Why did the 9-11 Truth Movement fail?

[twinstead]

This two sentences show that you are incompetent to judge the events.
You understand nothing about demolition and nothing about finite element analysis. You are simple monday morning quarterbacking.
Therefore you will get seen as a truther no matter how much you deny it.

I see you have discovered that the 'truth movement' is just one big argument from incredulity.

 

[funk de fino]

I imagine it's fairly easy for an engineer, given real-world material to examine, to distinguish between an explosive-assisted and a non-explosive-assisted disintegration.

As has been posted. All the steel from Ground zero was inspected by forensic examiners, demo teams and public officials at the sorting sites. The whole process was witnessed by independant companies.

The NIST report into the the "collapse" of the Twin Towers is open about having to tweak its parameters to worst-case scenarios in order to make it's model lead to collapse. Their model was a best guess based on preconceived assumptions.

Best guess based on available evidence and computer models.

No, only that if the attacks weren't perpetrated solely by ludicrously lucky "brown" freelance terrorists then military/intelligence "white" State terrorists must have been involved in some way.

What is this crap about?

Really? I thought the entire buildings disintegrated. Yours is the same trick that NIST played - not bothereing to examine or explain the behaviour of the Towers after "collapse initiation".

They did not totally disintegrate and NIST has explained what happened after collapse initiation. You must have missed it. It contains calculations to back up their claims also. December FAQs.

You best do some more research to stop you making junk claims like above.

Stick to your political claptrap its easier to dodge and swerve with opinions.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

I see you have discovered that the 'truth movement' is just one big argument from incredulity.

It's obvious [insert pet peeve group] did it, be it the jooos or the reptilian shape-shifters.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

I only found one adult truther in real life in all this years since 9/11, that guy was so imensly stupid that it was really hard to see how he could use a subway train and survive.

 

[jaydeehess]

One would hope that the supposedly richest country in the world would be able to find the resources to investigate the failure of a building material used in thousands of high rise buildings.

So you obviously have absolutely no idea, not a clue whatsoever as to the cost involved, just that it has to be done to satisfy you.

I imagine it's fairly easy for an engineer, given real-world material to examine, to distinguish between an explosive-assisted and a non-explosive-assisted disintegration. Computer simulations are always vastly inferior to physical reconstruction.

........... The NIST report into the the "collapse" of the Twin Towers is open about having to tweak its parameters to worst-case scenarios in order to make it's model lead to collapse. Their model was a best guess based on preconceived assumptions.

In order to do a proper 'reconstruction' test they would have to be built several times and(in your words) tweak the conditions. Or do you contend that the exact conditions of the structures at the beginning of the fire phase can be known and that there would be no need to test a range of such conditions?

No, only that if the attacks weren't perpetrated solely by ludicrously lucky "brown" freelance terrorists then military/intelligence "white" State terrorists must have been involved in some way.

The "cave dwellers' can't do it' arguement. Too stupid, not enough resources yada yada yada. Amazing that "brown' persons managed to hijack aircraft in the past and amazing that 'brown' persons still manage to get into Israel with bombs strapped to their bodies. Must be the intelligencia of the 'brown' people if your characterization of the persons who carried out the hijackings is to be followed.

Not for your benefit, no!

Not willing to declare anything, no matter how outrageous, out of the question, duly noted.

Really? I thought the entire buildings disintegrated. Yours is the same trick that NIST played - not bothereing to examine or explain the behaviour of the Towers after "collapse initiation".

So you are back to 'reconstructing' the entire building. Make up your mind.

I wasn't suggesting replication. I was suggesting reconstruction of parts of the building.

Oops back to only parts of the building.

The NIST papers are best guesses based on prior assumptions about what caused the buildings to fail. Without confirmation in the real world that's all they will ever be.
Their hypotheses make use of "known physics and engineering principles" but the hypothetical world is different to the real world.

round round we go, , when will you opine on how much reconstruction would be prudent?

I lost interest in merry-go-rounds and expert ping-pong some time ago. It was Death-mask Rumsfeld, after all, who first mentioned a missile in relation to the Pentagon. I'm sure he's been having a good laugh about it ever since.

Typical misrepresentation, Rummy was commenting on using aircraft as missiles.

See above, under "So you actualy have no favorites.....?" The Bush regime and the military lied about "that day" and what they knew before "that day".

Playing it close to your chest or you really have no clue, its one or the other.

Flattery will get you nowhere!

you took that as flattery,,, hmm.

Are you claiming not to have a political stance?

Ok, for the record and as I have stated in the past i hate the present neo-con administration and believe that GWB will be seen as the USA's worst POTUS ever. I am a Canadian and almost by definition that means I am well to the left of the present US admin. I cannot stand Bush or Cheney, I blame Rummy for the deaths of US soldiers due to his political interference with the Generals who actually have a clue about how to fight a war.

If you'd like more clarification just ask, I'm willing to tell you even if just for your benefit.

 

[twinstead]

Ok, for the record and as I have stated in the past i hate the present neo-con administration and believe that GWB will be seen as the USA's worst POTUS ever. I am a Canadian and almost by definition that means I am well to the left of the present US admin. I cannot stand Bush or Cheney, I blame Rummy for the deaths of US soldiers due to his political interference with the Generals who actually have a clue about how to fight a war.

This is a good time to bring this up YET AGAIN:

Many of those on this forum who insist 911 was an inside job still either overtly say or snidely imply, even after being told a thousand times it's not true, that anybody who thinks the 'official story' of 911 is the one the fits the available evidence the best and don't believe it was an inside job somehow is a government loyalist. I can't count the number of times different forum members, many who are of jaydeehess' political persuasion and not even necessarily American, have been called 'Bush lovers' or other similar things. it's ludicrous.

This could not be further from the truth and is only a debate technique. Rational people can judge for themselves without ideological glasses on.

 

[jaydeehess]

This could not be further from the truth and is only a debate technique. Rational people can judge for themselves without ideological glasses on.

Quite so, it seems that JihadJane and people like metamars, whom she seems to admire, operate from the stance that they do not know how 'they' did it or exactly who 'they are, but the know] that 'they' did it. Method be dammed, let's concern ourselves primarily with finding a motive.

 

[Corsair 115]

I am not "standing by the demolition theory", though I don't dismiss it either.

Therein lies your problem. Some theories are viable; other theories are not. You seem incapable of recognizing which are which.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In metamars' case its from a right wing conservative fringe world view.

REALLY??? Who are you, Bakunin or what?

 

[1337m4n]

Quite so, it seems that JihadJane and people like metamars, whom she seems to admire, operate from the stance that they do not know how 'they' did it or exactly who 'they are, but they know that 'they' did it. Method be dammed, let's concern ourselves primarily with finding a motive.

(typos fixed)

That's precisely why I find it not merely difficult, but impossible, to debate with the likes of metamars. They will present me with a wall of text, then ask me to refute it. And you know what? I have no choice but to say "I cannot refute that, because there is no point. In order to refute a point, I need to have a point to refute. You have no point, and are therefore impossible to refute".

Actually, this applies to most Truthers, particularly the ones that just shout random "anomalies" without even putting them together in a coherent story.

 

[eromitlab]

(typos fixed)

That's precisely why I find it not merely difficult, but impossible, to debate with the likes of metamars. They will present me with a wall of text, then ask me to refute it. And you know what? I have no choice but to say "I cannot refute that, because there is no point. In order to refute a point, I need to have a point to refute. You have no point, and are therefore impossible to refute".

Actually, this applies to most Truthers, particularly the ones that just shout random "anomalies" without even putting them together in a coherent story.

At which point troofers will snip out everything but the bolded parts and beat their chests when they spam it on to their next victim. Undebunkable! We've got the bedunkers runnin' skeered! They can't handle facts and evidence when its shoved in their face! You'd have more luck teaching a pig to put on its own lipstick.

 

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by JihadJane
I am not "standing by the demolition theory", though I don't dismiss it either.

The indecisive truther is the only remaining species left in the TM. They are a close evolutionary cousin of the JAQoff truther. Scientists think they branched off sometime in 2005 after a certain population of JAQoff truthers were unable to cope with the NIST report. Truther selection took its course and evolved the now infamous indecisive truthers. They think they might be truthers, but they're just not sure.

 

[Bananaman]

This is an interesting subject and explains a lot.

A troofer starts with his ideology. He then tries to shoehorn the facts into his ideology. If the facts don't fit his ideology the troofer ignores them and starts twisting the facts and making stuff up until they do.

A normal person looks at the facts alone. Once the facts have been established he may, out of interest, see if there's any correspondence between his political view of the world and the facts and revise his political ideology accordingly.

Notice the way the two methods are complete reversals of each other?

This explains why troofers continue to assume that debunkers are Bush loving shills, or whatever it is they call us. It's the way they think. Ideology first, everything else second. They really can't get their heads round our way of thinking. That's why we find them ultimately boring and irritating and stupid.

Bananaman.

 

[JihadJane]

Why should anything be studied after collapse initiation? The fact is ater initiation the collapse continued. What do you expect to find wasting time and resources studying post initiation, that the collapse continued? ...

Ask NIST, who apparently , did study it, if only as a back-covering afterthought (see post #222).

And there has been material examined both at ground zero and at Fresh Kills and neither examination showed your fantasy of explosives.

The haphazard examination of steel (which didn't happen at Fresh Kills but at scrap yards) was mostly carried out by a small team of volunteers who struggled against the speed of the desposal process.

As has been posted. ...with opinions.

Hello thug boy. Give up the headmistress charade and I'll respond to your posts

So you obviously have absolutely no idea, not a clue whatsoever as to the cost involved, just that it has to be done to satisfy you.

It's not personal.

In order to do a proper 'reconstruction' test they would have to be built several times and(in your words) tweak the conditions. Or do you contend that the exact conditions of the structures at the beginning of the fire phase can be known and that there would be no need to test a range of such conditions?

I was talking about reconstruction, not reconstruction "tests".

The "tweaking" I referred to was of virtual parameters in computer simulatations, not real life.

The "cave dwellers' can't do it' arguement. Too stupid, not enough resources yada yada yada. Amazing that "brown' persons managed to hijack aircraft in the past and amazing that 'brown' persons still manage to get into Israel with bombs strapped to their bodies. Must be the intelligencia of the 'brown' people if your characterization of the persons who carried out the hijackings is to be followed.

Why does highlighting the skin color dynamic of the "War on Terror" upset you?

I wasn't making a "cave dwellers" argument.

The success of the 911 operation depended on a lot more than simply hijacking aircraft. One back-of-an-envelope calculation suggested that the chances of success for the hijacks alone were 1/589824

http://911review.com/means/index.html

This rough calculation doesn't include, for example, the hijackers' preparations being undetetcted, getting visas, living and training in the US etc or, of course, that the lucky war games would happen to be taking place that day/week.

So you are back to 'reconstructing' the entire building. Make up your mind.

I have never suggested reconstructing the entire building. That's your straw man.

Oops back to only parts of the building.

I've never been away from "parts of the building". That only happened in your strawy imagination.

Ok, for the record and as I have stated in the past i hate the present neo-con administration and believe that GWB will be seen as the USA's worst POTUS ever. I am a Canadian and almost by definition that means I am well to the left of the present US admin. I cannot stand Bush or Cheney, I blame Rummy for the deaths of US soldiers due to his political interference with the Generals who actually have a clue about how to fight a war.

If you'd like more clarification just ask, I'm willing to tell you even if just for your benefit.

Thanks.

Being to the left of the Bush admin can, incidentally, leave one very far to the right on the political spectrum, as your support for the massive, unjustifiable violence against Iraqis possibly confirms.

I don't think left/right issues are that relevant to 911 skepticism. Anyone may be victim to the delusion that our rulers can't be common criminals of the worst kind.

Does your political stance allow you accept the historical existence of 'false flag" events, or, even, that the "historic" Saddam statue toppling, for example, was simply a staged PR event?

The indecisive truther is the only remaining species left in the TM. They are a close evolutionary cousin of the JAQoff truther. Scientists think they branched off sometime in 2005 after a certain population of JAQoff truthers were unable to cope with the NIST report. Truther selection took its course and evolved the now infamous indecisive truthers. They think they might be truthers, but they're just not sure.

Neither 911 Truthers nor 911'sTruers have conclusive evidence to support their theories. In a situation where vital evidence has been destroyed and no effective independent investigation has been permitted what grounds does anyone have to be 100% decisive about how 911 happened?

 

[GStan]

<snip>
Their model was a best guess based on preconceived assumptions.
<snip>

You have no idea what you are talking about. That's what scientists do. They use historical observations of known physics and engineering standards to build assumptions into a model. Unless there are zero variables that must be qualified, it is in fact, a best guess.

On the other hand, the unquestionably illogical and unscientific 911 deniers choose the worst guess, based on their own uninformed preconceived assumptions.

 

[JihadJane]

You have no idea what you are talking about. That's what scientists do. They use historical observations of known physics and engineering standards to build assumptions into a model. Unless there are zero variables that must be qualified, it is in fact, a best guess.

On the other hand, the unquestionably illogical and unscientific 911 deniers choose the worst guess, based on their own uninformed preconceived assumptions.

I'm not criticising the scientific method. I'm pointing out that NIST's conclusions are just possibilities.

 

[~enigma~]

Neither 911 Truthers nor 911'sTruers have conclusive evidence to support their theories. In a situation where vital evidence has been destroyed and no effective independent investigation has been permitted what grounds does anyone have to be 100% decisive about how 911 happened?

Ah...now it is clear. You are a Charlie Brown truther (wishy-washy, always vacillating, afraid to make a decision, no courage) instead of a JAQoff truther.

Is this what you wear instead of a black shirt?

 

[funk de fino]

The haphazard examination of steel (which didn't happen at Fresh Kills but at scrap yards) was mostly carried out by a small team of volunteers who struggled against the speed of the desposal process.

Wrong, see my earlier post.

Hello thug boy. Give up the headmistress charade and I'll respond to your posts

Blatant dodge. I was giving you information. I gave you facts which prove your claims wrong. You cannot argue with my point so you avoid it.

 

[GStan]

<snip>
Neither 911 Truthers nor 911'sTruers have conclusive evidence to support their theories. In a situation where vital evidence has been destroyed and no effective independent investigation has been permitted what grounds does anyone have to be 100% decisive about how 911 happened?

You are operating under some rather warped standards of evidence and evaluation of evidence. All of the available evidence points to the terrorists as the most likely perpetrators. No evidence has been put forth to suggest any other perpetrators. However, because all of the available evidence is not "conclusive" to the point of being "100% decisive", the truthers have convinced themselves that theories having zero evidence somehow remain on equal footing with the prevailing theory that is supported by all of the available evidence.

a: "What was the score of the game?"
b: "99 to nothing"
a: "Wow your team is terrible, and that other team must be really good!"
b: "Actually, no, since neither team made it to 100, we can't determine which team is better."

 

[GStan]

I'm not criticising the scientific method. I'm pointing out that NIST's conclusions are just possibilities.

Correct. And rational people accept the best possible explanation for events, not the worst. When new evidence is presented that changes what the best possible explanation is, rational people accept the new best possible explanation. No new evidence has been presented by those who deny the current best possible explanation.