicious attacks on Dimitri from anonymous strangers who haven’t the courage to reveal their own names, the obvious ideas occur to me and to most other readers.

    I don’t use Facebook but do appreciate the policy of requiring one’s real name. I would require the same of VT commenters because it makes us more accountable for what we write. There would probably be fewer irresponsible and unpleasant comments but when unpleasantness is required, it is taken more seriously over a real name.

    Has “Name Required” appeared before? Or is he/she a specialist brought in to try to deal with Dimitri’s well-taken point on the official altering of this specialized term? How does this specialist come up with a twelve-year old piece of dialogue? Screenwriters, of which I am one, often come up with new uses of words and terms just to be different. Somme people now use “ground zero” to mean “square one.” I’ve heard people say, “Well, we’re back to ground zero,” when they mean “square one.” However, I haven’t seen that movie.

    The 9-11 truth movement is top-heavy with phonies, shills, lightweights and malcontents. And time-wasters. As Bob Nichols warned me in another thread, these people are likely paid, probably pretty well, to cause anyone whose facts threaten the killers, to waste the truth-teller’s most precious possession, his/her time.

    Dimitri answers all critics openly and thoroughly and defends his facts formidably, as they must be defended. This is just one small part of his presentation. The task of the attacker is to attempt to discredit the truly dangerous aspects of Dimitri’s double revelations. Anyone who anonymously attacks the only actual witness in the whole world of the nuclear demolition plan and of the Mossad killer who exploited it is working for the killer, whether for pay or his/her own gratification. It is doubtful that he/she is what Lenin called a “useful idiot.”

  17. ron  February 19, 2011 at 3:30 am

    Superb job Khalezov

  18. Name Required  February 18, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    > Regarding the movie Fight Club 1999 – he indeed does say it

    > I do see your point in pointing out “Name Required” as a shill.

    You just confirmed my Fight Club point, proving that “ground zero” WAS (prominently) used in a non nuclear sense prior to 911, and yet I am the shill, for telling the truth. Congratulations, by demonstrating your facility with doublethink, you’ve earned acceptance into the cult of Khalezov, no further thinking will be required.

    > I mean who will go into such detail so quickly.

    Someone who is not retarded? Or do you also think it takes the backing of an intelligence agency to watch Fight Club and consult a popular dictionary?

  19. Name Required  February 18, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    > Yes, I am claiming that M-W 10th edition collegiate is a backdated
    > concoction produced after 9/11. Precisely.
    >
    > What edition of W-M collegiate was sold between 1993 and 2001?
    >
    > This I am going to investigate right away. My preliminary suggestion
    > that before 2001 it was not the 10th, but the 9th edition of M-W
    > Collegiate was being sold. Perhaps its selling continued even not just
    > “before 2001”, but somewhat up to 2004 or so. I went to a book supplier
    > in Bangkok today and requested the info on when exactly he started to
    > receive the 10th collegiate edition of M-W. He checked in the computer
    > and said that not earlier than in 2008.

    Good of you to publicly commit to this, please don’t let it sit in the comments, write an actual post. Doesn’t it deserve one?

    I found a 1993 (initial release) version of of the m-w collegiate 10th edition in a library, old, beat up, discolored, looking its age, matching my 1996 version, which I know is pre 911.

    Your are going to be so busted on this. The 10th edition was out for 8 years prior to 911, it was a top seller. There are hundreds of thousands copies (probably conservative) of it in libraries (high school, college, city) and homes across America. It has been referenced, reviewed and discussed in numerous publications, archived online and in microfiche. You think you can just wish away 8 years of its existence?

    http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Webster%27s+Collegiate+10th
    http://web.archive.org/web/19991125140517/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877797099
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5623a939b23c33ae

    These links are just a tip of the iceberg for anyone who cares to pursue this.

    Here are a few more dictionaries:

    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
    Copyright 1996, 1992
    0-395-44895-6
    PE1628.A623 1992

    ground zero
    1. The target of a projectile, such as missile or a bomb
    2. The site directly below, directly above, or at the point of detonation of a nuclear weapon.

    Note, that the primary definition here, fits exactly with public story of 911: towers targeted by planes used as missiles/bombs

    American Heritage College Dictionary
    Copyright 1997, 1993
    0-395-44638-4
    PE1628.A6227 1993

    Same definition as the previous.

    Random House Webster’s College Dictionary
    Copyright 1996, 1995, 1992, 1991
    0-679-43886-6
    PE1628.R28 1995

    ground zero
    1. the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes
    2. Informal. the very beginning or most elementary level

    It’s pretty clear that you cherry picked the evidence to fit your etymological hypothesis, a typical tool of fraudulent research.

    If nukes were used on 911, you are working to discredit this theory, by leading with easily falsifiable assertions.

    If you accuse a guilty man of a crime with bad evidence, when the fraud of the bad evidence is discovered the guilty man looks innocent, and his legitimate accusers are discredited along with the fraudulent ones. This is controlled opposition 101. That is why honest researcher are grateful when their mistakes are pointed out, because it allows them to strengthen their case. But what do you do? You weaken your case even further, by making even more absurd claims (that the 10th edition m-w collegiate never existed prior to 911)

  20. Coconut  February 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    DIMITRI KHALEZOV ***************** 100 points (as good as “Bull’s eye!”)

    MoneyChancher & Diebold-Brotherhood ******** 0 points (as good as “ground zero”)

  21. ganapatrak  February 18, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Hey Dimitri !!!

    Please… don’t lose your time (and energy) with this guy on this truly desastrous word !

    Your contribution to the truth on 911 is so much higher than this poor dispute ! Thank to lucid and sane whistleblowers like you, the truth is coming at an increasing speed.

    Let Name R… struggle ‘ad vitam aeternam’ for a word ! It appears to me like a diversion, plain and simple.

    Sure, if you were able to prove the backdating, it coul be interesting. But is it worth time, money and energy that you will have to spend ?

    We have to focus on the very responsibles of the gigantic 911 hoax/slaughter : you know it even better than me. Keep your way.

    Dogs bark, caravan moves on.

    Friendly.

    Patrick

  22. Dimitri Khalezov  February 18, 2011 at 6:24 am

    Yes, I am claiming that M-W 10th edition collegiate is a backdated concoction produced after 9/11. Precisely.

    What edition of W-M collegiate was sold between 1993 and 2001?

    This I am going to investigate right away. My preliminary suggestion that before 2001 it was not the 10th, but the 9th edition of M-W Collegiate was being sold. Perhaps its selling continued even not just “before 2001”, but somewhat up to 2004 or so. I went to a book supplier in Bangkok today and requested the info on when exactly he started to receive the 10th collegiate edition of M-W. He checked in the computer and said that not earlier than in 2008.

    This is just beginning of my personal inquiry. To be continued. Just stay in touch and soon you will get more news.

    By the way, when I went to the books supplier today I obtained one copy of the M-W 10th Collegiate disputed edition. It is now with me. Once I could find some volunteers willing to undertake a forensic test of its paper, ink and, perhaps, of glue, I will pass it over to such an expertise.

    But the preliminary indication is that on a super-cover of the 10th disputed edition there is a clear statement that “it is based upon the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged”. Which means (at least by humans’ logic if not by the shills’ logic) that the Collegiate version can not contain any fuller definitions than the Unabridged version it is based upon.

    So, I would like to inform everyone that I have in my personal possession two types of the Webster’s Unabridged – that of 1989 and of 1999. And none of them contains the secondary definitions of “ground zero” the disputed 10th Collegiate of allegedly “1996” contains. This is the real hard proof that this concoction of yours is bogus and backdated.

    But wait a bit more. I will prove it convincingly later. And hopefully we will be able to bring this case to the court. Because to insert a backdated concoction into the Library of Congress is a crime. And this crime will be proven. Don’t even doubt it.

  23. Bill  February 18, 2011 at 6:18 am

    Name,

    I’m not a fanatic about this topic, but have a hard time believing you aren’t on someone’s payroll. Your style doesn’t sound like you have an honest interest in the matter.

    This is a note for your boss or so you have to alter the report that gets submitted if you want to copy this in it. Faking dictionaries’ dates or ISBN info would be child’s play for the folks behind 911.

  24. Name Required  February 18, 2011 at 4:40 am

    Are you claiming that all m-w collegiate 10th edition dictionaries are concoctions produced after 911?

    If yes, then what edition was being sold from 1993 to 2001?

    If no, then explain what happened to the ones sold between 1993 and 2001? Since you insist they must support your theses why did you not include one of them in your article?

  25. James102  February 18, 2011 at 2:33 am

    Mr. Khalezov well done.
    I watched your online video presentation – and your spot on.

    About the Dictionary issue – It is not possible for only 1 Dictionary out of so many to have the other meanings for ground zero, and especially a popular one too – forget it, that’s not happening.

    I do suspect that edition was planted too.

    Regarding the movie Fight Club 1999 – he indeed does say it (i viewed the version available freely online). the first min of the movies dialogue.

    http://www.megavideo.com/?v=95A67ZIH

    This is the first (prior 9/11) time I heard of it in that sense in a film.

    I do see your point in pointing out “Name Required” as a shill.

    I mean who will go into such detail so quickly.

    Evidently you Mr. Khalezov are making the TPTB not so happy.

    Keep up the good work.

  26. Dimitri Khalezov  February 18, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Dear “Name Required”. It seems that you don’t want to listen to what I say.

    My point is this (read carefully and try to understand what I say):

    1) There was NO secondary meaning of “ground zero” in ANY pre-9/11 dictionary. Not even in encyclopedias, not even in a multi-volume Oxford dictionary of 30 volumes (comparable in size with Britannica). The only meaning of it published in pre-9/11 dictionaries was that of “a place of a nuclear/thermonuclear explosion”. A confirmation of this said fact you can see by checking copied of the variety of pre-9/11 dictionaries that are available in the actual article above. Do you see any secondary meaning of it there? Or at least a hint that such a secondary meaning might exist? The answer is NO.

    2) The US governmental spin-doctors and shills who work for them are desperate over this fact. Because pre-9/11 definition of “ground zero” is quite meaningful and the strage statement directly derives itself from it: “the lower Manhattan is a place that suffered a nuclear explosion”.

    3) The spin-doctors had no choice than to re-print all post-9/11 dictionaries in order to re-define “ground zero” and to ascribe secondary meanings to it (see comparison of pre-9/11 dictionaries with post-9/11 ones in the actual article above).

    4) But the manipulation described in the Clause 3 apparently not enough, because still, thougthful people could sue the US Government, because to the WTC grounds the FORMER definition of “ground zero” was applied, not the later one.

    5) Therefore the spin-doctors are desperate to produce back-dated texts and even back-dated dictionaries that would claim that “ground zero” allegedly have more meaning than just “a place of a nuclear explosion” even before 9/11 events. This is the only chance for them to escape. That is exactly why they produce false, back-dated texts and insert them into Library in Congress in an illegal manner to create an impression that these are allegedly “genuine” pre-9/11 text. And then they order their shills to promote this fact.

    6) Your collegiate M-W dictionary of 10th edition printed allegedly in “1996” is merely a part of the desperate effort described in the Clause 5. It is FAKE and BACKDATED. And it does not matter where I personally reside – in Bangkok or in the Moon. The disputed alleged pre-9/11 dictionary is FAKE and BACKDATED. It wa inserted by the spin-doctors to the Library of Congress in an illegal manner and now is being promoted by the shills, also in Amazon.

    7) I urge anyone who is reading this lines to obtain the said dictionary and to make forensic tests of its paper and inc in order to prove that it was produced well AFTER 9/11 and not in “1996” as claimed.

    These are the charges.

    Relax.

  27. Name Required  February 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    > As I have already said I live in Bangkok, Thailand. Those things are
    > much easier to verify when you are in America. So, let the American
    > residents to do so (in case they are really interested and I am sure
    > that many of them are).

    That’s a nice excuse, so you don’t have to defend your claims against counterexamples because you live in Thailand, how convenient.

    > When it comes to your claim that (I am quoting you): “In 10 years you
    > have not bothered to look inside the most popular English dictionary.” –
    > it is not true at all. I bothered to verify ALL dictionaries. And the
    > one claimed by you was simply not available all these 10 years. It
    > popped up very recently.

    Unavailable? Are you playing the Thailand card again? If it’s not in Thailand, it doesn’t exist? The fact remains that in 10 years you haven’t bothered (nobody cares about your excuses) to look in the most popular English dictionary, released prior to 911, the collegiate 10th edition, which happens to falsify your etymological thesis. To cover for this glaring mistake, you have invented the collegiate “concoction” conspiracy out of nothing, with no evidence whatsoever, other than your own subjective incredulity. When enough people find their pre 911 collegiates, this should become clear.

    > As I have told you, you are not the first who
    > refers to this dictionary. I had an argument with some shills about two
    > months ago on some forum over the same issue, so I am aware of the
    > existence of this dictionary, but it was not available anywhere in
    > 2007-2008. I was hunting all dictionaries everywhere – in book shops,
    > Amazon, libraries, electronic formats (on CDs) and in second-hand book
    > shops. I could not have missed this dictionary. It is IMPOSSIBLE. It
    > appeared recently.

    So you are actually saying that the 10th edition collegiate did not appear until after the 11th edition. The collegiate time-line according to you is:

    prior to 2003 – no 10th, only the 9th?
    2003 – 11th addition appears, skipping the 10th? no one notices?
    recently – 10th backdated hoax edition makes a belated appearance

    what about this web archive amazon snapshot from 1999 of the 10th edition
    http://web.archive.org/web/19991125140517/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877797099

    Is it also a hoax, a “concoction” or is the 1998 edition legitimate with only one definition?

    what about this archived Usenet message from 2000 advocating the purchase of the above dictionary
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5623a939b23c33ae

    Another concoction? Do you still claim that there was no pre 911 10th edition collegiate?

    >
    > I went to the book shop today, by the way, just came back three hours
    > ago and I have found the disputed dictionary. Yes, indeed it claims to
    > be the 1996 edition, but it is clear cheating. I touched the paper and I
    > saw that it was printed the latest in 2009, but most probably in 2010.
    >
    > In order to prove that this poor concoction of the desperate
    > spin-doctors is true you should produce REAL dictionary printed REALLY
    > in 1996 and a forensic expert should prove that the ink and the paper
    > are indeed as old as of 1996. Nothing less than this will work. Relax.
    > This dictionary is bogus. And the main proof of it is that NONE of the
    > pre-9/11 dictionaries of which copies are shown in the above article
    > contains any secondary meaning of ‘ground zero’. Why yours should be an
    > exception? Especially considering that full unabridged Webster’s
    > dictionaries (bigger and fuller than your collegiate one) do not contain
    > any secondary meaning?

    I already explained to you that the fact that you want and expect the pre 911 10th edition collegiate to have the same definition as some other dictionary (unabridged) does not mean that it must be so. Your wishes and expectations do not define reality. But to satisfy your curiosity, it’s really quite simple, the collegiate is updated more frequently and aggressively. Here’s a quote that should explain it:

    “New editions in this series have appeared about every ten years since 1898. The tenth edition documents the changes in the language of the past decade with an additional 10,000 new meanings and words.”
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0877797099

    Contrast this with the unabridged, which is at third edition since 1961:

    “Since the 1961 publication of the Third, Merriam-Webster has reprinted the main text of the dictionary with only minor corrections. To add new words, they created an Addenda Section in 1966, included in the front matter, which was expanded in 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1993, and 2002. However, the rate of additions has been much slower than it had been throughout the previous hundred years.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary

    “Imagine my suprise on discovering that this book was actually printed in 1961, and is in fact almost entirely the same text! The typeset hasn’t been touched since then! Folks, it’s merely a re-issue of their 1961 edition.
    Yes, they did add an absorbing “Special Addenda Section of New Words” toward the front of the dictionary (80-100pp, I’m guessing), but they couldn’t be bothered to include these neologisms in the main text, presumably because resetting the 1961 proofs would have been too much work for Webster & co . . . ?”
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0877792011

    > Really. You are losing your precious time for nothing.

    Time will tell.

  28. Name Required  February 17, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    > My opinion is still the same: Your alleged “1996? Merriam-Webster’s
    > Collegiate dictionary is FAKE and it is BACKDATED. The proof of it is
    > this. If you go to my actual article above and read it carefully you
    > will find a few genuine screenshots from REAL pre-9/11 Webster’s
    > dictionaries that are full, unabridged, encyclopedic. They are by
    > default BIGGER and FULLER than a “collegiate” dictionary of the same
    > type. Moreover, one of these is of 1999 which is NEWER than the one you
    > are trying to promote here. And, yet there is NO secondary meaning of
    > “ground zero” in it.

    That the contents of dictionary A don’t meet your expectations/projections based on the contents of dictionary B does not prove that A is hoax. You appear to be unable to separate your wishful thinking from reality.

    I’ll try for the last time. The pre 911 10th edition collegiate was sold for years (1993 – 2001). There must be large numbers of them in private hands. You claim that the 1996 version is a backdated hoax, this is a baseless, unproven charge, but ok, for the sake of the argument, if it is, then show me a real pre 911 10th edition collegiate, with a single definition. Do they not exist? If not, where did they all go?

    > So here is my charge: the 10th edition of the dictionary you have
    > mentioned is FAKE and BACKDATED. And the fact that it is still on sale
    > on the Amazon (despite of being allegedly of “1996?) is just another
    > convincing proof that this is the latest concoction. Because Amazon does
    > not sell such old dictionaries while new ones are available.

    You must be referring to this 2001 edition (amazon viewer will show the copyright page)
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0877797099
    First of all, it’s not sold by Amazon itself, but third party sellers via Amazon. The fact that 12 third party sellers, some of them, individuals
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0877797099/?condition=new
    are still selling the 10th edition as “new” via Amazon proves precisely nothing.

  29. Dimitri Khalezov  February 17, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    As I have already said I live in Bangkok, Thailand. Those things are much easier to verify when you are in America. So, let the American residents to do so (in case they are really interested and I am sure that many of them are).

    When it comes to your claim that (I am quoting you): “In 10 years you have not bothered to look inside the most popular English dictionary.” – it is not true at all. I bothered to verify ALL dictionaries. And the one claimed by you was simply not available all these 10 years. It popped up very recently. As I have told you, you are not the first who refers to this dictionary. I had an argument with some shills about two months ago on some forum over the same issue, so I am aware of the existence of this dictionary, but it was not available anywhere in 2007-2008. I was hunting all dictionaries everywhere – in book shops, Amazon, libraries, electronic formats (on CDs) and in second-hand book shops. I could not have missed this dictionary. It is IMPOSSIBLE. It appeared recently.

    I went to the book shop today, by the way, just came back three hours ago and I have found the disputed dictionary. Yes, indeed it claims to be the 1996 edition, but it is clear cheating. I touched the paper and I saw that it was printed the latest in 2009, but most probably in 2010.

    In order to prove that this poor concoction of the desperate spin-doctors is true you should produce REAL dictionary printed REALLY in 1996 and a forensic expert should prove that the ink and the paper are indeed as old as of 1996. Nothing less than this will work. Relax. This dictionary is bogus. And the main proof of it is that NONE of the pre-9/11 dictionaries of which copies are shown in the above article contains any secondary meaning of ‘ground zero’. Why yours should be an exception? Especially considering that full unabridged Webster’s dictionaries (bigger and fuller than your collegiate one) do not contain any secondary meaning?

    You method does not work. Really. You are losing your precious time for nothing.

  30. Name Required  February 17, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    > So here is my answer to our “Name Required”:
    > 1) You argument about the
    > 1999 film Fight Club is not accepted unless some independent board will
    > establish that the disputed movie is indeed genuine and it featured the
    > same contents before 9/11. You can keep your allegedly “original” CD.
    > People who will make such an inquiry should obtain this movie for
    > verification reasons not from you, but from some genuinely neutral
    > source.

    Don’t wait around for some board that will never form, verify it yourself, that’s what a serious researcher would do, there is enough evidence to at least try.

    > 2) You argument about the alleged “1996” Merriam-Webster’s
    > Collegiate dictionary is not just simply rejected. It is challenged in
    > the most rigorous manner.

    Your strong and emphatic words count for nothing, only evidence matters. If you claim that the 1996 collegiate is a “concoction” then produce a “legitimate” pre 911 collegiate. They were sold from 1993 to 2001, they should not be too hard to find.

    > I state that this dictionary is the BOGUS and
    > BACKDATED concoction of the US Governmental spin-doctors. And I urge
    > every American who reads these lines to participate in an independent
    > inquiry into this matter.

    You ask everyone to participate, but won’t lift a finger yourself, curious. In 10 years you have not bothered to look inside the most popular English dictionary.

    > The paper and the ink of this alleged
    > “pre-9/11” dictionary must be subjected to forensic analysis in order to
    > prove that this was printed after 9/11 and it was planted into the
    > Library of Congress in an illegal manner. Anyone who is willing to
    > undertake such an inquiry and to hire forensic experts and private
    > investigators for this reason, please, feel free to contact me by my
    > e-mail dkhalezov[at]thebat.net and I will provide you with all required
    > details about this concoction and about the proper steps on how to
    > unmask this particular cheating.

    And while we’re patiently waiting for this, why don’t you show us a “real”, pre 911 collegiate, lots of people bought dictionaries pre 911, the collegiate was a top seller. Did US government send secret agents to steal them all out of private homes?

  31. Dimitri Khalezov  February 17, 2011 at 11:56 am

    My opinion is still the same:
    Your alleged “1996” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary is FAKE and it is BACKDATED. The proof of it is this. If you go to my actual article above and read it carefully you will find a few genuine screenshots from REAL pre-9/11 Webster’s dictionaries that are full, unabridged, encyclopedic. They are by default BIGGER and FULLER than a “collegiate” dictionary of the same type. Moreover, one of these is of 1999 which is NEWER than the one you are trying to promote here. And, yet there is NO secondary meaning of “ground zero” in it.

    So here is my charge: the 10th edition of the dictionary you have mentioned is FAKE and BACKDATED. And the fact that it is still on sale on the Amazon (despite of being allegedly of “1996”) is just another convincing proof that this is the latest concoction. Because Amazon does not sell such old dictionaries while new ones are available.

    Could you just imagine that to trace changing in definitions of “ground zero” was my job since 9/11 events? Do you realize that I routinely observed and collected all dictionaries, old and new alike in order to compare these meanings? And if the spin-doctors are able to cheat a newcomer, it does not mean that they could also dupe me, because I carefully observed the development since 2001 and nothing new could have missed my attention. I was ESPECIALLY tracing all of it every few months checking all available dictionaries in order to find what happens with the “ground zero” definitions. Do you realize this unfortunate fact?

    Your dictionary is BOGUS. And I urge anyone who is willing to prove this to undertake a forensic test of its paper and ink. It is not so difficult and any forensic expert will prove it easily that this alleged “1996” dictionary was printed well after 9/11, perhaps, last year.

  32. Name Required  February 17, 2011 at 11:28 am

    > The point of the dictionary mentioned by you is that it was
    > produced too late to reach Bangkok on time. That is why no library and
    > no book shop have it here yet. Sorry.

    The 10th edition m-w collegiate was published from 1993 (the date of the principal copyright) till presumably 2003 (when the 11th edition came out). As I have shown, M-W Collegiate, is the most popular English dictionary according to Amazon. The notion that you couldn’t find the most popular dictionary that’s been out for 7-8 years prior to 911, is preposterous.

    > I know this dictionary, though, because you are not the first who draw
    > my attention to it. This dictionary was mentioned by someone like two
    > months ago in one forum.

    And I won’t be the last, because it is real, I have it in my hands and so do many other people, and it contains the three definitions I posted.

    > However, no one should be duped by this poor concoction.

    Argument by assertion. No matter how many times you repeat “concoction” it won’t make it so. I’d like to know how you intend to prove to numerous individual owners that they are in possession of some sort of a “concoction” I suspect you’ll just call them shills in your typical style. Your focus on ink testing is a distraction from the fact that there are many private owners of pre 911 10th edition m-w collegiate, it was published for 7-8 years pre 911 and was a top seller. If you were serious about establishing it as a hoax, you would at least try to find a few copies without the three definitions, they must exist in large quantities per your “concoction” claim, since for 7-8 years they were published unhoaxed, but somehow you never bothered.

    > I have a
    > variety of full unabridged and also collegiate Merriam-Webster’s
    > dictionaries, both in a book-form and also as an electronic dictionary
    > (a part of pre-9/11 Britannica on a CD). And none of these have the
    > second and the third meaning as mentioned by you, but only the first
    > one.

    You really do have trouble with logic, if the most popular dictionary, contains 3 definitions (my 1996 edition does), then your assertion that none do, is falsified. Your “concoction” assertion even you don’t take seriously since you never even attempted to prove it. Where is your example of the unhoaxed collegiate pre 911 dictionary with only one definition?

    > How would it be possible that the full unabridged Merriam-Webster would
    > have only the first meaning alone, while the collegiate one (that is
    > about 3-4 times smaller) of the same publishing house would have three
    > meanings?

    I don’t need to speculate on how it’s possible, because it exists, an independently verifiable fact. Let other owners confirm or deny it.

    > This cheap method of cheating does not work with serious people. Yes, I
    > agree that such dictionary was indeed concocted, it was indeed assigned
    > the ISBN mentioned by you and it was indeed inserted into the Library of
    > Congress (see “Wag the Dog” movie to confirm that the shills always
    > insert backdated concoctions to the Library of Congress to make it look
    > “believable”). But still, it does not mean that it was concocted before
    > 9/11. I charge that it was concocted AFTER 9/11. This should not work
    > with the serious people. Sorry.

    “Serious people” are not just going to take your word that their dictionaries are “concoctions”

    > This dictionary is clearly false and it does not matter what year of
    > edition is printed on it and what ISBN is assigned to it.

    Yes, I understand, nothing matters, except for your unproven assertions.

    > If I really care I could call experts who would take a test of the paper
    > and ink to actually prove that this backdated concoction was printed
    > well after 9/11 and not in “1996? as claimed. But I am not in America
    > now, so perhaps, some readers of this topic could undertake such a test.
    > It is not difficult from the technical point of view.

    It’s very telling that in all your years of deep research you didn’t bother to post the definition from the most popular dictionary, the one that just happens to falsify your assertion. It should have been the one of first ones you checked, as it’s the one most people consult. If it supported your claims why wouldn’t you post the definition? If it didn’t support your claims where is your extensive proof of the “concoction”. Oh, that’s right, you just never bothered to get a hold of the most popular English dictionary.

    > But when it comes to me I have quite a few real pre-9/11
    > Merriam-Webster’s dictionaries and I see that none of them had such
    > definitions as claimed in your alleged “1996? dictionary. This is enough
    > proof for me personally that what you are talking about is a fake. The
    > rest of the here readers could form their own opinion if they carefully
    > look at screenshots above in the actual article where the
    > Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of 1989 is present.

    No need for opinions, there is no doubt that many people have the m-w collegiate 10th edition pre 911, let them see for themselves, as I have.

    > Would you dare to claim that a “collegiate” dictionary of the same
    > company only in 1996 would suddenly include more meanings? Why it
    > should?

    I dare claim only two things so far, that my m-w collegiate 10th edition 1996 dictionary contains three definitions already posted, and Fight Club (not an obscure, but a popular and influential film) uses “ground zero” in accordance with the secondary, non-nuclear definitions.

    > \ It does not work with me. And hope it will not work with other
    > people as well. Yes, spin-doctors and shills are powerful and they can
    > even put backdated books into the Library of Congress. But, still, they
    > can’t cheat thinking people.

    Putting backdated books in LOC is possible I suppose, but putting them in peoples homes is not, lots of people bought the 10th edition collegiate pre 911.

  33. Dimitri Khalezov  February 17, 2011 at 9:28 am

    OK, dear “Name Required”. I will try to address your assaults.
    First of all my claims are dangerous to the US Government because based on my claims you can sue the US Government. Not for the actual WTC demolition, don’t even dream about this – the Twin Towers were demolished in an apparently good faith and you can do nothing with this. This is a prima facie case. However, based on my claims people could sue the US Government for something else:
    1) For having nukes at the first place under the WTC (3×150 kiloton nukes at the middle of a populated city? What a beautiful legal suit, isn’t it?)
    2) For unnecessary demolishing the WTC-7 that added, by the way, about 30% of radiological consequences to the area.
    3) For sending unprotected gullible ground zero responders to clean a place of a recent nuclear explosion (a/k/a “murder”, to be more exact “mass murder”).
    4) For accusing innocent of the crimes they have never committed.
    5) For cheating the public.
    6) For falsifying both – scientific and criminological evidence.
    7) For sending anthrax letters.
    More then enough to send all of them – Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Co. – to the electric chair. Isn’t it?
    By contrast, the shills offer to sue the US Government for alleged “painting” of the WTC structural steel with the so-called “nano-thermite”. Thus they propose to avoid all strong points, but to bring the case based on completely bogus evidence that would be gladly thrown by any judge into a garbage bin with this type of legal suits closed once and forever. Don’t you (I don’t mean “personally you”, since I already understood who you are, I mean, the rest of the readers of this thread) realize that these shills are merely agent-provocateurs hired by the US Government? To trick you into a ridiculous legal suit that would be closed by the judge right on the spot as being not a prima-facie charge? And now try to form your own opinion, who is really a shill – me with my 7 points listed above, or those so-called “nano-thermitters”, “mini-nukers”, “dynamitters”, “laser-beams-from-the-spacers” and other type of the shills parasitising on the 9/11 tragedy?
    Regarding the rest of the argument – about my alleged so-called “logic” rejected by our dear “Name Required”.
    If you read the actual article of mine above (which was posted apparently ahead of any comments under it), you will notice that I explained that the shills are so desperate about the ground zero pre-9/11 definition that they would implement any kind of trick to make you to believe to their own version. I told in the article that the spin-doctors and their shills produce back-dated texts and even place these back-dated texts into the Library of Congress. The same things they do with the dictionaries. If the spin-doctors could re-print the dictionaries (see sample of manipulations in the actual article) why don’t we presume that they could go even further and to produce also back-dated bogus dictionary with alleged pre-9/11 definitions of “ground zero”, stick this concoction of theirs into the Library of Congress, and try to prove to us that this is allegedly a genuine thing? Just try to understand that the spin-doctors are really desperate and they are ready for any and every kind of cover up. Do you think if the US Government went as far as to create the infamous 9/11 Commission it would be difficult to it to print a bogus back-dated dictionary with “genuinely-appeared” ISBN and Library of Congress Catalog Card Number? Don’t be so naïve.
    So here is my answer to our “Name Required”:
    1) You argument about the 1999 film Fight Club is not accepted unless some independent board will establish that the disputed movie is indeed genuine and it featured the same contents before 9/11. You can keep your allegedly “original” CD. People who will make such an inquiry should obtain this movie for verification reasons not from you, but from some genuinely neutral source.
    2) You argument about the alleged “1996” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary is not just simply rejected. It is challenged in the most rigorous manner. I state that this dictionary is the BOGUS and BACKDATED concoction of the US Governmental spin-doctors. And I urge every American who reads these lines to participate in an independent inquiry into this matter. The paper and the ink of this alleged “pre-9/11” dictionary must be subjected to forensic analysis in order to prove that this was printed after 9/11 and it was planted into the Library of Congress in an illegal manner. Anyone who is willing to undertake such an inquiry and to hire forensic experts and private investigators for this reason, please, feel free to contact me by my e-mail dkhalezov[at]thebat.net and I will provide you with all required details about this concoction and about the proper steps on how to unmask this particular cheating.
    Hope now you can get my point clearly.

  34. penlope  February 17, 2011 at 6:58 am

    “However the buildings came down, we can agree that they were demolished. It was a classic controlled demolition. Silverstein admitted that “we had to pull it”. Peer reviewed scientific papers have been written on the dust samples and its..)
    It would be better, to present these files, where “they had to pull it”. Who were “they”? Does exist any paper with names?
    How did have they to “pull” it?
    From where? In which manner? Where are the papers with the decision?
    But America, do not forget: You are on war! It is not a fun!
    Now, which law is now ruling? The article of war.

  35. Name Required  February 17, 2011 at 5:35 am

    > You see, dear “Name Required”. I can not be a shill by definition (at
    > least not a shill of the US Government), because the info I reveal is
    > extremely damaging to the US Government’s position. I hope everyone
    > would agree with this logic.

    Let’s see about your “logic.” You stated yourself that 99% of the prominent “911 truthers” are controlled opposition shills. And most of them (if not all) claim the US Government to be a perp to one degree or another. By your “logic” I guess they can’t be shills, since their claims are damaging to the USG. Furthermore, your own position is probably least damaging to the USG of all the “911 truthers” since you claim they demolished the towers trying avoid atmospheric thermonuclear explosions they genuinely believed would take place. It’s not even LIHOP, the US Government is downright heroic, according to you.

    So you see, whether they make damaging claims, is not how you tell a shill, but patterns of lying and/or ignoring/omitting of relevant facts while engaging in ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

    > However, those guys who try hard to prove now that “ground zero” was
    > allegedly used prior to 9/11 in a non-nuclear sense should be suspected
    > of being shills by default. It is not does not mean that they are
    > necessarily shills, but it does meant that they have to be suspected as
    > being such and the suspicions in this case are well-grounded. Do you
    > agree with this logic?

    You can suspect whatever you want, but once I have demonstrated, first with Fight Club, then with a 1996 M-W Collegiate definition, that “ground zero” had been used prominently in a non-nuclear sense prior to 911 and did have secondary definitions consistent with that use, your suspicions are irrelevant, as we are now in the realm of facts, and the only thing that matters is whether my falsification of your claim by counterexample is factual or not.

    > Coming back to the actual argument. It is not the first time I have such
    > a discussion. I have a big experience having argued with various shills
    > over this matter in different Internet forums. What is particularly
    > impressive is this: when I claim that the “ground zero” was not used
    > before 9/11 in any non-nuclear sense (which is a common knowledge, by
    > the way, the majority of educated people and military men know it even
    > without my claims) I produce copies of a variety of pre-9/11
    > dictionaries which are common thing. You can easily find these
    > dictionaries in libraries.
    >
    > However, the shills are usually quick to respond in a very unusual
    > method – they try to quote some alleged books or some alleged videos
    > where “ground zero” was allegedly used before 9/11 in an alleged
    > non-nuclear sense. And this approach of theirs is actually the very
    > proof that they are shills.
    >
    > Do you know why? When someone quotes a dictionary, it is a common thing
    > – everyone could easily find a dictionary and to find in such a
    > dictionary “ground zero” definition located by alphabetical order – to
    > be able to quote it. This is quite an innocent approach.
    >
    > But it is not so simple in regard to a few alleged piece of texts and
    > movies.

    You throw the word logic around but you don’t appear to know much about it. If you say all houses are red and I show you a blue house, you call this an “unusual method”, “proof of shilling”? No, it’s merely a routine logical falsification by counterexample of your assertion. Movies and tv shows are a very good way to demonstrate how words/phrases were used, because they are time-stamped, just like dictionaries. But I have since posted a dictionary definition too.

    > Do you realize that it is highly improbable that a casual participant of
    > such a discussion could so easily “remember” that in such and such rare
    > text some 10 years ago somewhere on the 378th page or so (and not in
    > alphabetical order as in a common dictionary) “ground zero” was
    > allegedly used in such and such sense? Or to suddenly “recollect” a
    > certain movie (there are thousands of famous movies and many thousands
    > of other, less famous movies available) that is over 10 years old where
    > some one allegedly used “ground zero” figuratively?
    >
    > Do you realize that it is improbably from the mathematical point of view
    > that such a casual visitor of a forum, would be “accidentally” able to
    > recollect such a thing in regard to old text or movie? To think
    > otherwise would a sin against elementary logic – because the practical
    > probability of this “sudden remembrance” is equal to zero.
    >
    > Thus the very fact that such and such “casual” person who “accidentally”
    > joined such a discussion has such a “good memory” as to “suddenly
    > recollect” the “ground zero” usage that occurred in some obscure
    > multi-pate text over 10 years ago is the very proof that this person is
    > a shill and he owes his “good memory” to a special instruction given him
    > in a “certain office”. What do you think about this logic?
    >

    It’s not logic, but ad hominem and red herring. Don’t look at the facts, you say, he must have had the backing of some Intelligence Agency to watch Fight Club and read the most popular dictionary, that’s your pathetic “logic”

    I have re-watched Fight Club at least twice after concluding 911 was a scam, principally because it foreshadowed 911 demolitions, naturally paying special attention to scenes involving demolitions. The Fight Club counterexample is a fact as is the 1996 M-W collegiate definition. No amount of aspersions and accusations you hurl, will change these facts.

  36. Dimitri Khalezov  February 17, 2011 at 4:24 am

    Dear “Name Required”. I managed to “avoid” that false backdated dictionary mentioned by you because I live in Bangkok, Thailand. I have quite a few dictionaries of my own that I bought before 9/11 or in its immediate aftermath. And I have quite a few dictionaries that I managed to acquire later thanks to dedicated efforts. Besides, I spent considerable amount of time in various libraries in search for these things. The point of the dictionary mentioned by you is that it was produced too late to reach Bangkok on time. That is why no library and no book shop have it here yet. Sorry.

    I know this dictionary, though, because you are not the first who draw my attention to it. This dictionary was mentioned by someone like two months ago in one forum.

    However, no one should be duped by this poor concoction. I have a variety of full unabridged and also collegiate Merriam-Webster’s dictionaries, both in a book-form and also as an electronic dictionary (a part of pre-9/11 Britannica on a CD). And none of these have the second and the third meaning as mentioned by you, but only the first one.

    How would it be possible that the full unabridged Merriam-Webster would have only the first meaning alone, while the collegiate one (that is about 3-4 times smaller) of the same publishing house would have three meanings?

    This cheap method of cheating does not work with serious people. Yes, I agree that such dictionary was indeed concocted, it was indeed assigned the ISBN mentioned by you and it was indeed inserted into the Library of Congress (see “Wag the Dog” movie to confirm that the shills always insert backdated concoctions to the Library of Congress to make it look “believable”). But still, it does not mean that it was concocted before 9/11. I charge that it was concocted AFTER 9/11. This should not work with the serious people. Sorry.

    This dictionary is clearly false and it does not matter what year of edition is printed on it and what ISBN is assigned to it.

    If I really care I could call experts who would take a test of the paper and ink to actually prove that this backdated concoction was printed well after 9/11 and not in “1996” as claimed. But I am not in America now, so perhaps, some readers of this topic could undertake such a test. It is not difficult from the technical point of view.

    But when it comes to me I have quite a few real pre-9/11 Merriam-Webster’s dictionaries and I see that none of them had such definitions as claimed in your alleged “1996” dictionary. This is enough proof for me personally that what you are talking about is a fake. The rest of the here readers could form their own opinion if they carefully look at screenshots above in the actual article where the Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of 1989 is present. Would you dare to claim that a “collegiate” dictionary of the same company only in 1996 would suddenly include more meanings? Why it should?
    \
    It does not work with me. And hope it will not work with other people as well. Yes, spin-doctors and shills are powerful and they can even put backdated books into the Library of Congress. But, still, they can’t cheat thinking people.

  37. Bill  February 17, 2011 at 2:59 am

    Dimitri,

    I agree that the use of the word is significant, but there may be a few cases where the term was used before the Second Manhattan Project. We can surmise that the shills will be working on finding these soon. I think some folks would use the term when discussing a large explosion, such as with the Oklahoma bombing. Yes, the phrasing would imply a nuclear explosion, such as “This was something no one ever imagined could happen here – our own ground zero.”

    Some people, and some script writers, like to use words in new ways. Not everyone is restrained by dictionary meanings.

    By the way, you might want to look into the phrase “go nuclear”. This is fairly recent slang, and it might have some bearing on the Ground Zero matter. If you aren’t familiar with “go nuclear”, it largely means to escalate to the maximum in the struggle and skip the intermediate steps one could choose.

  38. Name Required  February 17, 2011 at 2:13 am

    > I have studied this subject fairly deep, I researched a lot of dictionaries

    Here’s one you seem to have missed: Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, isbn 0-87779-709-9, principal copyright 1993, copyright 1996, PE1628.M36 1996

    page 515

    ground zero n (1946)
    1: the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs
    2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change
    3: the very beginning : SQUARE ONE
    ___________________________________

    This happens to be nearly identical with what’s online now
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ground%20zero

    no change in 15 years

    The M-W collegiate is the most popular dictionary
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/11488

    I wonder how you managed to avoid it.

  39. Dimitri Khalezov  February 17, 2011 at 1:28 am

    You see, dear “Name Required”. I can not be a shill by definition (at least not a shill of the US Government), because the info I reveal is extremely damaging to the US Government’s position. I hope everyone would agree with this logic. However, those guys who try hard to prove now that “ground zero” was allegedly used prior to 9/11 in a non-nuclear sense should be suspected of being shills by default. It is not does not mean that they are necessarily shills, but it does meant that they have to be suspected as being such and the suspicions in this case are well-grounded. Do you agree with this logic?

    Coming back to the actual argument. It is not the first time I have such a discussion. I have a big experience having argued with various shills over this matter in different Internet forums. What is particularly impressive is this: when I claim that the “ground zero” was not used before 9/11 in any non-nuclear sense (which is a common knowledge, by the way, the majority of educated people and military men know it even without my claims) I produce copies of a variety of pre-9/11 dictionaries which are common thing. You can easily find these dictionaries in libraries.

    However, the shills are usually quick to respond in a very unusual method – they try to quote some alleged books or some alleged videos where “ground zero” was allegedly used before 9/11 in an alleged non-nuclear sense. And this approach of theirs is actually the very proof that they are shills.

    Do you know why? When someone quotes a dictionary, it is a common thing – everyone could easily find a dictionary and to find in such a dictionary “ground zero” definition located by alphabetical order – to be able to quote it. This is quite an innocent approach.

    But it is not so simple in regard to a few alleged piece of texts and movies.

    Do you realize that it is highly improbable that a casual participant of such a discussion could so easily “remember” that in such and such rare text some 10 years ago somewhere on the 378th page or so (and not in alphabetical order as in a common dictionary) “ground zero” was allegedly used in such and such sense? Or to suddenly “recollect” a certain movie (there are thousands of famous movies and many thousands of other, less famous movies available) that is over 10 years old where some one allegedly used “ground zero” figuratively?

    Do you realize that it is improbably from the mathematical point of view that such a casual visitor of a forum, would be “accidentally” able to recollect such a thing in regard to old text or movie? To think otherwise would a sin against elementary logic – because the practical probability of this “sudden remembrance” is equal to zero.

    Thus the very fact that such and such “casual” person who “accidentally” joined such a discussion has such a “good memory” as to “suddenly recollect” the “ground zero” usage that occurred in some obscure multi-pate text over 10 years ago is the very proof that this person is a shill and he owes his “good memory” to a special instruction given him in a “certain office”. What do you think about this logic?

  40. Name Required  February 16, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    Perhaps metaphorical is not the right term, and one of: colloquial, idiomatic, figurative, slang, street, expanded, indirect, secondary is a better candidate. The point is that its a prominent example of not a direct, per definition, usage.

  41. Doug  February 16, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    However the buildings came down, we can agree that they were demolished. It was a classic controlled demolition. Silverstein admitted that “we had to pull it”. Peer reviewed scientific papers have been written on the dust samples and its
    implications for nano-thermite explosives. Possibly nukes were also used? Maybe some other high tech explosives. Dick Cheney stood down our air defenses on 911 as noted by Norman Mineta in Testimony to the phony 911 commission. The mossad agents released by Chertoff (who now sells scanners for our airports). The two trillion dollars disappeared by Dov Zakheim and Rumsfield, announced the day before 911. The destruction of the pentagon office that was investigating the loss. The fact that explosions were heard prior to the planes hitting the buildings. The evidence goes on and on. How these lowlifes continue to run free in this country is hard to understand. New Yorkers need to demand a grand jury investigation and not allow business to continue as usual for these criminals. If we go down this rabbit hole, it will go along way to cleaning some very low forms of humanity to the benefit of the people of the United States and the World. Doug,A/E 911 Truth

  42. eddy  February 16, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Metaphor is the concept of understanding one thing in terms of another. A metaphor is a figure of speech that constructs an analogy between two things or ideas; the analogy is conveyed by the use of a metaphorical word in place of some other word. For example: “Her eyes were glistening jewels”.

    Metaphor is or was also occasionally used to denote rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance (e.g., antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy and simile, which are then all considered types of metaphor). Aristotle used both this sense and the regular, current sense above.[1]

    The word metaphor derives from the 16th century Old French métaphore, in turn from the Latin metaphora, “carrying over”, which is the latinisation of the Greek μεταφορά (metaphorá), “transfer”,[2] from μεταφέρω (metaphero), “to carry over”, “to transfer”,[3] itself a compound of μετά (meta), “between”[4] + φέρω (pherō), “to bear”, “to carry”.[5]

  43. Name Required  February 16, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    > But I would rather presume the first – that is is a backdated concoction

    I have a pre 911 DVD, its not backdated, feel free to verify.

    > or it could be just merely a rarest occurrence where these strange words
    > were used not in the proper sense

    movies influence language and culture, which is why they are such an effective tool of subversion, Fight Club is a pretty influential movie, so its figurative use of “ground zero” is not insignificant

    > and now the shills try to make a good use of it for their cause.

    A shill is someone who sells a talking point irrespective of the evidence. I have shown you one significant example of the pre 911 metaphorical use of the term “ground zero”

    > So, I stick to my original opinion.

    If you simply ignore evidence you don’t like and call people names when they bring it to your attention, then you are the shill.

  44. Dimitri Khalezov  February 16, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    It is difficult to say what is this. It could be, as I have said above in the article, a backdated concotion by the spin-doctors that they try to “innocently” pass for a genuine thing, or it could be just merely a rarest occurrence where these strange words were used not in the proper sense and now the shills try to make a good use of it for their cause. But I would rather presume the first – that is is a backdated concoction, I mean. I could be wrong, of course, I do not claim the truth in the last instance, but generally “ground zero” has never been used before 9/11 in any figurative sense (except the figurative sense directly derived from its actual nuclear meaning, of course). I have studied this subject fairly deep, I researched a lot of dictionaries and also I have a few encounters with shills who are tasked to create an impression that “ground zero” was allegedly used before 9/11 in a non-nuclear sense and whenever I had such an argument I was always able to defeat the shills. So, I stick to my original opinion.

  45. Dimitri Khalezov  February 16, 2011 at 9:29 am

    To Texas Vet. Hi. Thanks for your interest in my humble works. However, I can’t agree with you when it comes to your suggestion that it might have been a kind of the pancake collapse. You see, the theory of the pancake collapse (offered, as Dr Nur puts it, by the “bogus banana-republic commission of banana-monkey-stolen-election-president”) was the most incredible from all former theories and eventually even the very “bogus banana-republic commission” has decided to forgo their own initial “thought” in favor of the so-called “progressive collapse theory”. But if you review multiple videos available on YouTube you will see that the movement of the heavy undamaged tops of the Towers downwards was quite smooth and at more or less even speed (taking into account the actual gravitational acceleration, of course). The tops falling downwards did not encounter on their way any resistance of the supposed floors and no “floors” were observable at all, but merely “dustified” structure of the Tower’s body that was continuously reduced to the actual dust as the falling Tower’s tops proceeded downwards. Do you agree with this observation? Moreover, as it was rightly noted by J.F.E. in his post above, the entire time of the ~400 meters tall Tower to complete its collapse was around 10 seconds only (in any case not exceeding 11.5 seconds at the most protective estimation, but possibly even less than 11 seconds). If it were true that the first floor to give in would require ~10 seconds as in your suggestion, then how much in total would last the complete collapse? 40 seconds? 50? 60? 30? but you agree – that even if to imagine unimaginable and to presume that the destruction of the first floor would consume the first 10 seconds and to crash the rest of the Tower’s floors down to the ground would consume only 10 seconds more, still, the summary time would be 20 seconds. But, seemingly despite any logic, the Towers completed their collapse in roughly 10 seconds only. Why? Because there were no “floors”. Their tops were falling down at almost freefall speed as if under them there were no “floors” and not even “metal parts” (molten by so-called “nano-thermite”) but only thin air alone… And this strange fact is clearly observable on all available video footage. Do you agree with this?

  46. Dr.Nur  February 16, 2011 at 6:59 am

    As you kno,Dimitri ,I fully subscribe to your general explanation about 9/11 nuclear demolitions not because I like you only or because of dictionnary definitions,although there is a point there ,if you wish, but simply because of the evidence and facts: no amounts of thermite (although it was or may have been present for all or whatever reasons, but it is not the main point) or “thermate”or firecrackers for that matter could ever bring about the kind of blasts we have witnessed from the pictures and molten basement rocks and radioactivity noted by experts (high levels of deuterium and tritium,in spite of constant washing off and cover up consistent with a nuclear event by authorities and bogus banana-republic commission of banana-monkey-stolen-election-president, noted by experts including Dr.Leuren Moret of Livermore lab and others). As for the other shills, and yankee-donkee beer-drinking die-hards who don’t want to face the evidence,like I said elsewhere: we can either ignore them, advise them to go back to school or if their neurons are already depleted for that they could/should increase their beer intake for our mutual benefit and understanding …

  47. J.F.E.  February 16, 2011 at 4:50 am

    Texas Vet, the assumed practical physics you hypothesize likely didn’t happen as described because the posited conditions and mechanical actions were not observed & measured at the initiation of collapse nor after initiation of collapse.

    Why?

    There likely was no build up of solid material, at the weight described, because the solid material posited to exist above the level of collapse was reduced to dust and pieces before having an opportunity to mechanically perform as theorized. Post collapse dust was observed & measured ranging in diameter, with the smallest between 10 microns and possiby down to 2.5 microns.

    Multiple videos recorded the collapses of the two towers.

    The videos appear to show, at the onset of initial collapse, in both towers, but more pronounced in WTC 2, the supposed “crushing” solid material above the level of collapse was reduced to roiling dust and ejecting pieces before having an opportunity to mechanically drop and “crush” the multiple floors below it. The videos don’t appear to show the floors acting as the hypothetical describes and requires. The force does not appear to be available based on the observation that the floors above the level of initial collapse were quickly reduced to dust and pieces, which a significant portion, thereof, were quickly dispersed beyong the perimeter of the buildings’ footprints, thus, not available for the hypothesized crushing process.

    Tex Vet, here is part of your hypothetical example: “Let’s assume, for a simple estimation. at the 89th floor, it takes 10 seconds for the ceiling to collapse and crash into the floor 10 feet below it. For ease of demonstrable computation, this has a velocity on the 89th floor of 1 foot per second.”

    The initial collapse did not take 10 seconds to drop one floor, as the entirety of the towers were collapsed (exploded?) to the ground in slightly more than 10 seconds.

    The hypothetical does not appear to describe the facts as observed on 911 because the observed timing and physical conditions are at varience from the hypothetical.

  48. Name Required  February 16, 2011 at 1:11 am

    In the opening seconds of the 1999 film Fight Club, the site of the controlled demolition of financial skyscrapers by conventional explosives is referred to as “ground zero”

    “Three minutes. This is it – ground zero. Would you like to say a few words to mark the occasion?”
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/quotes?qt0479091

    “The demolitions committee of Project Mayhem wrapped the foundation columns of a dozen buildings with blasting gelatin.”
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/quotes?qt0479209

  49. Texas Vet  February 15, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    I like your posts on this subject Dimitri. But I do have some practical thoughts on the collapse of the WTC twin towers.

    Re: the collapse. I don’t know the precise answer, but let’s assume for a minute that an unoccupied floor would weight 10-15 tons (I suspect it was more, but who knows, but the designers?

    The planes hit high, but the many empty floors would both ease and accelerate the destruction of the mechanical infrastructure. The top few floors would collapse onto the plane level floors, each one which contains its own 10-15 tons of debris. If they were occupied, that probably would double the weight. Now, at the 90th floor we may have as many as 200-300 tons or more of collapsing debris.

    You can see how the whole system would pancake straight down, every level contributing an additional 10-15 or 20-30 tons of debris including vast amounts of cement dust. Each growing mass would fall faster than the previous mass above it.

    Let’s assume, for a simple estimation. at the 89th floor, it takes 10 seconds for the ceiling to collapse and crash into the floor 10 feet below it. For ease of demonstrable computation, this has a velocity on the 89th floor of 1 foot per second.

    The amount of force hitting the 89th floor (f= mass x velocity squared) we would have a crashing force equal to 200-300 ton feet per second, without desks, etc.

    By the 88th floor, the mass will have grown by another 10-20 tons and the time to crush that 88th floor will have decreased some. Clearly, with no desks, furniture, etc., [email protected] = 210-320 tons x 1.2 feet per second squared = a 88th floor hitting force without desks, etc. of either 302 tons per second up to 432 ton feet per second.

    We do similar calculations for the 87th down to and through the basements, the growing ever massively worse, accelerating firce. After a number of floors, it is now a humongous, out of control freight train heading straight down. You can see why some people jumped out of the windows and others disappeared forever as further particles of debris.

    A parallel problem is that the friction of cement dust in an electrical sparking, flame-filled environment in itself can very explosive, thus accelerating the crashing rate and blowing out windows,walls etc.

    None of this brief analysis precludes implanted explosive devices anywhere on the empty floors or in the basement. Explosive devices would only accelerate the rate of destruction and collapse.

    I think any architect or engineer worth his or her salt would have to overcome the practical physics I just described. The numbers can be more finely tuned but the results will be the same.

    Further, I know what I saw. I was stopped the morning of 9/11 on a boarding ramp for an early flight. I watched in realtime on T.V. what I as a former Boeing aerospace engineer with a high security clearance looked absolutely logical — as horrifying as it was.

    I don’t mind being wrong. But only based on simple facts, not hearsay and repeated hearsay.

    Have fun, keep writing and welcome to VT

    Texas Vet

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network