Consensus 9/11: The truth movement ignores their best shot

[ozeco41]

Consensus panel is a joke... all of the people who are in the project are truthers!

Of course! But my point is that they are truthers that try to make things right. They are truthers that have realized that their hypotheses can't be taken seriously when there are so many contradictions, and they try to reach a consensus in order to offer a base that can be relied on and agreed by everyone, so they can be taken seriously.

Agreed that the attempt for a common agreed position is a positive move. Sadly they lost much momentum because they went for "Highest Common Factor" of what they could agree on. Without addressing and resolving any of their differences. That tactic automatically weakens the strength of the consensus.

Another more recent attempt to gain consensus is the D Chandler - W Coste led attack on "Pentagon no-planers". A serious attempt to resolve an internal fight in AE911 which they have taken into the wider context of 9/11 debate. That one also has interesting possibilities. My first cynical reaction was 'Now that Chandler has "outed" himself as being capable of following scientific method - does that leave him exposed to challenge on the false technical claims which have been the foundation of his rise to truther prominence'.

 

[ozeco41]

And quite aside from all that stuff, anyone who has ever personally witnessed (and I mean actually at the event, not on TV or Youtube) the CD of a high rise building will see that it is exactly NOTHING like the way any of the WTC collapses happened. The explosives are detonated in a very obvious sequence so that the building collapses down on itself. I have stood half a mile from a building that was brought down with CD... the sequence of explosions was very obvious and the noise of those explosions was very loud.

Agreed. Back in the days of more active debate I often speculated that I would like to take members - both "sides" - onto a demolition range and let off a few samples of Det Cord and HE. Once heard never forgotten. I've never seen a civilian demolition where "Controlled" was the big factor... but same noises.

 

[LSSBB]

Agreed. Back in the days of more active debate I often speculated that I would like to take members - both "sides" - onto a demolition range and let off a few samples of Det Cord and HE. Once heard never forgotten. I've never seen a civilian demolition where "Controlled" was the big factor... but same noises.

This, and the lack of "thermite" bright light, are the 800 lb gorillas Truthers studiously avoid, because it is the showstopper for them. If it wasn't fire, well it might have been aliens, because there is none of the audiovisual evidence necessary for CD.

 

[pgimeno]

I've never seen a demolition. But I live in Valencia, province where the mascletà^WP is very popular (mostly in March), which means I know what over 120 dB of continued explosions that are just 20 or 30 metres away sound like, and how it feels to have your guts vibrate and the ground tremble from the explosions.

I'm not sure I know what a HE sounds like. Wikipedia cites "light firecrackers" as examples of LEs, but I'm not sure if the masclets can be considered as 'light' in that context. 130 dB must be quite more impressive.

 

[JSanderO]

One cannot forget about the time delay between sound and light/visual when observed from a distance as little as 5 blocks away... sounds come a second after what you see and it's very hard to use sound to make sense of the visual. Video taken from a half mile away would have to sync the sound track.

Ear witness testimony is pretty unreliable as it relates to the sounds coming from the towers that day.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I have a relevant question about the thread title.

Do the 9/11 Troofers actually have any "best shot" at all with which to go with or ignore?

 

[ozeco41]

This, and the lack of "thermite" bright light, are the 800 lb gorillas Truthers studiously avoid, because it is the showstopper for them. If it wasn't fire, well it might have been aliens, because there is none of the audiovisual evidence necessary for CD.

Yes.

Then - we often get so involved in meeting the "Reversed Burden of DISproof" - that we forget the underlying bit of reality:
The physics is definite - no need for help from any form of "CD". (Or to be even more pedantic - from "D" )

... so we focus on disproving explosives or thermXte when no truther has ever "proved" either was used. No truther has even proved that any CD help was needed - which has to be step one. Alternately stated as "falsify the extant hypothesis - fire and impact damge was enough without needing help".

 

[JSanderO]

Yes.

Then - we often get so involved in meeting the "Reversed Burden of DISproof" - that we forget the underlying bit of reality:
The physics is definite - no need for help from any form of "CD". (Or to be even more pedantic - from "D" )

... so we focus on disproving explosives or thermXte when no truther has ever "proved" either was used. No truther has even proved that any CD help was needed - which has to be step one. Alternately stated as "falsify the extant hypothesis - fire and impact damge was enough without needing help".

Their thinking has been clear. It begins with the false premise that steel high rise buildings cannot collapse without someone doing things to them to make the collapse.... an engineered demolition. They falsely reason that since we don't see them collapsing from fire... it can never happen.

The twins did not collapse when the planes hit them and as fire can't do it... then they had to have been engineered destruction.

++++

Presenting a detailed engineered destruction is likely the same level of complexity of engineering computation as reverse engineering the collapse... something that ridicule NIST for.

Most engineered destruction use gravity and to do that they sequentially destroy axial load paths low in the building. Twins were top down collapses which Truthers dismiss out of hand as impossible... the little block can destroy the bigger one.

7wtc was larger than any tower taken down with a CD. The columns low down were much more mass and the amount of explosives etc. would have to be very large... and the explosions seen and definitely heard. They weren't.

So truthers came up with silent ThermXte... which would cut the steel and destroy axial load paths. This is conceivable. But the signs of the cuts would have left some tell tale signs in the steel debris.... such as diagonal cuts. Jones was caught lying about a column showing a diagonal cut which was made during the clean up. No other steel from 7wtc shows anything like a diagonal cut column.

It may been possible to cause the massive transfers to fail with the use of engineered devices. Truthers didn't bother to present an engineered destruction of the transfers.

And of course the placement of these destruction devices would take days and weeks and there are no reports of they being placed.

Grasping at straws.

++++

The formal truth movement is really about making money marking false narratives... a cottage industry for Gage and a few "authors"... who understand that cults can generate revenue. As HL Mencken said:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

 

[pgimeno]

I have a relevant question about the thread title.

Do the 9/11 Troofers actually have any "best shot" at all with which to go with or ignore?

It depends on their goal, I guess. If their goal is to prove that the government did it, then no. But if they keep refining their claims and shifting their goal until they stay with what is actually proved, something can come out of that; for example, they could establish that there was some negligence and the culprits should pay for it (if they are still alive).

They don't seem to be able to let go, unfortunately. The closest thing they are doing is trying to blame NIST for their errors. But even if they conclusively proved there were errors in the "probable collapse sequence" and NIST were shown to be negligent, that wouldn't need to have any consequences. Something that NIST did definitively right, was to document how the exceptional circumstances of the events of that day were crucial to the end results; for example, how the plane impacts were necessary for the collapses of the TTs to happen, or how their collapses left the sprinklers in the lower floors of WTC7 without water. Since these exceptional circumstances are not expected to be repeated, there was actually little or no need to change building codes, which is the only major consequence that NIST's reports could and did have, and what was expected from NIST by normal people. Even then, NIST was conservative and emitted some recommendations regarding building codes, and there was no prejudice in emitting them.

That's why the attacks to NIST by truthers are meaningless: they lack perspective. Proving NIST wrong doesn't do anything to advance towards a new investigation, because NIST's most relevant results were not the simulation that they are attacking.

Sorry for the digression. Since it's unlikely that their focus will ever shift out of their fantastic view, the most probable answer is no.

 

[Axxman300]

The NIST WTC7 report can be debated honestly among professionals, and it has been debated here on this board by guys who know what they're talking about. As a layman the debate seems to focus on if a beam "walked off"and if that was enough to bring it down as it did. That's a long way from global collapse and nano-non-existent-thermite and nobody with any serious knowledge entertains this nincompoopery.

Remember that the NIST WTC7 - WAS - the new investigation and Truthers got their panties in a wad because the findings didn't include whatever their relative mental illnesses allow them to believe.

As for the Truther's best remaining shot?

There could be a final, definitive answer about the FBI and CIA's colossal failures at the key management points.

There could be an honest discussion of shortcuts made during construction of the Twin Towers and WTC7 that NIST not-so-subtly hints at in its recommendations.

There could be honest discussions about why the Air National Guard and USAF launched interceptor fighters which were unarmed leaving the pilots with the only option of ramming hijacked jet liners, and how badly our national defense abilities had degraded under the Clinton Administration.

There could be MORE discussion about how NYC under Rudy Giuliani short-changed FDNY and the NYPD SDU with crappy radio communications equipment that would have saved lives on 9-11.

Maybe we could take a painfully honest look at how US Customs and INS was forced to bend over backwards to allow Saudi nationals and visitors from Middle Eastern oil-producing states into the country at will, with no accountability for staying past their visa expiration dates.

See, there is a lot of "Truth" surrounding the events of 9-11-2001 that has yet to see the light of day. The problem is that Truthers don't think it's sexy, there's no Bush/Chimpy/Cheney/Right-Wing War Mongering CT at the root.

 

[The Common Potato]

pgimeno, do you think any of these claims are good evidence? If so, which one(s) and why?

LEARN TO READ.

Sorry, being a bit abrupt, there.

 

[pgimeno]

As for the Truther's best remaining shot?

[snipped a very good "top five" list of the real unsolved issues of 9/11]

See, there is a lot of "Truth" surrounding the events of 9-11-2001 that has yet to see the light of day. The problem is that Truthers don't think it's sexy, there's no Bush/Chimpy/Cheney/Right-Wing War Mongering CT at the root.

Yes, exactly this. For some reason I imagine the Consensus 9/11 panel or some similar truther organization coming to the conclusion that these kinds of issues are the only ones they really have good evidence for, and exposing them.

I realize I'm dreaming too much, but still I try. I created this thread because, when the topic of the truther objectives was raised by tanabear in another thread, I really wanted to make the truthers who read this forum reflect on how misguided their embracing of AE911Truth is, as Gage's strategy purely consists of marketing without any real claims to offer, and just to cry "we want a new investigation" instead of working on offering real evidence in order to show the rest of the world that they have a case. They're not going anywhere with that strategy, and the analysis in the thread "When will the AE911 petition finally reach juggernaut strength of 1%?" suggests that they won't in future either.

It appears that they see their dreamed new investigation as the be-all end-all of the evidence discovery. That's a fantasy; the world doesn't work that way. They need to take action, investigate themselves and reach points of common agreement, and use that to expose their case to the relevant authorities. Personally I don't know of anyone in the truther world other than the Consensus 9/11 panel doing that, and that's why I tried to point them in that direction as an example of what they should be doing, instead of promoting fake simulations and suggesting silent explosives.

I hope I've invited some of them to reflect.

 

[bknight]

I've never seen a demolition. But I live in Valencia, province where the mascletà^WP is very popular (mostly in March), which means I know what over 120 dB of continued explosions that are just 20 or 30 metres away sound like, and how it feels to have your guts vibrate and the ground tremble from the explosions.

I'm not sure I know what a HE sounds like. Wikipedia cites "light firecrackers" as examples of LEs, but I'm not sure if the masclets can be considered as 'light' in that context. 130 dB must be quite more impressive.

The closer you are the more impressive. I have watched many a YT video of the WTC disaster and have yet to hear any HE explosions prior to and during the collapse. I have been in Vegas when they brought down the old Aladdin and they were load from maybe a 1/4 mile away.

 

[Hellbound]

The closer you are the more impressive. I have watched many a YT video of the WTC disaster and have yet to hear any HE explosions prior to and during the collapse. I have been in Vegas when they brought down the old Aladdin and they were load from maybe a 1/4 mile away.

This. And I pretty much gave up on arguing explosion sounds a long time ago.

I was trained as a combat engineer in the Army, so a large part of that training was learning how to rapidly turn large things into lots of small, high-velocity things. Including practical examples. And there's not much that sounds like HE in the collapse.

Most people get their idea of an explosion from movies (which tend to use gasoline deflagrations more than actual detonations, because they're slower and flashier) and similar. An actual HE explosion tends to be VERY quick: a bang, not a rumble. There's usually little flame involved (unless it's set on something like a gasoline tank or similar)...it's the concussion and fragmentation that do the most damage.

But it's really hard to describe it in words.

Actually, one of the best examples for a large HE explosion is the early mythbusters episode where they blow up the cement truck. If you watch that, when it goes off, there's not any of the slow expansion and bright fireball you see in movies. There's a loud bang and a dust cloud that seems to appear instantaneously, and that's it.

 

[bknight]

This. And I pretty much gave up on arguing explosion sounds a long time ago.

I was trained as a combat engineer in the Army, so a large part of that training was learning how to rapidly turn large things into lots of small, high-velocity things. Including practical examples. And there's not much that sounds like HE in the collapse.

Most people get their idea of an explosion from movies (which tend to use gasoline deflagrations more than actual detonations, because they're slower and flashier) and similar. An actual HE explosion tends to be VERY quick: a bang, not a rumble. There's usually little flame involved (unless it's set on something like a gasoline tank or similar)...it's the concussion and fragmentation that do the most damage.

But it's really hard to describe it in words.

Actually, one of the best examples for a large HE explosion is the early mythbusters episode where they blow up the cement truck. If you watch that, when it goes off, there's not any of the slow expansion and bright fireball you see in movies. There's a loud bang and a dust cloud that seems to appear instantaneously, and that's it.

Field artillery here and yes those explosions are nothing like the movies.

 

[Fonebone]

See, Fonebone, that's your "evidence". Many truthers will agree with some of your points, and disagree on others.
[snip]

No. I mean booms immediately preceding the collapse.
Have you ever paid attention to when the building falls in demolitions?
It actually begins to fall right after the explosives cut the columns, as a

direct effect of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCPVNLLo-mI

[excerpt]
HUGE EXPLOSION !! DEBRIS RAINING DOWN ON ALL of US. !!![/excerpt]

NJ Burkett , ABC News reporter on live TV as WTC2 exploded and collapsed in the background.

 

[Oystein]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCPVNLLo-mI

[excerpt]
HUGE EXPLOSION !! DEBRIS RAINING DOWN ON ALL of US. !!![/excerpt]

NJ Burkett , ABC News reporter on live TV as WTC2 exploded and collapsed in the background.

And ... your argument and conclusion now is ... what?
Can you spell out, in a short string of full grammatical English sentences, what you mean to say?

 

[Fonebone]

Uhhh, perhaps they had to cut some of the columns out of the wreckage?

Agreed - While the firemen and rescue teams were frantically searching for survivors,
including their missing comrades, other teams of welders and rescue workers risked their lives
using every type of cutting and welding tools available to cut away steel into the three smoking
and burning WTC towers interiors to explore. I'm pointing out columns were cut at an angle.

the video I linked to exactly how explosive cutting charges are placed and
the reasons for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSYtUyKf0U


All you have to do is click the link and pay attention.

 

[Oystein]

Great. Fonebone discovered that they demolished the remaining structure in the weeks and months after the attacks.

You are about 17 years behind most of us - but welcome anyway

 

[beachnut]

now pay attention...

... I'm pointing out columns were cut at an angle.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/36381534bcf3b8e733.jpg[/qimg]
the video I linked to exactly how explosive cutting charges are placed and
the reasons for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSYtUyKf0U

All you have to do is click the link and pay attention.

You have never chopped down trees? "Pay Attention", playing the irony card, as you failed to pay attention for 18 years.

What is your point? Why would the clean up crews not cut at an angle, for some of the same reasons CD charges use an angle? Clean up is also controlled demotion using torches. You have no point.

"They" cut the steel columns at an angle after 9/11 (during clean up, there are photos), you missed the boat of massive rational evidence, again.