Too Little, Too Late: AP Finally Provides Some Facts About The Fabricated Mosque Controversy

The distance between these two sites is .4 miles, so while they are close, the article is not actually wrong.

WTC 7 is part of Ground Zero and was destroyed in the attack. It stood 1 1/2 blocks from 51 Park Place.

The Associated Press knows these FACTS, yet attempted to mislead the reader.

Case closed.

If we are to assail news organizations for allegedly misleading readers, then we must call into question all news reports from all news organizations. All reports have some kind of slant and/or bias to them; after all, they are written by human beings. Facts can be distorted or even made up. All things must be viewed with a critical eye, or we just are accepting and believing what we want to believe, not what is actually there.

Taken into context that Manhattan is a relatively small island, half a mile can be considered a decent distance. Further, as to your statement of distance in blocks, many blocks in Manhattan are small, but some blocks constitute numerous small blocks, so your assertion of distance in blocks could be viewed as misleading.

Case is always open.

Uh, give up.

The relative size of Manhattan has NOTHING to do with this. The mosque site is, at the most, one and a half blocks from the site of a building that was destroyed in the 9-11 attack.

Is there some part of that sentence you are not understanding?

And in the north south direction that is relevant to these distances, the Manhattan blocks are SHORT. So even the 6 blocks the AP was referring to are misleading to most people.

The mosque site is, at the most, one and a half blocks from the site of a building that was destroyed in the 9-11 attack.

At the very least the Mosque is 2 blocks from the northern-most tip of the site, and that's if you only count it in verticality. If you also count the left or right turn onto Park St. and the distance traveled there, it's 3 blocks. Almost 800 yards in all, not visible from Ground Zero, and in the midst of a busy commercial neighborhood.

This seems like an awfully small nit to pick. The AP writer didn't say it's a half-dozen blocks from Ground Zero, he specified very clearly that he was referring to the North tower. In your accusations of misleading reporting, you're being flat-out dishonest. Go ahead and check a map, and explain how two very clearly defined city blocks before you even reach Park St. counts as "barely one block."

Out of curiosity, though: since you're so incensed about misinformation, can I trust that you've been just as angry with the mislabeled "Ground Zero Mosque" moniker?

The reason that I brought this up again is because Kathy Gill is touting this AP article as some sort of breakthrough in honest reporting, and as it regards these distances, it most certainly is not.

If you walk from 51 Park Place and go west, the first street you will come to is West Broadway, if you left on West Broadway and walk south, in ONE BLOCK you will come to Barclay St. So in one and one half blocks of walking you have arrived at the intersection of West Broadway and Barclay. On the southwest corner of West Broadway and Barclay is the property known on 9-11-01 as World Trade Center Bldg 7. This building caught fire from debris from the twin towers and collapsed in rubble.

The AP story, in it's supposed fact finding, makes the assertion that the true distance from the mosque site to anything significant from 9-11 is a half dozen blocks. That is absolutely not true. The AP writer had to know Ground Zero extends out to WTC 7, or is astonishingly incompetent.
I think the writer was deliberate misleading.

JR is correct on the techincality. The article should not have stated six blocks. We can argue if it's 1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5, but we all pretty much know that it is not six blocks by any measure. Two wrongs don't make a right. It means we have two wrongs. It appears that two blocks has been pretty generally accepted, and can be well justified, so if we could just stay away from saying at and switch to either near or two blocks away we'd have much more accurate "reporting." In the name of integrity, I ask JR and everyone else to pledge not to use "at" anymore.

On the southwest corner of West Broadway and Barclay is the property known on 9-11-01 as World Trade Center Bldg 7.

No, on the southwest corner of West Broadway and Barclay is the University of Phoenix. I'm not sure what it was on 9/11, but it certainly wasn't WTC7. When you say "southwest corner," you're referring to the corner of the block on the south-west side of West Broadway and Barclay. That makes the actual building flanked by Vesey and Washington. You're trying to count the north-eastern corner of that block as part of WTC7, while casually mentioning that it was actually located at the south-western corner. And you call the AP writer dishonest?

With that in mind, let's take another look at the blocks.

You start from Greenwich walking west for a half-block to W Broadway. Then you walk 2 blocks up to Park Place, then a quarter block or so up to Park51. That's 2 blocks even by conservative estimates, and actually much closer to three.

The AP story, in it's supposed fact finding, makes the assertion that the true distance from the mosque site to anything significant from 9-11 is a half dozen blocks.

No, he asserts that the distance from the North Tower is a half-dozen blocks. He stated it very clearly, and you're getting outraged that he didn't count the distance from another location -- a location, it should be noted, that you're misinformed about. You can be annoyed that he didn't count the 2.5-3 blocks from WTC7 if you'd like, but you can't call him "dishonest" for being very clear that he was accurately counting the distance from North Tower.

I think the writer was deliberate misleading.

Speaking of deliberately misleading, mind answering my question about the name "Ground Zero Mosque"?

Looking over my explanation, I think I made it more confusing than it needed to be. Let me try to clarify. The southwest corner of West Broadway and Barclay houses an entire block that is also flanked by Washington and Vesey. WTC7 did not take up the entire city block. It was on the corner of Washington and Vesey, not West Broadway and Barclay. Counting your steps from that location as if the building occupied the entire block is dishonest.

Good god folks, you are on the freaking intertubes

Use Google Maps

http://maps.google.com/

google 51 Park Place, New York, NY

use the satellite view, zoom in all you want

Even better use mapquest

http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=New+York&state=NY&address=51+Park+Pl&zipcode=10007-2404&country=US&latitude=40.713499&longitude=-74.00979&geocode=ADDRESS

zoom all the way in and use the "360 view"

Doesn't matter how close it is to Ground Zero, it's downtown Mahatten you can't see anything a block away unless it 20 stories taller than the buildings around you.

Nonsens as usual.

The reason that I brought this up again is because Kathy Gill is touting this AP article as some sort of breakthrough

As usual you are stick to right wing talking points not facts give it a friggin rest case closed.

It...is...alive...

JR's back to his usual nonsensical rants. Can't help but notice no one is commenting on his duplicate seeds about this anymore, a good thing. He is absolutely fixated on the exact number of feet, by his measuring discipline only. It's silly in it's manic nature, if it wasn't so pathetic. It's fine to have your say, but this is getting silly. He's added zero since his 1st post.

Kathy, still, very good seed. This is now a political football only. If the Reps really gave a crap about the families and responders, they just MIGHT have voted them in some help. But they didn't, they voted against them. This is now ONLY about how Stupid Sarah, Glenn Beck and the normal parade of wingnut loonies making hay.

It's enough to turn your stomach. Or turn your vote, into something useful.

John Russell:

The Associated Press knows these FACTS, yet attempted to mislead the reader.

If all news organizations were taken to task for misleading readers, there would be no Fox News.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg

Steve Watts-

as I look at this map you are making this far too complicated. Look at the corner of West Broadway and Barclay. On the southwest corner stood WTC 7. That is one and one half blocks from 45-51 Park Place.

JR's back to his usual nonsensical rants.

There's nothing nonsensical about it. It's sad that the geography of 600 ft. of lower Manhattan is beyond you, but what the hell.

Doesn't matter how close it is to Ground Zero, it's downtown Mahatten you can't see anything a block away unless it 20 stories taller than the buildings around you.

You people want nonsense? Now that is nonsense.

The southwest corner of West Broadway and Barclay houses an entire block that is also flanked by Washington and Vesey. WTC7 did not take up the entire city block.

According to the map I'm looking at, WTC 7 extended to Barclay and West Broadway.

Actually from the video clip of someone walking from GZ to Park51, once you turned the block you couldn't see anything in the direction of GZ, except of course the building across the street, although that is from ground level only. How tall is the center suppose to be?

OK, JR

For sake of argument, the community center is 1-1/2 blocks from Ground Zero. I have seen maps showing 2-1/2 blocks. All of these assorted map references keep real estate lawyers employed because there is no absolute mapping reference. Essentially, folks pay the lawyers to agree to agree. Every MSM outlet that reports it as "at" Ground Zero isn't factual because they don't acknowledge that the community center is a short distance down the street and around the corner no matter which mapping reference is used. It's reported as though a person standing at Ground Zero will be personally affronted with a view of the community center that will have prayer space.

Another factual error is that the community center is reported as being a mosque. It. Is. Not. A. Mosque.

Moving along: If Ground Zero is so sacred, shouldn't all less than sacred land uses, like strip clubs, be abolished?

Building 7 is not one of the towers idiot

as I look at this map you are making this far too complicated. Look at the corner of West Broadway and Barclay. On the southwest corner stood WTC 7. That is one and one half blocks from 45-51 Park Place.

Moving along: If Ground Zero is so sacred, shouldn't all less than sacred land uses, like strip clubs, be abolished?

That's been brought up about a hundred times. Either he doesn't give a @!$%# or he's all FOR the Sacred Sites of Stripping and the Gay Bars across the street, within spitting distance of Ground Zero.

Their Motto: "All Hail the Sacred Sites of Stripping but Screw them damn Muslims". With a little work, it might catch on.

The way JR talks, it sounds as those WTC7 is PART of the WTC memorial being built. But it isn't. It isn't at all...

Right now it is the home of Ameriprise Financial, Darby and Darby PC, Mansueto Ventures LLC, Moody's Investment Services, The New York Academy of Sciences, ABN AMRO bank, and so on. The building is now FIFTY TWO stories, with 42 of those being leasable space, most (but not all) of which has been leased out...

So I ask you JR, if WTC7 is such hallowed ground, then why the heck is it filled with businesses?

In 10 years from now, the WTC memorial is going to be the one thing standing in remembrance of the event, AS IT SHOULD BE. We don't need to take over and declare the WHOLE city as a landmark.

And as I posted in my OTHER response to your comments, if you look a the 360 overhead view from google earth of the new WTC memorial and building, you can't see the community center at all. Even from 20 stories up you can't see the top of it until you pass Barclay because the buildings around it are so tall.

But more importantly JR, what IS an acceptable distance then? And from what point do you measure? Should we measure starting at the fallout area that was effected? Should we measure from just the WTC buildings? Should we measure from anyone who had been affected by the disaster?

Instead of just complaining that it's too close, i have yet to see any sort of proposal from you whatsoever as to where they should put it, other than for you to say, "they should look elsewhere".

Well, it needs to be within walking distance of where they are, since around 400 or 500 people go there weekly to pray during work. Which means it can't take more than 30 minutes or so to get there and get back to work AND pray. Since you are so good with google maps, why don't you plot out where they are now, how far outside of where it is now it can reasonably be for people to still commute to it, pray and return to work within an hour's time. and then find available real estate within that area that you just defined. then post the current "alternate" spots.

Hey, I have an alternate spot for you... WTC7 still isn't completely leased out. They still actually have several floors completely open and empty. Why don't they move the mosque in there and scrap the whole idea of a community center all together! Would that be more ideal for you JR? Then they aren't "building" anything near WTC7 and the people of lower manhattan won't have to "look" at a mosque near ground zero (not that the community center they are planning on building is going to look anything like a mosque anyway).

I saw the photographer's online galleries of the adjacent to ground zero neighborhoods, including triple X rated striptease theatres. More than ironic after reading from people who post replies about ground zero being hallowed ground and the mosque being disrespectul. Then what do you call pornography?

Richard, they all know what time it is, they just can't get it out.

The proposed mosque building is less than 2 football fields away from WTC site (ground zero) property that was pulverized on 9-11.

That is the bottom line, they all know it.

I must say that is disgusting to hear some of these people say essentially 'who gives a damn about WTC 7, or any part of Ground Zero other than the memorial'. Some of these people ooze anti-Americanism.

Some of these people ooze anti-Americanism.

Beats oozing grey matter outta yer ears. All you've ever really had in this fight worth a @!$%# is the silly insults, huh?

Alright John, I concede the point and curse my map-reading skills. It is a block and a half away from WTC7. That doesn't make the author dishonest, since he clearly noted which building he was talking about. I think at the very least you were being misleading by calling it "barely one block" while knowing it was a block and a half. A difference of 50% isn't "barely." But I digress.

Now to the more important question: so what? Is 1.5 blocks more offensive than 2? Or 3? Does sensitivity work on a sliding scale? Is the distance inversely proportional to the insult?

As I said before, I wouldn't care if they built a gigantic mega-Mosque, sans community center, across the street. Muslims and terrorists are two distinct groups, and this issue can only bother you if you have trouble disassociating the two.

WTC 7 is part of Ground Zero and was destroyed in the attack. It stood 1 1/2 blocks from 51 Park Place.

The Associated Press knows these FACTS, yet attempted to mislead the reader.

Case closed

You have to love all these folks buying into FOX;'s 'Ground Zero' term. Damn, they have even claimed gay bars, sex clubs and abortion clinics as proof that New Yorkers don't consider the area of attack as a 'Holy Ground'.

That's great.

Steve Watts you are a fair person who listens to both sides, and I respect that.

The reason the AP writer is dishonest is because he is supposed to be rectifying errors in the previous reporting of the topic. The implication is given that the 6 block distance is the true relevant figure, therefore previously given distances are inaccurate or unimportant.

The entire 16 acre site that constituted WTC center on 9-11, including WTC 7, is considered ground zero. There was no reason for AP to elaborate on that.

Dale, you insult me every time you post with nothing but irrelevant rot, mt patience will not be endless.

Dale, you insult me every time you post with nothing but irrelevant rot, mt patience will not be endless.

I'm terrified, JR. Hearing you say people insult you is @!$%#ing hysterical! When your argument is wasted (which is the norm) you indulge in name-calling and fake indignation. Try to get through a day without mocking someone's screen name or calling them an "ahole" and I might find an ounce of cred in what you say.

I was trying this morning to remember when I first heard he was the worst President in history and now I remember. It was 2 days after he was elected and before being sworn in.

There's nothing nonsensical about it. It's sad that the geography of 600 ft. of lower Manhattan is beyond you, but what the hell.

Yeah, we got it. About 600 times. And it doesn't have any more meaning now than it did the 1st time you regurgitated it.

It just smells a little worse each time you yak it up.

It was 2 days after he was elected and before being sworn in

Sounds about spot on, log.

Yeah, we got it. About 600 times. And it doesn't have any more meaning now than it did the 1st time you regurgitated it.

Amen, Dale.

Thanks ONS! He's feigning indignation right now that I'm insulting him. The biggest name-caller on the Vine is upset he's being insulted. Brother.

The biggest name-caller on the Vine is upset he's being insulted. Brother.

Tiresome... the old "demand respect while giving none" crowd's SOP!

Sharon may pass Harry

Now that's a frightening thought.

They lie.

Tunes change fast when they hear the roar from the unemployed in my state say they'll gladly build it.

I have argued this point many a time, well against this point, I guess, I should say. I think, the feeling that the muslim community is being insensitive to the victims is spoken from the fear instilled in americans by the attack. Osama didn't organize the attack as a religious attack, but rather a political one, mind you, the middle east politics are wrapped pretty tightly together, which is where the confusion between politics and religion come in. Yes, the terrorists were religious, but they were attacking in response to what our military has been doing in the middle east for a long time. It was a political statement.

The opposition to muslims building the center near ground zero is based on the idea that these muslims had something to do with the attack, that islam is the reason for the attack, that that religion breeds terrorists. They are a scapegoat, people are afraid to realize that these americans are not the terrorists, their religion is not a terrorist, because once people understand this, we will no longer have a specific entity that is tangible, that is visible, to direct our fears, hurt, and anger. We will be left with being fearful of the people we can't see, don't know who they are because they are in hiding, they are in the shadows. People want to know what to fear, even if it is often misdirected, rather than be left to fear the boogie man.

This is why I don't cave to the "this is an insensitive act" argument because people, who are afraid, hurt, angry, are often irrational and do not see the larger picture, do not see the other perspective. Not to say they have no right to be afraid, hurt or angry, but just don't understand how to address it properly because of said emotions. Victims, the victims' families and the general public that oppose the building for sensitivity reasons do not see that they are projecting one groups actions and consequences onto another group that had nothing to do with the attack. Simply because people cannot appropriately direct their anger and fear does not in turn mean those that want to construct the center are insensitive. They are simply trying to combat the damage this incident has done to america and their religion.

Well i do see the "larger picture" and thats exactly why I don't want it built.

ms-984397

Just curious, what your take on the "larger picture" is that you see. I very well understand everyone sees things differently and am open to try to understand psychologically, sans emotion, how building the center is a negative act on the muslims' part.

loujr:

A question for you: How far away would you deem a "respectful" distance from GZ for a building that has one floor for Muslim worship? You probably have some idea in mind, but I would be willing to bet that if we poled even the "vine" people that agree with you, that you would get a lot of different answers. Please feel free to comment because I really am interested in your answer and I won't use it as an excuse to bash on you, as that is not my style. However, by trying to make this distance concrete and get "everyone" to agree to a specific distance, I think you will see how hard this really is.

Another way to look at it would be: At what decided upon distance away from ground zero would it become disrespectful to the Muslims? One mile away, 10?

Hopefully people see my point here.

If we want the world to change, we are going to have to resolve ourselves with the large presence of Muslims. There are moderate non terrorist Muslims, and we have to give them middle moderate ground to stand on if we are going to change the status quo. Most of the Muslims moving to the west want a better lifestyle than forced upon them in the mideast. We should not be criticizing all Muslims.

It is way too sophisticated an idea for anyone of a shallow intellect to realize who stands between them and the extremists is steadfast moderate Muslims, thereby making them and the reasoning Christian natural allies. Whipping up fear is always a good way to drive the herd and many are sadly all too willing to be herded.

Kathy Gill

I just don't understand how people can misdirect fear/anger/hurt like this without seeing how wrong it is to do so.

Exactly, time will heal all wounds, but you gotta put forth some effort to resolve where the pains stems from - not just pick out the largest group you can find that resembles the attackers, that's just uncalled for.

Thats the kicker they got this property for a song. Contrary to th screeching right wingers this is not what you cal hallowed ground. It is an old burlington coat factory the has been there for years. Once 911 happened this area lost its appeal to many given the fact the area was being used to remove the scrap from the buildings it suffered and is run down so this building if i remember cost them around 5 million. Nother kicker is the cost of renovation is close to 100 million and thy do not have the money to build it at this time. The farther away from this site you go the closer you are to downtown and the price of real estate ramps up ex-potentially. With 5 mill you may be able to buy a one bedroom apartment on an off street.

Oh, lawd, I wanted to take a shower after reading this article. Yechhh! How far down into the dirt will the GOP supporters go to support their twisted agenda? Shiver.

Okay, so she isn't pure evil. But c'mon, she's no angel.

"We have a robust protection of free speech in this country including the right to speak hatefully." Pamela Geller

All Viners should look into this woman's bio, or at least read this story:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/08/19/washington-post-pamela-gellers-gang-is-winning/

RI Mom Thank you for the tip, that woman is the very incarnation of evil.

You would be dumbfounded to know how many Americans do not realize the Geller induced hysteria and blatant lies.

Every seeder should expose this woman for who she is and what she is saying before our country falls into complete chaos and ruins.

She says it on her blog...it gets repeated on other blogs, and no matter how insane the Obama attack is...people believe it.

BTW: Common sense should prevail.

Is the President a Muslim....?

Well, Muslims DO NOT DRINK ALCOHOL.

A Beer Summit in July 2009 should have put an end to that blasphemous charge.

People need to start using ther BRAINS.

he right winger depend on them to not use their brains or they would not get a smell

How close is too close to ground zero? 1 block ,2 blocks, 2 miles. No one is going to agree on how close is too close. So forget it.

A number of people in NYC have answered this many times.

Too close is where the pieces of people fell. The supporters of this project will typically state the victims were turned in dust and they spread through out the world. Maybe. That is not what most people in NYC mean. We consider the people we know and their chunks of flesh, not atomic particle theory and wind maps.

If the chunk of person is large enough to be buried behind the wall of the memorial, the block they fell to earth on is too close.

JAVE @22.1

By your definition, the porn shops and other businesses surrounding The Towers should be shut down and the property taken as part of the GZ memorial effort. I know that I never hear or read of MSM discussion where GZ is defined as any land where pieces of people fell.

Ground Zero is a media term created by Fox and not used by many New Yorkers. They are more likely to refer to it as 'The Trade Center Site'. Most New Yorkers also know that the area of the attack is larger then just the spot where the towers stood.

Most New Yorkers are not asking for the nudie bars, other Mosques, gay bars, abortion clinics and McDonald's that are given as examples by the supporters of the 'Unholyness at Ground Zero', to be removed.

The objection is to this project that has been endorsed and likely funded by those that hold our enemy's ideology.

for my parrot.

Totally. Not. Surprised.

Yes, ground zero, because the building in question was damaged from the terrorists' planes crashing into the towers.

Ground Zero is defined as the former site of the World Trade Centers. Collateral damage doesn't make this part of Ground Zero, because by definition it's the epicenter of destruction, not the entire affected area. Feel free to check the dictionary definition if you still have doubts.

The mosque will be visible, every time a person visits the 9/11 memorial.

If they can see through the several skyscrapers in the way, yes. But I think Superman might have more important things on his mind.

Collateral damage doesn't make this part of Ground Zero,

People killed on that very street does not make it collateral damage. It makes them killed in the attack. Look at any picture of this street that day.

Ground Zero is a media term coined by FOX. It is not a place in NYC.

Either way, Jave, "Ground Zero Mosque" is a misnomer. If people were killed on Park Place that day, it hasn't interrupted the existence of strip clubs, burger joints, and touristy crap. These peaceful Muslims had the precise same level of involvement as strippers, burger flippers, and street vendors: none whatsoever. Offense can only be taken if you associate the one with the other. If you look at Muslims and terrorists as two distinct groups, as we all should, there is no reason to be offended.

Either way, Jave

It's not 'either way' to New Yorkers. It is where their family and friends dropped to earth.

If people were killed on Park Place that day, it hasn't interrupted the existence of strip clubs, burger joints, and touristy crap

New Yorkers have not objected to the Mosques, sex clubs, porn shops, gay bars, abortion clinics, Churches, fast food or the other things the supporters of this project give as examples of New Yorker's hypocrisy. The idea that New Yorkers believe that this is some kind of 'Holy Ground' is not reality. Those are the words of politicians.

If you look at Muslims and terrorists as two distinct groups, as we all should, there is no reason to be offended.

What about the souvenir sellers at the site? Two days ago they were an example of the supporters claim of New Yorkers hypocrisy. Are they today? Or are they suddenly a Freedom of Speech and Religion issue?

These peaceful Muslims

They acquiesced to an endorsement from Hamas.

JAVE -

Are you fearmongering a la False News or do you have sources for your contention:

If you consider that more American Moslems plotted against America for foreign enemies then all the Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Italians, Spanish, Southerners, Mexicans, British and Indian Tribes combinded.

Your pain is palpable. It's having a great deal of impact in your commentary.

do you have sources for your contention:

Yes the public record and history books. How many Japanese Americans betrayed America and attacked for Japan in WW2? How many Korean Americans attacked other Americans during the Korean war? Etc. There are a number of media sources that state very few. That is one of major points given why locking the Japanese Americans up was wrong.

How many attacks and plots have been committed by American Moslems? Many more. Major Hassan, the Fort Dix plotters and the Times Square bomber are just three examples.

20th century newspapers are mostly online. Searching for past stories of the German, Japanese and Vietnamese Americans caught plotting against America can be found. So can stories of Moslem Americans caught plotting against America. None of this is a secret.

Very solid point about where the line is drawn about bigotry. One can be as prejudiced as they wish but there are clearly defined limits to both expressing it and, most especially, acting on it.

All this mosque hub bub amounts to an excuse to voice ignorance, loudly and with pride (sick as that is). Like smoke to a fire, where there is ignorance is often found bigotry.

Why would a mosque be deemed offensive, in any capacity whatsoever including proximity to 9/11's ground zero, in the absence of bigotry? As others have repeatedly pointed out here -- it wouldn't.

I don't view myself in political labels but I can be counted on to oppose bigotry in any form, mostly for how dumb it is.