5 Reasons the 9/11 "Truth Movement" Will Ultimately Fail

Originally posted by spacevisitor
[Because there is no doubt in my mind that they have already take their precautions, they have already created enormous state of the art underground facilities for surviving that kind of disasters for a very long time.

See? Here is another problem with the "Truther" side. You know you are right, never mind any proof.

Sure there are underground facilities to keep the government working, they have been around since the start of the cold war. How is that proof or even evidence of a 9/11 coverup?

When one side is convinced they are correct, it is very hard to have a discussion. Provide me compelling, irrefutable evidence to support your contentions and maybe you can convince more people. Give me specific, verifiable proof of your belief. Untill then, that's all it is.... a belief.

I thought this single piece of evidence would have been enough to shred the official story into pieces

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

If not? Please provide a reason..

reply to post by pavil


Of course you won't debate it. The same as ANY official story believer will not debate it.

To debate the physics of 9/11 is fighting an uphill battle.

Sure, the towers could have come down quickly based on the mass of the upper 20+ floors. However, they would NEVER have come down at near the rate of freefall. I don't care HOW MUCH mass came toppling down at once, they would have still met with the resistance of the bottom 80 or so floors, thus, slowing dramatically.

If you want hard numbers, feel free to spend a month on physics911 and you will find all the numbers you need.

However, you are so closed off to the idea of 9/11 being an inside job, it doesn't matter how many numbers you read. You will NEVER believe it.


Jasn

reply to post by unknown_one


If that was such great proof, why has it not convinced more people? It's a simple question to ask yourself.

How much energy was released with the falling of WTC 1 and 2? Could you calculate that first before going to the themate/mite conclusion. I think you will be surprised by the amount of energy. Where did that energy go?

Can you provide one piece of detonating cord or timers that was found in the WTC rubble? Again I will ask for the 4th time in various threads, how many charges did it take, where were they located. How did they place them, how long did it take to place them? How many beams do you have evidence of with the slice mark we see all the time in the one photo of the WTC, which was taken after removal was taking place, not right after the collapse.

Yes it was very hot in the debris fields of the WTC. Have you examined all the possibilities as to why? That's all I am asking.

reply to post by SimiusDei


Why do you think I haven't been to physics911? I consider all information in making my judgements. You still haven't provided the info I requested. Please do so if you want to continue this discussion. Don't "point me in the right direction" spoonfeed it to me if you must, but first answer my questions.

I'm not being a jerk, I have just been down this route before, nothing new here and I'd rather not waste time discussing things that I have discussed previously.

Bring something new to the table as it is obvious the "proofs" you have submitted have not gotten the public's interest. You need to do better.

reply to post by pavil


How are we to know what we may have found in the rubble? No independent examination of the evidence was allowed.


In regards to you wanting "numbers", as you put it, here are a few since I'm sure you didn't look into the site I recommended.

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

Read the rest here.




As far as your question about why more people won't believe the evidence, I refer you back to my OP.

Fear and the American publics undying devotion to the mainstream media.

Can you name ONE TIME that you have seen a fair and honest account of the physics of 9/11 on the news?

However, they do love to throw the tin-hat theories out to make sure that too many people don't associate themselves with the "movement".


Jasn

reply to post by SimiusDei


Ok, let try this again.

According to you, at what height on the WTC's did the collaspe start? Name a floor.

reply to post by pavil


Actually, I "need" do nothing. I have already stated that the 9/11 truth movement will fail. Unfortunately, when that happens, the greatest crime in our country's history will have been pulled off without anyone being held accountable.

Believe what you want to believe, that is all you are doing anyway.

Sure, you may have been over this time and time again, however, you haven't gone over it with me one time, so what do your previous attempts at refuting the unrefutable matter to me?

You can attack the no planers all you want. You can argue about flight 93 until you are blue in the face. As a matter of fact, MOST of the case supplied by the 9/11 truth movement is VERY fragile.

However, the physics cannot be touched.



Jasn

Your assumption is based on the building collapse starting at the very
top (110 th floor) - actual collapse started about the 95th floor in
North Tower, 80th floor in South. Top 30/40 floors collapses down on
remainder of building. As the mass of the upper floors smashes into
the floors underneath creates shock waves which pulse through the
building structure. Shock waves dislodge pieces of building ahead of the
main collapse - aluminium cladding and some of the spandrel beams
which compose exterior structure. This is why see pieces of building far
in front of the main debris cloud .

reply to post by pavil


Hmmm…. are you concerned with what society thinks or finding the truth?

You forgot wtc 7. but however to even suggest that during the collapse, the conversion of kinetic energy could have produced enough heat to metal steel….. well it takes a special person

No, during a murder trail a body might not be presented but the culprit is still convicted.

Would it make the official story any more valid or invalid if I gave a blue print of where the explosives were set or how long it took?

reply to post by thedman


Even with that being the case, the rate the towers fell is still unexplainable without throwing in the factor of them having help on the way down.

The resistance the top portion of the tower should have met from the bottom portion should have been great enough to slow the descent down considerably. However, if you will watch the videos, you will see almost zero resistance from the bottom floors. The towers never so much as BRIEFLY hesitate in the descent.


Also, tower 7, which was not struck by a plane and therefore had no jet fuel burning inside of it, shows this exact same defiance of physics in it's collapse. It takes the tower just .5 seconds longer than freefall in a vacuum to collapse completely into it's footprint.

That is, simply put, impossible without "help".



Jasn

Originally posted by SimiusDei
reply to post by thedman

 

Even with that being the case, the rate the towers fell is still unexplainable without throwing in the factor of them having help on the way down.

The resistance the top portion of the tower should have met from the bottom portion should have been great enough to slow the descent down considerably. However, if you will watch the videos, you will see almost zero resistance from the bottom floors. The towers never so much as BRIEFLY hesitate in the descent.


Also, tower 7, which was not struck by a plane and therefore had no jet fuel burning inside of it, shows this exact same defiance of physics in it's collapse. It takes the tower just .5 seconds longer than freefall in a vacuum to collapse completely into it's footprint.

That is, simply put, impossible without "help".



Jasn

Could you show us in engineering terms something to back this claim up? I have yet to see anyone prove that the towers should have somehow collapsed in slow motion. Yet it gets claimed over and over. I think it's only fair to provide some actual data to prove this claim, don't you?

The bottom portion should have slowed down the top considerably? says who? Let's see the calculations proving that. Anyone can simply say that, but doesn't make it true. If it's impossible, show us. You wouldn't be making it up now would you?

Originally posted by SimiusDei

That is, simply put, impossible without "help".
Jasn

There had to have been helped. I have to agree.
What would have had enough energy to cause the damage to vehicles in the area? A majority of these cars had there tires disintegrated leaving just the steel belts, some cars and trucks had engines blocks melted etc. No one has explained what caused this to occur yet, that I'm aware of.
I don't bother with 911 to much anymore, it's all just re-hashing over and over.
One day the truth will be known, probably not in our life times though


[edit on 4/11/2007 by Sauron]

reply to post by snoopy


See, this is EXACTLY why the truth movement will ultimately fail.

Take this post for instance, I have already given the testimony of a physicist to support what I am saying and he wants answers in "engineering" terms (whatever that means).

There is PLENTY of supportive evidence for the "truthers'" hypothesis that 9/11 was an inside job, yet, it doesn't matter because everytime you put a piece of information in front of them, they just keep screaming "MORE, MORE, MORE!!!".

If you don't want to accept it, fine, don't accept it. However, when you guys ask for some supportive evidence, actually ACCEPT the evidence that's handed to you OR refute it.


Jasn


EDIT TO ADD:

"The bottom portion should have slowed down the top considerably? says who?"

A: The laws of physics.

If you'd like to try a VERY simpl experiment that you can't POSSIBLY mess up; First, get a stopwatch. Then get any object that has a bit of weight to it (enough to easily tear through a sheet of paper if dropped on it), and a sheet of construction paper.


Secure the paper, on either side, to a supportive structure where the paper is basically bridged between the two supports.

Then, drop the object from a specific height and time how long it takes to hit the ground.

Then, drop the same object from the same height,but, this time through the sheet of paper, and time it again.

There WILL be a noticeable difference (in percentages) of the time it took the object to hit the ground.

Why? Because the paper provides resistance to the object, thus, slowing it down.

Now, if you are capable, imagine how much resistance several thousand tons of steel and concrete SHOULD offer.


The towers fell at nearly the same speed a ball dropped from the top would have falling when meeting absolutely NO resistance. So, YOU tell me how the MUCH LARGER bottom section of the building offered ZERO resistance to the MUCH SMALLER top section?

If you are still having trouble, and assuming you are still in school, ask your physics professor to explain to you what a falling object meeting resistance means.....he will fail you for asking such a question, but, you may learn something.



[edit on 4-11-2007 by SimiusDei]

I'm just going to leave my 2 cents real quick..

It's a damn shame the burden of proof has been left on us.

The truth is, our hard-earned tax dollars
bought us a half-assed investigation.
There's a quote floating around these boards, something like,
"I don't pay taxes to buy lies."

The only ones who will fail, are the ones
who don't think it should be reinvestigated.
The ones who are satisfied with what was fed to them.

If it was investigated properly, there wouldn't
be so many damn questions surrounding 9-11.

edit to add-
If it was investigated properly, there certainly wouldn't be a dedicated
'9/11 Conspiracy Theories' forum here on ATS with 3,682 threads, and
105,806 posts and counting..


[edit on 11/4/07 by aecreate]

I believe some guy came up with this law awhile back which states, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.".

Can't seem to recall his name.

In other words, if you push on something that something pushes back equally.


/sarcasm


Even though the top portion of the towers had gravity on their side, there is absolutely no physical explanation for how the bottom portion offered no resistance EXCEPT that the bottom portion was blown out PRIOR to contact.



Jasn

reply to post by aecreate


I second that.

The Truth movement already failed 6 years ago. It failed when it let Guilliani destroy and cover-up evidence on 9/11 and the weeks following there-after.
Where was the District Attorney of NYC? Why wasn't ground Zero taped off as a Crime Scene?

Maybe if everyone wasn't thinking "Nuke all of Iraq Now! Mr. Bush, please!,how dare they knock down our Towers!!" just like they wanted, we woulda seen what was going on behind the curtain -- A new Pearl Harbor, yes?

The truth never had a chance to begin with on this one. Just like with the JFK assasination.

The fat cats are smoking cigars high on their thrones, laughing at us, as we argue over whether there were planes or not that actually hit the building.

I bet they're all saying to eachother, wholly cow this was easier than I thought, they're so stupid they can't even realize 2 planes smashed into the buildings, har har har. Those fools are gonna catch us?

They're so consumed by it, they can't see a controlled demolition when it happens 3 times in front of their face in one day. One even announce 30 minutes early(those cheeky Brits, good one!), and then Silverstein (that crazy guy, I tell ya he's whacky!), even went on TV and said Let's "Pull it", oh man, my my side hurts I'm laughing so hard.

But really it's not our fault, there's not much we can do when your living under a Dictatorship "Police State" really. Say the wrong thing, you'll have a bad accident soon after.

Not much we can do at this point but bend over and take it. Or leave.

Me I'm gonna pack my crap, I'm not living in a Fascist Dictorship run by an elite group of Free-Mason, Illuminati, Zionist, Nazi wanna be's... call em whatever you will.

Damn voting don't even matter anymore. Might as well burn the constitution.

So don't feel bad the "truth movement" failed. IT NEVER HAD A CHANCE.

Best thing you can do, in my opinion, is forget it, and get out of this country before the Mushroom clouds start popping up all over the place.

It is failing because its greatest strength has become its greatest weakness.

The NET.

Plain and simple, 9.11 has become one big talking point. A lot of talk and discussion. To much discussion. I am guilty of it as many others are, but that is the nature of the beast.

Also, look at what we have to deal with. People running around destroying any credibility by proclaiming that there wasn't PLANES on 9/11. The strength of what we have is now working against us.

Its a double edged sword.

reply to post by Sauron


your avatar is cool, but it's the witch king, not sauron