What do we have to do to gain credibility? I am about to quit.

reply to post by Pathos


In regards to the twin towers, Sir Isaac Newton's Three Laws of Motion are sufficient to prove the official story flat out false.

While I feel that one should be comfortable and confident enough to not have to justify their personal beliefs to the world, if we wish to move beyond belief and into genuine credibility, what would be necessary in my opinion would be:

*A move away from embracing theories as facts, and toward trying to get a new, unbiased, impartial, objective investigation of whatever the particular issue may be - 9/11, JFK, the Air Force's UFO involvement, etc. etc. etc. - conducted by rigorous scientific standards. The daunting thing about this for many is that so many people have such emotion and passion invested in the whole idea of this movement, that they may have difficulty stepping aside and letting professionals or experienced academics do the heavy lifting. I'm not being elitist, here. There's always room for lay-research, but if real, widespread credibility in the eyes of the world is what one seeks (and I'm not for or against that personally,) rather than merely personal growth or theorizing (neither of which are unworthy pursuits by ANY means,) then letting scientists and distinguished academics do the real fact-finding - provided they can be found to be impartial and un-paid for (that kind of vetting is a role we can still play, perhaps) - is necessary in my view.

* An end to in-fighting over specific conspiracy theories, interpretations, or political ideologies, instead forcing ourselves to humbly consider, if not always accept, whatever apparent facts arise from the aforementioned investigation.

* An end to profiteering by opportunists preying upon the aforementioned movement. Whether one feels that any particular individual is guilty of this or not, these predators do exist.

That's my opinion.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Pathos

 

In regards to the twin towers, Sir Isaac Newton's Three Laws of Motion are sufficient to prove the official story flat out false.

What is your thesis? What part of Issac Newton's theory is being contradicted by how the towers fall? Can you point to a specific gravitational contradiction, which the towers had defied the laws of gravity? What is your credibility pertaining to physics?

How about 1000 professional engineers and architects on record, along with an unrebuttable paper outlining in detail, the physical impossibility of the official story of the destruciton of the twin towers..? Would that be credible enough?

Hang tight, we're almost there.

To the above poster, we're talking about resistence and the law of conservation of momentum. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence. There was no resistence encountered as the top of those buildings blew up, the fountain of debris cascading to the ground, to within mere seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air alone, huge steel beams ejected 100's of feet from the perimeter of the buildings.

The paper I'm referring to is in the works, and we'll soon have over 1000 professional architects and engineers on the record.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
How about a 1000 professional engineers and architects on record, along with an unrebuttable paper outlining the physical impossibility of the official story of the destruciton of thw twin towers..? Would that be credible enough?

Where is this evidence?

Credible evidence would not come from amateurs, but from someone who was physically there and has a degree in physics. Do you have this?

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Pathos]

Regarding the Citgo and Doubletree videos: Meh. I have seen better and more convincing UFO footage!

To the OP: go ahead and give up for a while. Let some time pass. I think you'll be surprised at how soon your conscience will remind you that a great wrong has been committed. That something must be said. That something must be investigated fully. Maybe the time away from the idea will reward you with "the IDEA" that we have all been searching for.

We didn't have digital video on 11/23/1963. We couldn't communicate via internet. We had a different mentality also. Someone, something will come forth to tip the balance this time. I share your frustration, and I am still confident.

reply to post by Pathos


All that's needed are the videos and the immutable laws of physics.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Pathos

 

All that's needed are the videos and the immutable laws of physics.

Untrue. How was the building created? Was there a flaw in the creation and stability of the building before the collapse? Did the age of the building degrade the integral structure, which it was originally built upon? Was there a gas heating system? Did all the elements caused by the initial plane crash create a large enough fire (jet fuel, damaged columns, etc), which ultimately melted or degrade the integrity of the structure?

All of these questions and more need to be answered.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
To the above poster, we're talking about resistence and the law of conservation of momentum. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence. There was no resistence encountered as the top of those buildings blew up, the fountain of debris cascading to the ground, to within mere seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air alone, huge steel beams ejected 100's of feet from the perimeter of the buildings.

According to the news videos and clips, the top section of the building was too heavy. As a result of the top floors' weight, they came down upon the remaining structure.

Lets take a look:
www.youtube.com...

If you look at the above video, the top section of the buildings were intact. In between the bottom structure and top, the impact of the planes caused structural damage. The above levels fell according to the laws of gravity. Top section was heavier than where the plane crashed.

What do we have to do to gain credibility?
You have to remove all doubt. See post above. No one takes those logistics into consideration when talking about these buildings. Instead of considering other more logical possibilities, that could contribute to their collapse, truthers jump to the convenient conclusion that a conspiracy occurred. Without the answers to those questions (and others like them), there is no way these conspiracy "theories" could be proven as fact.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Pathos]

There was a continual momentem, at near free fall speed, all the way to the ground.

Also, many first hand accounts of explosions throughout the buildings, at variing times and places in the building.

Explosions, and the buildings basically exploded and disintegrated, to within a few seconds of absolute free fall. How can you fail to understand this, and why would you defend the official story in the face of the facts? Strange..

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Also, many first hand accounts of explosions throughout the buildings at variing times and places in the building.

Could it be a gas heating system being ignited?

Don't you think a building like that would have certain elements built into it, which would be combustible when ignited? (Fire extinguishers, gas heating, gas water heating system, computer screens, etc...) Its all combustible.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
How can you fail to understand this, and why would you defend the official story in the face of the facts? Strange..

You are not presenting facts. You are presenting assumptions.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by Pathos

Don't you think a building like that would have certain elements built into it, which would be combustible when ignited? (Fire extinguishers, gas heating, gas water heating system, etc...) Its all combustible.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Pathos]

You are the one presenting assumptions. The quote above is entirely assumptions. OmegaPoint is presenting the basic laws of physics.

Originally posted by woodles
You are the one presenting assumptions. The quote above is entirely assumptions. OmegaPoint is presenting the basic laws of physics.

I am not presenting assumptions. I am presenting logical questions.

FYI - We already progressed past his first analysis.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Pathos]

reply to post by Pathos


Watch this for starters. And while SOME of the reports could be as you say, that does NOT account for them all, particularly those reported eminating from the sub basements and those encountered by firefighters in other areas as well.

Google Video Link

Credibility isn't the issue. The majority of Americans just don't care. As long as they have their I-phones, HDTVS, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Your fighting ignorance and apathy. Personally, as a taxpaying citizen, I find it appalling that a sophisticated defense system that we as citizens paid for failed so miserably. Criminals will get away with what you let them. The American people are happy in their comfort zone. I'd love to see indictments handed down and the responsible parties held accountable. I won't be holding my breath.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


I don't so much care about that (indictments) as I do that children in the future can learn something more congruent with reality, than Rudy Ghouliani's version of it.

reply to post by Pathos


In the case of both towers, even if the mass of the top section (in the case of the North tower a much much shorter section) remained within the perimeter of the building (although it appears that most of the weight was offloaded in fact via the cascading fountain of debris ejected throughout the 13 second duration of destruction), even then, that top section cannot "crush" the remaining length of structure at nearly the rate of FREE FALL, as if it's not even there. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and an object in motion will only remain in uniform motion and momentum unless ACTED UPON BY A FORCE OF RESISTENCE. In other words the entire remaining length of structure is going to offer a much greater degree of resistence, than AIR!

What you and the official story are asking us to believe isn't based in the real world, which is governed by the immutable laws of physics.

Indictments require stronger evidence than conspiracy theories, circumstantial coincidences, or widely disputed science papers of questionable origin. I'm not saying that's what they are. That's what the general public thinks they are, though. So what we can do, is at least attempt to educate the general public about the possibilities, without presenting them as facts. Make the public curious. Make them want to know more. When we present these conspiracy theories (which have yet to be proved, regardless of what I personally believe myself) as factual realities without credible evidence that the average member of the public can accept or get interested by, we just come off sounding like we're crazy or paranoid.

That's not what I think - please don't misunderstand me - but it's what they think, and it's probably what certain people want them to think (in my opinion.) The only way to fight that is with education, but that education has to be impartial, skeptical, academic, scientific, and based on substantial, irrefutable evidence, in order for it to be deemed credible by the mainstream population.

For every conspiracy theory so far, there is an at least somewhat plausible debunk. For every piece of evidence that looks like a nail in the coffin of the official story, there are academics and scientists with public credibility disputing or dismissing them. I'm not saying they're right, but if credibility is what you want for the truth movement, then it requires credible enough evidence to wrest people away from their apathy. Apathy endures not because the average citizen is intellectually lazy (that's elitism in my opinion,) but because they have not seen convincing enough evidence yet. Just because it isn't convincing to them doesn't mean they're brain dead or lazy.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Unfortunately history is written by the winners. Never underestimate the short attention span of the American people. When I broach the subject of 9/11 it's old news. Now it's healthcare and the economy. 6 months from now it will be something else.