Why did the 9-11 Truth Movement fail?

[beachnut]

Sounds pretty simple. Why, then, did the FBI, " At the peak of the case," require "more than half [their] agents" to identify the hijackers and their sponsors"?



I wonder if you have any curiosity as to how a covert military/intelligence operation might realistically be organised.



How do you know that the "obstruction of investigation surrounding the whole thing has nothing to do with MIHOP"?



I doubt such public admissions would have any effect whatsoever on the likelihood of a properly empowered, independent investigation ever taking place!

You start by asserting what are legitimate area of inquiry. This is largely how content of the 911 Commission Report was controlled. No-one needs to be "threatened / bought into silence"; they just do what is legitimate.

Why do 911 investigations need to start with their conclusions?

This is why 9/11 truth does not understand 9/11, they want conspiracy theory, they need conspiracy theory to maintain their bias for that which they fail to reveal.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
So then are you saying that you discount the idea of MIHOP ...

As was said many times, had the TM stayed with what is now termed a LIHOP senario ...Instead political motivations caused some to bring forward all manner of purely idiotic ideas such as thermite, thermobaric weapons, nukes, energy beams, faked planes, faked FDR's, planted debris and DNA and thus your movement became an irrelevent fringe group that most who contemplate its tenets consider loony (for lack of a more consise word coming to mind).

It's not my movement.

Fine, then the loose collection of persons who identify themselves as being a part of the 911 Truth Movement. You do identify yourself with that loose grouping do you not?

I’ve never understood the distinction between MIHOP nad LIHOP. If one let’s something happen on purpose one has made it happen on purpose.The rest is detail.

I do not know who first coined the phrases but MIHOP refers to the collection of contentions that have the destruction on 9/11/01 caused primarily not by the aircraft (in some senarios not at all) but by other means set in place by a rougue element of the gov't, or NWO, or Israel.

LIHOP refers to the destruction having been the result of aircraft being hijacked by suicide bent fanatics who flew them into the buildings, but that the gov't knew this was going to occur and did nothing to stop it(perhaps even actively supressing investigations into it).

In between is the idea that the destruction was indeed caused by the aircraft but that the hijackings were faked (remote control) and that the organization known as Al Qada is actually a CIA front.

Your focus on ”purely idiotic ideas” is instructive.

Then do you agree with me that "thermite, thermobaric weapons, nukes, energy beams, faked planes, faked FDR's, planted debris and DNA " are all purely idiotic ideas?

I was referring to “investigations” that were almost completely detached from concrete, physical reality and depended , instead, on abstracted, malleable, computer simulations

.
Do you agree then that what you wanted would have been more along the lines of you reconstructing the entire structures several times and setting them ablaze with different starting conditions such as the amount of impact damage, fuel load, rubblization etc.

I've never claimed that "the hundreds of people who contributed to the studies" were coerced. Can you name these “hundreds”, by the way, and their roles?

They are listed in the NIST reports. I have not personally verified if all of them exist or what specific parts of the reports they wotked on. I am not disputing that they are and did. If youy are then it is encumbent upon you to prove the assertion.
If you grant that the people listed all did in fact contribute to the reports then you are asserting that they are allowing their work to be included in a report that many of them would be able to immediatly see does not support the conclusions contained within in the reports.

Looks good until one remembers that the hijackers were named within days of the attacks, that the "crime scenes" were not treated as crime scenes, and that we are frequently told that another attack on the US “Homeland” by al Qaeda is inevitable.

I find no problem with the naming of the hijackers within days.
I have never disputed that the GWB administration took advantage of the attacks to push their own political agenda.

 

[Baylor]

JJ - Why do 911 investigations need to start with their conclusions?

They didn't. Abu Jandal identified the hijackers to one of the few Arabic-speaking FBI Agents Ali Soufan.

What's the mystery?

 

[Greg44]

The movement has not failed at all, it just takes time for people to see through the lies sometimes.Their programming is so ingrained; it's understandable, and it's always the way on primitive planets. Some see mirrors in public toilets as a place to spruce up, I see a place to put a sticker about the 911 lies. So next time a business man is looking at the man in the mirror, he can have something else to think about besides his receding hairline. Wondrous works yes, but nothing without time.

History will judge us as the 911 patience movement, for when the world is READY to face up to the truth about 911, we will be there with open arms and hearts saying : "Welcome Brother/Sister, welcome home. It's time to rest, you have been fighting for so long, you must be tired." We won't be saying "Told you so!! Told you so!!" like a group of infants, for this has never been about being right for us, it's always only been about the Truth. Sure, perhaps there are some in our movement who are with us as a gamble, but I'm sure they are few in number.

 

[Brainache]

The movement has not failed at all, it just takes time for people to see through the lies sometimes.Their programming is so ingrained; it's understandable, and it's always the way on primitive planets. Some see mirrors in public toilets as a place to spruce up, I see a place to put a sticker about the 911 lies. So next time a business man is looking at the man in the mirror, he can have something else to think about besides his receding hairline. Wondrous works yes, but nothing without time.

History will judge us as the 911 patience movement, for when the world is READY to face up to the truth about 911, we will be there with open arms and hearts saying : "Welcome Brother/Sister, welcome home. It's time to rest, you have been fighting for so long, you must be tired." We won't be saying "Told you so!! Told you so!!" like a group of infants, for this has never been about being right for us, it's always only been about the Truth. Sure, perhaps there are some in our movement who are with us as a gamble, but I'm sure they are few in number.

Welcome Greg44.
Unfortunately for you the events of 9/11 are not a matter of faith. People won't ever understand the issues of geo-politics or structural engineering etc by some kind of divine revelation.

The truth about 9/11 has already been revealed by the largest investigation in US history. That was by the FBI.

All you have left of your fantasy movement is a few hard core nutcases and a couple of conmen selling them rubbish.

Good luck with that.

 

[JihadJane]

They didn't. Abu Jandal identified the hijackers to one of the few Arabic-speaking FBI Agents Ali Soufan.

What's the mystery?

How does this rule out State or Shadow State complicity?

Fine, then the loose collection of persons who identify themselves as being a part of the 911 Truth Movement. You do identify yourself with that loose grouping do you not?

No, I don't. I am an unaffiliated skeptic.

In between is the idea that the destruction was indeed caused by the aircraft but that the hijackings were faked (remote control) and that the organization known as Al Qada is actually a CIA front.

IMO, there are many more possible shades of grey than this.

Then do you agree with me that "thermite, thermobaric weapons, nukes, energy beams, faked planes, faked FDR's, planted debris and DNA " are all purely idiotic ideas?

Those are your words. I don't even know what "faked FDR's" are. Physical evidence is easy to manipulate and/or destroy. With nearly all of the physical evidence comprehensively destroyed we are never likely to know the truth about the WTC demolitions.

Do you agree then that what you wanted would have been more along the lines of you reconstructing the entire structures several times and setting them ablaze with different starting conditions such as the amount of impact damage, fuel load, rubblization etc.

You appear to be taking a similar approach, here, to your your focus on "purely idiotic ideas" above. If debunkers arguments are so strong why do they need to be supported by such crudely manipulative debate techniques?

Only parts of a structure the size of the Twin Towers or WTC7 would need to be reconstructed to provide a wealth of real-world data.

If you grant that the people listed all did in fact contribute to the reports then you are asserting that they are allowing their work to be included in a report that many of them would be able to immediately see does not support the conclusions contained within in the reports.

It is child's play to write an internally consistent report based on computer simulations. Fiction writers also know how to create an internally consistent world out of nothing. There's no reason why NIST researchers would have to use deceit to fabricate their hypothetical scenarios.

Welcome Greg44.
Unfortunately for you the events of 9/11 are not a matter of faith. People won't ever understand the issues of geo-politics or structural engineering etc by some kind of divine revelation.

The truth about 9/11 has already been revealed by the largest investigation in US history. That was by the FBI.

All you have left of your fantasy movement is a few hard core nutcases and a couple of conmen selling them rubbish.

Good luck with that.

Why do think being the "largest investigation in US history" should guarantee that it should be the most comprehensive investigation in history or that it would reveal information against the FBI's interests to reveal or, indeed, investigate certain areas at all?

The FBI narrowly escaped being broken up after 911 because it showed itself to be bit of a useless organisation as far as investigating terrorism was concerned!

 

[funk de fino]

It fails because of posts like the one above

Contradictions galore

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This'll be one of my rare responses to you. Your response caught my attention....

Those are your words. I don't even know what "faked FDR's" are. Physical evidence is easy to manipulate and/or destroy. With nearly all of the physical evidence comprehensively destroyed we are never likely to know the truth about the WTC demolitions.

I'm confused now about your position. Didn't you claim at one time that controlled demolition was a distraction from the real problems at hand? Did your position change?

You appear to be taking a similar approach, here, to your your focus on "purely idiotic ideas" above. If debunkers arguments are so strong why do they need to be supported by such crudely manipulative debate techniques?

Again, this is contradictory in of itself. In standing by the demolition theory -- as your post suggests to be aligning with -- aren't you yourself trying to support your arguments through the use of crudely gathered evidence? I had to ask this same question of the truth movement, or in your case, people whom align some of their positions with those that the TM push. If their case was sound I would see no need whatsoever for them to manipulate material to present as evidence. From a design standpoint, controlled demolition of the towers is an absurdity...

Only parts of a structure the size of the Twin Towers or WTC7 would need to be reconstructed to provide a wealth of real-world data.

How big of a section? How much do you scale the building in order to gauge its response as a system? If possible, is it a feasible option monetarily? ARe large enough facilities available?

Same goes for small-scale modeling; there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response. What would you define as a valid measure for this?

It is child's play to write an internally consistent report based on computer simulations. Fiction writers also know how to create an internally consistent world out of nothing. There's no reason why NIST researchers would have to use deceit to fabricate their hypothetical scenarios.

Certainly it is possible to manipulate, but the question you have not answered is did they? Speculation is not sufficiently convincing, particularly granted that my position is not originally derived from having read the NIST report. What did they manipulate and how did it affect the results they presented on the report? What evidence do you possess that they in fact made modifications to the models without highlighting in the report?

I'll offer the benefit of the doubt, but your response does have several contradictions from positions you've shared in the past

 

[~enigma~]

Why did the truth movement faill? They don't have opposable thumbs...

 

[tsig]

Why did the truth movement faill? They don't have opposable thumbs...

They let the Truth blind them to the facts.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Fine, then the loose collection of persons who identify themselves as being a part of the 911 Truth Movement. You do identify yourself with that loose grouping do you not?

No, I don't. I am an unaffiliated skeptic.

Who believes that the truth about how the events of 911 came about and in which then you agree with at least a significant proportion of the contentions of the 'other' 911TM.

Quote:

In between is the idea that the destruction was indeed caused by the aircraft but that the hijackings were faked (remote control) and that the organization known as Al Qada is actually a CIA front.

IMO, there are many more possible shades of grey than this.

So you actualy have no favorites.............?

Quote:
Then do you agree with me that "thermite, thermobaric weapons, nukes, energy beams, faked planes, faked FDR's, planted debris and DNA " are all purely idiotic ideas?

Those are your words. I don't even know what "faked FDR's" are. Physical evidence is easy to manipulate and/or destroy. With nearly all of the physical evidence comprehensively destroyed we are never likely to know the truth about the WTC demolitions.

You just stated above that you do not wish to be counted among the 911TM members. I was relating some of the more 'out there' ideas from their ranks. will you or will you not count some of them out as simply so far in the realm of fantasy as to be worthy of the term "purely idiotic"?

Quote:
Do you agree then that what you wanted would have been more along the lines of you reconstructing the entire structures several times and setting them ablaze with different starting conditions such as the amount of impact damage, fuel load, rubblization etc.

You appear to be taking a similar approach, here, to your your focus on "purely idiotic ideas" above. If debunkers arguments are so strong why do they need to be supported by such crudely manipulative debate techniques?
Only parts of a structure the size of the Twin Towers or WTC7 would need to be reconstructed to provide a wealth of real-world data.

The destrcution in the towers took place over approx ten floors in each tower. OK, only 'part' of the towers would need to be replicated, ten floors with a loading above them to simulate the mass above the fire/impact floors and a connecting mechanism to simulate the effect of the hat truss. This would have to be replicated several times for each tower with differing impact damages, fire senarios and mass loadings.
Is that what you wanted NIST to do or can you agree that this would be rather prohibative and that computer FEA simulations would be a better route to follow?

If you grant that the people listed all did in fact contribute to the reports then you are asserting that they are allowing their work to be included in a report that many of them would be able to immediately see does not support the conclusions contained within in the reports.

It is child's play to write an internally consistent report based on computer simulations. Fiction writers also know how to create an internally consistent world out of nothing. There's no reason why NIST researchers would have to use deceit to fabricate their hypothetical scenarios.!

Actually science fiction writers(let's face it if this technical paper is an internally consistent fiction than it more akin to a sci-fi than Lucy Maude Montgomery) make use of completely fabricated science in order to acheive internal consistency. You certainly cannot be stating that NIST did this. In fact NIST did an excellent job of docuementing its use of known physics and engineering principles, something that is sorely lacking in the persons who believe something other than what NIST concluded.

 

[jaydeehess]

I don't even know what "faked FDR's" are.

You don't keep up much with the contentions of those who, like you, do not believe that the events and destruction that took place on Sept 11./01 occured as we have been told, do you?

An FDR is a Flight Data Recorder and it is the contention of several of persons of like mind as you, that the FDR's that were found from Flight 77 (the Pentagon crash) and Flight 93 (the one that crashed near Shankesville, Penn.) were faked by persons unknown.

I have not read too much of your posting on these forums so I am unfamiliar with exactly what you do and do not feel is true about that day. I am now trying to get you to inform me and other readers but the attempt is much like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.

You remind me somewhat of metamars. You both seem to have a political stance and decide what you do and do not believe in accordance to the dictates of that political stance. In metamars' case its from a right wing conservative fringe world view.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why did the 9-11 Truth Movement fail?

But it didn't. You're still posting.

 

[beachnut]

9/11 truth failed because they have no clue what is going on and prove it in their posts and statements. Evidence free, 7 years and forever more.
They just talk, and say it was an inside job, and prove it by repeating this lie over and over. Plus they take massive action like this:

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But it didn't. You're still posting.

Tends to be negated when people get off the computer. I found out about the conspiracy theories on the internet after 6 and half years. I've met one person who believed in video fakery, one person who did not understand the collapse mechanisms of the towers, and one who thinks Cheney ordered flight 93 to be shot down yet believes the towers collapsed due to the planes impacts and that the planes were nevertheless hijacked to do so.

Not one of the three believes in any one particular conspiracy pointing to government orchestration of the attacks despite having conspiracy aligned opinions with very select "anomalies". Neither of the three participates in the TM.

I have to go online to find any appreciable noise about it, and then the claims I read about are more often than not absurd. Dead movement? I'm reluctant to say dead; conspiracy theories tend not to die once they're sparked. Successful? Depends on what you define as success. But if sparking a coalition of people as far as the eye can see in most major cities to cry out against a tyrannical mass murderer is one of those goals, there's been very little -- and in some cases -- negative progress.

 

[eromitlab]

The movement has not failed at all, it just takes time for people to see through the lies sometimes.Their programming is so ingrained; it's understandable, and it's always the way on primitive planets. Some see mirrors in public toilets as a place to spruce up, I see a place to put a sticker about the 911 lies. So next time a business man is looking at the man in the mirror, he can have something else to think about besides his receding hairline. Wondrous works yes, but nothing without time.

History will judge us as the 911 patience movement, for when the world is READY to face up to the truth about 911, we will be there with open arms and hearts saying : "Welcome Brother/Sister, welcome home. It's time to rest, you have been fighting for so long, you must be tired." We won't be saying "Told you so!! Told you so!!" like a group of infants, for this has never been about being right for us, it's always only been about the Truth. Sure, perhaps there are some in our movement who are with us as a gamble, but I'm sure they are few in number.

Ah, the old "people [are scared of/aren't ready for] the truth" play to explain away an ideology in decline and deliberately ignorant of anything that would prove it false. Yeah, however long it takes, troof will out!

 

[JihadJane]

I'm confused now about your position. Didn't you claim at one time that controlled demolition was a distraction from the real problems at hand? Did your position change?

I used the word "demolition" to cover all proffered options including controlled demolition, being blown up, demolition by aircraft/fire, demolition by Dick Cheney’s advanced yogic breathing techniques or any combinations thereof. I am not "standing by the demolition theory", though I don't dismiss it either. Sorry for any confusion.

How big of a section? How much do you scale the building in order to gauge its response as a system? If possible, is it a feasible option monetarily? ARe large enough facilities available?

Same goes for small-scale modeling; there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response. What would you define as a valid measure for this?

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.

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.

Certainly it is possible to manipulate, but the question you have not answered is did they? Speculation is not sufficiently convincing, particularly granted that my position is not originally derived from having read the NIST report. What did they manipulate and how did it affect the results they presented on the report? What evidence do you possess that they in fact made modifications to the models without highlighting in the report?

I'll offer the benefit of the doubt, but your response does have several contradictions from positions you've shared in the past

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.

So you actualy have no favorites.............?

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.

You just stated above that you do not wish to be counted among the 911TM members.

I was relating some of the more 'out there' ideas from their ranks. will you or will you not count some of them out as simply so far in the realm of fantasy as to be worthy of the term "purely idiotic"?

Not for your benefit, no!

The destrcution in the towers took place over approx ten floors in each tower.

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".

...This would have to be replicated several times for each tower with differing impact damages, fire senarios and mass loadings.
Is that what you wanted NIST to do or can you agree that this would be rather prohibative and that computer FEA simulations would be a better route to follow?

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

Actually science fiction writers(let's face it if this technical paper is an internally consistent fiction than it more akin to a sci-fi than Lucy Maude Montgomery) make use of completely fabricated science in order to acheive internal consistency. You certainly cannot be stating that NIST did this. In fact NIST did an excellent job of docuementing its use of known physics and engineering principles, something that is sorely lacking in the persons who believe something other than what NIST concluded.

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.

You don't keep up much with the contentions of those who, like you, do not believe that the events and destruction that took place on Sept 11./01 occured as we have been told, do you?

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.

I have not read too much of your posting on these forums so I am unfamiliar with exactly what you do and do not feel is true about that day. I am now trying to get you to inform me and other readers but the attempt is much like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.

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".

You remind me somewhat of metamars.

Flattery will get you nowhere!

You both seem to have a political stance and decide what you do and do not believe in accordance to the dictates of that political stance. In metamars' case its from a right wing conservative fringe world view.

Are you claiming not to have a political stance?

 

[~enigma~]

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.

Because an investigation wasn't handled the way you would like you accuse the government (or whoever) of an inside job? Reasonably intelligent people do not expect everything to go their way, those are the actions of spoiled children. Reasonably intelligent people also grasp the simple physics that the collapse was driven by gravity, truthers lack opposable thumbs so their not grasping the collapse is understandable.

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".

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? Please explain why this is a trick of NIST and explain what power on earth could have arrested the collapse after a mere half second of the upper section falling freely? Also, it might be beneficial to you to calculate the forces generated by the top chunk of the WTC AFTER the first .5 second of the collapse and then modify your answer to account for the data. Until you can do that, you are just filling the role of a truther marionette that has her strings controlled by the truth movement.[/quote]

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.

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

 

[T.A.M.]

The movement has not failed at all, it just takes time for people to see through the lies sometimes.Their programming is so ingrained; it's understandable, and it's always the way on primitive planets. Some see mirrors in public toilets as a place to spruce up, I see a place to put a sticker about the 911 lies. So next time a business man is looking at the man in the mirror, he can have something else to think about besides his receding hairline. Wondrous works yes, but nothing without time.

History will judge us as the 911 patience movement, for when the world is READY to face up to the truth about 911, we will be there with open arms and hearts saying : "Welcome Brother/Sister, welcome home. It's time to rest, you have been fighting for so long, you must be tired." We won't be saying "Told you so!! Told you so!!" like a group of infants, for this has never been about being right for us, it's always only been about the Truth. Sure, perhaps there are some in our movement who are with us as a gamble, but I'm sure they are few in number.

OMG...you had me spitting up my orange juice.

1. Given you feel so superior, and you consider EARTH a primitive planet, what planet do you hail from? (this will be good)

2. So you believe in invading other peoples private moments, stomping on their right to think about what they want, when they want, with your own corrupt, paranoid delusions? Nice.

3. As for your expectations of how you will approach the "non believers" when they finally "see the light" (you are right you will have to have a heavenly amount of patience for that day to arrive), I think you should look at some of the leaders in the truth movement, like Kevin Barrett who has asked for the Debunkers and other "non believers" to "Hang from the Gallows". SO much for open arms, eh?

4. Your "movement" is far from it. You do nothing to promote your cause, you gather no significant numbers of followers/supporters, you have no set of believes, but rather are all about "what ifs" and "that is peculiar" and "just asking questions. If you are a "movement" you are the most pathetic one I have ever seen. Seven years sitting on evidence that the USG helped orchestrated 9/11 and what have you done about it Hero???

TAM

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip
I am not "standing by the demolition theory", though I don't dismiss it either.
Snip
Yours is the same trick that NIST played - not bothereing to examine or explain the behaviour of the Towers after "collapse initiation".
Snip

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.