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

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

You must mean nearly 1/2 free fall speed. If you are going put it near something, it's closer to 50% free fall than it is to 100. The buildings actually fell at some where between 60% and 70% of gravitational acceleration. That means that 30 to 40% of the buildings' vast kinetic energy potential was used up in their destruction.

Free fall in air would be about 10 seconds or so. Buildings went down in anywhere from 12 to 14 seconds, so to within a mere couple seconds or a few seconds of absolute free fall, all the while ejecting this fountain-like cascade of debris, all the way to the ground, without any loss of momentum.

The OCT (official conspiracy theory) as to what happened there I like to call "The Foot of God Hypothesis".

This post I made in another thread illustrates the point I'm trying to make here.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Originally posted by rogerstigers
A little digging got me this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/078735889fb727a7.jpg[/atsimg]

The real question is, how did all that implode and explode and go from top to bottom to within mere seconds of absolute FREE FALL in nothing but air..? with all the material blowing out in a plume of exploding debris, some firing large pieces of steel into the adjacent American express building and into the Winter Garden Atrium five hundred feet away - all the way to the ground WITHOUT ANY LOSS OF MOMENTUM???

Absent the use of explosives severing everything beneath the descending debris wave, that is..

[edit on 10-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Sir Isaac Newton's Three Laws of Motion

www.grc.nasa.gov...

Another interesting aspect, is that the North Tower was impacted around the 95 floor (of 110), and yet precisely the same phenomenon occured, again, all the way to the ground, without any loss of momentum. Absent explosives, that is impossible.

Regarding the North Tower, here's a little graphic which further illustrates the point



And so, since the second case, is through nothing but air, or in short, nothing at all, it is ONLY within the DIFFERENCE (mere seconds) wherein every "breakage" would have to occur, throughout the remaining length of structure and that would be probably as fast or faster than the speed of sound, or in short ALL AT ONCE. This is absurd.

Here is yet another way of looking at it

Case 1: Free-fall time of a billiard ball dropped from the roof of WTC1, in a vacuum:


Case 2: Progressive free fall in ten-floor intervals:


Case 3: Progressive free fall in one-floor intervals


And in those cases, that is operating on the basis of floors being suspended in mid air, with no columnar support structure at all, such that the next fall time commences at the point of impact, like a series of dominos suspended in mid air one above the other.

Videos of destruction

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 10-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Yet this site claims to mathematically debunk freefall speed collapse of the towers.

www.debunking911.com...

How are laypersons with no mathematical insight and who aren't physicists supposed to choose who to believe when everyone is telling them two different things? Please don't mistake what I'm saying. I am not stating that the towers did not collapse at freefall speeds. I am not stating that controlled demolition did not bring the buildings down.

What I'm stating is that in order for credibility to be achieved (which is what this thread is about - not which conspiracy theory may or may not be accurate and correct,) then the general public is going to require pursuasive, irrefutable evidence, without credible detraction.

How do we achieve that? That's the question. And in my opinion, to do that, we need to question whether the conspiracy theory we are trying to prove in the first place is fundamentally sound or not. It is possible for us to be as close minded to other explanations as we say those who don't believe in conspiracy theories are. We are not immune to self-delusion.

I don't know what happened that day. Until I do, and until I can prove it, what I believe isn't going to be credible to anyone. And neither is anything else.

I may get banned for this but so what.

Tommorrow" eight years later and the real truth still remains unanswered.

# that.

we demand the truth , the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

# you

no truth, no consessions

truth now, forgivenss

more lies, more pressure

choose

reply to post by AceWombat04


I've asked the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, in collaboration with Physicists, to produce a paper, a paper which will invite a scientific debunk, but one which will not be possible, withint the framework of the laws of physics.

And they are almost up to 1000 professional members now. How's ThAT for "credibility".

But in actuality, as I've demontrated, it's self evident. You don't need experts to think it through for you, to draw the conclusion that the buildings were blown up, from the top down, yes, initated at around the impact area.

OmegaPoint, I believe the journalof911studies.com are working in collaboration with the A&E for 911, correct? There is plenty of credible evidence listed within their websites for anyone willing to take a look.

I read part of the Popular Mechanics (old?) link "debunking" the debunkers. They state that Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F) the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
----still not the 2750 to melt steel, yet there are pictures, videos, and eye witness accounts showing/stating there was melted steel! That's not made up, not opinion.

I'm also quite certain that there is a paper within the 911 studies showing how the "pancaking theory" could not have happened based on the structure of the building. No, I'm not an engineer, but I've been reading plenty of research done by engineers. There are too many things that are not adding up.

reply to post by ladyjo


A final unequivocal paper, published in a respected peer reviewed mazagine, based on the line of reasoning I've offered in this thread has YET to be produced, and I'll keep emailing Gage at A&E4T until it is. You see, the HEIGHT of the building, and free fall, when compared with actual fall times, along with things like stress deformation, momentum, energies, the math, etc etc, all of this could be combined in a single paper, which no scientist in the world would be able to possibly debunk, and their attempts to do so would only highlight the truth of the matter, and then they too would join in the struggle to get the truth to the world.

Well, I think these two papers seem quite thorough and indisputable.

The author of the first work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.

journalof911studies.com...

And another:
www.gordonssite.com...

This may be off-topic so forgive me. I could be wrong but wasn't the actual crime scene itself tampered with thus making independent and official investigations near to impossible. And what became of this evidence. Much credibility could be gained from the wreckage of the building itself. I may be wrong and if so please let me know. Thanks.

Originally posted by gandhi
First off, stop treating this like it is ruining your "credibility" because when it comes down to it, your credibility does not exist. you do. this isen't some spiritual nut job saying this, this is fact. if you believe what other people say affect you, go ahead. enjoy the plunder. but if you realize it does not matter, then enjoy the up rising.


I for one, am not pleased people still think like this. i may just leave ATS due to you all damaging my "credibility"

This may be the best advice I've ever seen given on ATS. The problem is that credibility is lost when you choose a "theory" over seeking the truth. That's why many of us have held Alex Jones in disdain (along with others on both sides of the argument) for far longer than his recent transgressions would point to.

YOU have no credibility - nor does your argument - unless FACTS support the argument you are presenting. If FACTS diminish the argument you are presenting - then you still haven't lost credibility...just the argument you were presenting has.

Marrying a theory is the best way to kill your "credibility"....period.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


I sincerely hope you succeed in your solicitations. That would constitute the kind of unequivocal proof that the general public, in my opinion, needs in order to sway it.

As you said, you and I may not need experts to paint the picture, but a lot of people do. That's what this thread is about. Credibility in the eyes of those who don't find it credible already, not those of us who believe already that it is.

Originally posted by Pathos

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]

Physically there???? " I' sorry Doctor Einstien but since you were not physically traveling out in space I have to conclude that your theory of relativity is simply not credible "- I hope you see the utter absurdity of your statement...

And there are quite a number of degreed engineers who have come forward with serious questions about collapse of the towers but apparently you have not availed yourself of this information -

Physicists? not aware of any at the moment but perhaps someone else has info and could speak to this point....

One thing I do know - it wasn't the Iraqis who brought down the towers yet hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lie in their graves as a tribute to the "official story" of 9/11...my understanding is that the main group of alleged highjackers were Saudi nationals - but Saudi Arabia is intact, untouched and still have their hand in the American till.....gee, go figure Nope no story there - move along - don't question - keep your hand down your pants and your eye on American Idol...

[edit on 10-9-2009 by realshanti]

reply to post by Valhall


See my post, posted at 7:11 above. Thank you. It's not a theory, because we still have the videos of the actual occurance of destruction.

Along with the many first hand eye witness accounts

Google Video Link

But it's still "incredible", the lie so great, so abominable, and so self evident. Sometimes I have a hard time fathoming how self evident it actually IS. That in and of itself strains credulity, the sheer arrogance of the presentation of such a ruse (plane impacts as a fake causal mechanism of destruction). It's the nature of the "Big Lie" and the fact that most people cannot fathom such an evil, and such a monstrous lie, and act, perpetrated in broad daylight, before the watching world, which is precisely what makes it so very hard to swallow, but facts are facts and reality, reality.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Valhall

 

See my post, posted at 7:11 above. Thank you. It's not a theory, because we still have the videos of the actual occurance of destruction.

*shakes head and walks off*

whatever

I just want to clairfy some of my position, perhaps I was not clear enough in my OP.

When I say "credibility" I mean what we all take it to mean. Trustworthy, believable etc.

I believe we all remember what John Donne wrote:

No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.


-- John Donne

We are involved in this and whether we like it or not, to some degree ridiculous theories left unchecked and allowed to fester, including our own inability to correct our mistakes does indeed affect THE MOVEMENT.

Whether we like it or not, people like Alex Jones do respresent a large part of the "PERCEPTION" out there. I don't like it. But that is really the reality.


I am willing to admit my errors, I am willing to engage open minded skeptics, and I am willing to embrace ideas that are different then my own, but obviously something within the Truth Movement has gone off the rails.

Look where we stand today as of 2009? Have we moved beyond a "talking point?"

Have we moved beyond endless speculation and argumentative circles on the Net?

No, we haven't. Myself included. Something has to happen to help gain credibility. The closest thing was the Scientific Tests recently done by Steven Jones/Harrit , however the Open Journal has some questionable things that have surfaced that tarnish the paper. Now, I believe the results myself, but that is not good enough for the masses.

Do you see my point?



[edit on 10-9-2009 by talisman]

Soon enough we'll see a whole plethora of papers getting published by architects, engineers and physicists, as the roster of A&E4T surpasses 1000 and they begin to collaborate together more intensely.

With sufficient funding, it will become possible to get presentations out to the entire American Society of Professional Engineers as well as the American Society of Civil Engineers, who's combined membership for both associations exceeds 250,000 registered professionals. Gage already has the AIA, American Institute of Architects looking at it now, and word is beginning, at least, to spread far and wide.

The reason the official story will fall as a historical rendering of that event, is because the truth is, in the final analysis, entirely self evident.

Psy-op guys at the CIA or whoever, GOOFED - it was too blazen, too arrogant, the ruse of the planes hitting being the sole cause of the destruction of those buildings, which went poof and vanished from the skyline each in about 13, 14 seconds flat.

It's a debate which Sir Isaac Newton wins hands down, and the engineers, when they look at the evidence, in hindsight, with an open mind, they can see that very clearly.

reply to post by Valhall


This is my point. That the buildings were demolished via the use of explosives, about an hour or so after the plane impacts is not a theory, it's a fact, and science and future history will vindicate that reality, can't not.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Valhall

 

This is my point. That the buildings were demolished via the use of explosives, about an hour or so after the plane impacts is not a theory, it's a fact, and science and future history will vindicate that reality, can't not.

how do you support the word "fact" right there? please go and look up the definition then come back and start over.

Now to the person who said prove the OS is a lie before you start making up stories on what you "think" happend is probally the smartest truther i have seen in a long time.

being a person who has questions about 911 i get very disguested and ready to run away when i see things like" there was no planes".



[edit on 11-9-2009 by Gixxer]

Also to you "way out" truthers, if you think the government staged the whole thing and purposley single handedly murderd all those people be it by missles or remote controll planes then my advice to you is to quit now, just give up, because if you are right and president,vice president, news media,high ranking military,ect were really that involved it will NEVER come out

you think that all these powerfull people would allow themselves to be implicated in something that would cause a major portion of our countrys powerbase to be rounded up and shot for treason????

somethings are just bigger then me and you and god forbid you have any fact in your assumption ,this is one of those things.