"24 hard facts about 9/11 that cannot be debunked"

[ozeco41]

The truth is never inconvenient to a genuine truth-seeker....

True enough BUT we are now in 2013 not 2006-7-8. Back then many - probably most - of the truth seekers were genuine and would accept reasoned arguments. That is not what we see now in 2013.

Without arguing what proportion of currently active truth movement members are "genuine truth-seeker" versus what proportion are not genuine......it is simple fact that we see untrue statements made by members of the truth movement.

One aspect of that untruth relevant to your current query is the meme that "free-fall means CD not 'natural collapse'". That statement is false. Basic physics. Arguments that assume "free-fall" == "CD" are false arguments.

The associated issue of "over G" acceleration - usually claiming that there cannot be "over G" in a "natural collapse" is also false. That also a matter of basic physics albeit it requires understanding of free body explanations and those are notoriously difficult for many folk to comprehend. Therefore it is doubly hard for people who are physics illiterate to comprehend.

Now if we have a "genuine truth-seeker" asking questions they should and, in 2006-8-9, usually did accept reasoned explanations of the physics. So reality is of no concern to those members of the truth movement. But currently the active membership of the truth movement seems balanced more to those who are not genuine truth-seekers.

Which answers your final question:

...Why exactly would you feel this fact would be inconvenient to the "truth movement" ?

It wouldn't be "inconvenient" to genuine truth seekers. But it will discomfort those who are not genuine and want to rely on false memes about "free fall == CD" or "cannot have 'over G' acceleration" OR any related false premises.

 

[ArchStanton]

Apparently the OP listing the 24 alleged "hard facts" has been "auto moderated" for breaching rule 4 - thou shalt not copy and paste.

I'm not sure exactly what I was supposed to do there, since my post count is too low to post links. The board settings don't exactly make it easy for newcomers. :-/

 

[thedopefishlives]

Apparently the OP listing the 24 alleged "hard facts" has been "auto moderated" for breaching rule 4 - thou shalt not copy and paste.

I'm not sure exactly what I was supposed to do there, since my post count is too low to post links. The board settings don't exactly make it easy for newcomers. :-/

Post a summary, then post the link with spaces added (or something). One of the members with link-posting privileges will helpfully fix it for you.

 

[TJM]

Apparently the OP listing the 24 alleged "hard facts" has been "auto moderated" for breaching rule 4 - thou shalt not copy and paste.

I'm not sure exactly what I was supposed to do there, since my post count is too low to post links. The board settings don't exactly make it easy for newcomers. :-/

This one?

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/18/24-hard-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be-debunked/

If you want to up your post count, go over to community or humor and post in few threads. You'll have full privileges in no time.

 

[ArchStanton]

This one?
*link*

That's the one, thanks.

 

[Miragememories]

"18) The 911 commission was given extremely limited funds.

$15 million was given to investigate 9/11.

(Over $60 Million was spent investigating Clintons’ affairs with Monica)."

"This is a lie by omission. The "9/11 Commission" was only one small part of the investigation. "Truthers" really don't like truth.

The total investigation cost over shadows the "BJ" investigation by orders of magnitude."

So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

 

[DGM]

So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

Absolutely not. Do you believe we spent $60 Million on the Monica Lewinsky investigation?

Do you also think this a fair representation as to what was spent on 9/11 investigations? Ever hear of the FBI or NIST?

 

[dafydd]

So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

What's it like being a member of a moribund movement?

 

[beachnut]

So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

What does the 911 Commission have to do with 24 idiotic lies made up by nuts on the internet? The 911 truth movement has spent zero dollars looking up zero evidence and making zero difference. Save my typing practice.

You make a post of BS to support 2 hard facts? lol, you got nothing, and that sums up the 911 truth movement.

How much did the FBI investigation cost? The political investigation, you want the political one, or the criminal one?

Too bad the overwhelming evidence you have is fantasy.

Where is your 60 million come from?
The FBI, 911 commission, NIST, FEMA, NTSB, and more agencies were involved in investigating 911. Your 15 million is bogus, you left out all the rest.

You can't supply facts

 

[jaydeehess]

So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

False comparison. The 9/11 Commission was one aspect of the investigation of the events of 9/11. There was also a FEMA report and of course the compendium of reports created by the NIST. The 9/11 Commission report is also the least technical of the three, involving mostly a review of history leading up to 9/11 as well as a fairly detailed description of the events of the day.
Ask yourself this; why did the author of this list of 24 issues ignore the budgets of all gov't sponsored investigations dealing with 9/11? Surely he/she knows of the existence of the FEMA and NIST reports.

 

[The Big Dog]

So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

MM: Protip, you might want to read the thread before you come out swinging given that statement was a lie has already been explained.

So.... yeah, thanks for posting.

/I'm baffled why truthers don't get royally pissed off when idiotic lists that contain easily explained lies are published.

 

[Dog Town]

Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

Did you even read the thread, before posting in it? Sheeesh!

 

[Mark F]

Welcome to the forum Arch. I can debunk every one of the 24. Every single one of those 24 fails the "So what?" test.

They are all claims without demonstrated "relevance" - unless they are shown to be both true and relevant they are pointless speculation. By relevance I mean "If the fact is true what does it change about 9/11 explanations and how does it effect those explanations."

So #1 is defeated on grounds of relevance. BUT sadly from my perspective most members here wont accept that simple fact. They enjoy the detailed technical arguments and don't like simple facts which pre-empt the need for technical discussion. "They" (both sides ) want to be convinced whether the claim for thermXte in dust is true or false.

No matter how many times we point out that it is irrelevant most people won't get the message and will merrily go pursuing the truth in the details which is precisely where the truthers want to keep the debate. And going round in circles.

For the record, I use the "so what" argument all the time now. It is so much more relaxing then endless games of whack-a-mole.

 

[Spindrift]

So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

Sure. Planes crashing into buildings that were videotaped is a lot easier to prove than a blowjob by an intern.

 

[catsmate]

Both those obsessions on the same level to this English born Aussie.

Footballs are spherical and the game played with bat and ball has the initial letter "C"

Only girls play camogie.

T
Also, the planes they were struck by were both larger than the ones he had said they had been tested with, and didn't even exist when the towers were finished.

And moving much faster.

 

[Mark F]

False comparison. The 9/11 Commission was one aspect of the investigation of the events of 9/11. There was also a FEMA report and of course the compendium of reports created by the NIST. The 9/11 Commission report is also the least technical of the three, involving mostly a review of history leading up to 9/11 as well as a fairly detailed description of the events of the day.
Ask yourself this; why did the author of this list of 24 issues ignore the budgets of all gov't sponsored investigations dealing with 9/11? Surely he/she knows of the existence of the FEMA and NIST reports.

Don't forget the FBI.

 

[jaydeehess]

The truth is never inconvenient to a genuine truth-seeker.

Do you have a link to where this evidence that the 7WTC tower collapse exhibited
"greater than free fall speed acceleration "
is noted and documented ?

Why exactly would you feel this fact would be inconvenient to the "truth movement" ?

Since the references to the documentation have been posted already , I'll address your final question.
Its quite simple really, in straight line vertical fall nothing can achieve greater than free fall. The documentation of such then indicates one of two things
- directed additional force such as rocket motors driving the structure down and mounted on the roof or exterior walls( and if you ask why they have to be mounted on the exterior you will illustrate something about yourself)
- a rotational effect, I.e. not straight line vertical motion, is involved and thus any attempt to relate this acceleration to straight line vertical acceleration is irrational and incorrect. But this slightly greater than basic high school physics is inconvenient and thus is ignored.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'll go further with the speculation that free fall=CD.
Since the only case study of acceleration of a collapsing building is 7WTC, and no study has ever been done to determine under what conditions FFA or greater will be observed at locations of the structure, in a 2d rendering of the event, in a structural collapse, the premise is without any substantiation other than the erroneous application of high school physics principles.

Clear now, fonebone?

 

[ozeco41]

For the record, I use the "so what" argument all the time now. It is so much more relaxing then endless games of whack-a-mole.

Precisely.

However the reality is than many of our debunkers enjoy "whack-a-mole"

And often the mole that gets whacked is a phantom mole. For the cognoscenti the thread "Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth" provided many examples. Look in the vicinity of those posts of mine which referred to something as being "bleedingly obvious". Most of them were associated with the whacking of phantom moles.

In fact most of Tony's contributions automatically set the scene for whacking of non-existent moles. Explanation available if required - it arises from his SOP of setting false premises or a false starting point for his "arguments".

One example is the mole whack of using geometry to show that tilt would prevent axial contact of columns. If you have tilt it is too late for axial contact. Therefore that is a phantom mole. Despite it having been whacked many times - it isn't there There's no point whacking at the space where it isn't....if I'm not pushing the metaphor too far...

HOWEVER mole whacking can be fun even when it is redundant and as a thread/forum activity it at least one grade higher than "Feeding The Trolls"

 

[ozeco41]

Its quite simple really, in straight line vertical fall nothing can achieve greater than free fall.

Maybe...
You have some implied limits on what is falling and what falling is. (Excuse the word play. )

I stand you vertically in a closed box. The box height set so that your feet are on the bottom and your head is in contact with the top. I put a tennis ball in your right hand and close the box.

Then I drop the box + you + tennis ball off a high building with you and box upright.

To occupy yourself during the journey you throw the tennis ball down onto the floor/bottom of the box.

What is the acceleration of the tennis ball:
a) Before you move your arm;
b) As your arm/hand moves downwards to throw it? AND
c) Immediately after release before it bounces off the bottom of the box?

Get that lot under the belt and understanding "Over G" possibilities at WTC7 is only one extra step.