It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

page: 13
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Well his work has nothing to do with construction or structural design that's for certain.




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight

Having watched the videos I somehow find it incredulous how no one can account for the acceleration in the rate of collapse. In my mind this can never be adequately explained away


And yet, to me, the buildings fell like anything would under the influence of gravity IE accelerating at a rate determined by the drag of the medium until it reached a terminal velocity where the forces were in balance. The design of those towers meant the floors were no stronger at the bottom than they were on the highest levels (with the exception of the 'mechanical' floors which were around 50% stronger).


This would be correct if you were to say drop an apple from the stop of the wtc and watch it fall to the ground.

What you are not taking into account is that when the WTC collapsed it did so from the top down, meaning the material from the top had to overcome the structural resistance of all the floors below, therefore there should have been a slowing in the rate of collapse.

Do you see?

Korg.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Right. So you have no idea what should have happened but you can't believe it happened the way that is claimed.

Fair enough. As long as I know all you have is an argument from incredulity. Thanks for clearing that up


No... This is an incorrect assertion.

We can say for certain that the OS does not give a correct answer because the models it projects are in direct contravention of the laws of Physics.

We are at this time unable to give a correct answer ourselves as to what the cause was, as we do not have enough data.

Knowing that the NIST report gives the wrong and incomplete answer but not knowing the complete right answer ourselves is the reality of it.

Korg.
edit on 17-12-2016 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are so wrong......

Did the structures ever accelerate faster than 9.8 m /s^2? Or slower than? Simple question.......



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

If the inward bowing and collapsed is the lease scientifi theory in your not so humble opinion, please do tell your theory of one of the most documented and studied events in human history.

After 15 years, you gotta have your own theory you can lay out in a logical argument to replace what you deem pseudoscience?

If you don't, what is your point?


(post by Korg Trinity removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are so wrong......

Did the structures ever accelerate faster than 9.8 m /s^2? Or slower than? Simple question.......



The simple Logic....




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are so wrong......

Did the structures ever accelerate faster than 9.8 m /s^2? Or slower than? Simple question.......



The simple Logic....



Simple logic by simpletons. What dolt made this video? Actually, I thought that the Death Rays from Space was far more imaginative. Bring us more dustification!



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are so wrong......

Did the structures ever accelerate faster than 9.8 m /s^2? Or slower than? Simple question.......



The simple Logic....



Simple logic by simpletons. What dolt made this video? Actually, I thought that the Death Rays from Space was far more imaginative. Bring us more dustification!


of course... you cannot discredit the information as it is correct...

Therefore the move to discredit it begins...

O.k.

This video was made to get the main points across... It is however backed up with Math and Science.....

knock yourself out... if you can find an error in the calculations we would be delighted.

Chandler_DownwardAccelerationOfWTC1-NoMath.pdf




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Not good math since it should have taken an object 9.23 seconds to drop from the tip of the tower. So the video starts out with a lie. Anything over that was caused by resister the video claims wasn't there. Oh and since the collapse doesn't start at the top 8 seconds or less.
edit on 12/17/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are so wrong......

Did the structures ever accelerate faster than 9.8 m /s^2? Or slower than? Simple question.......



The simple Logic....



Simple logic by simpletons. What dolt made this video? Actually, I thought that the Death Rays from Space was far more imaginative. Bring us more dustification!


of course... you cannot discredit the information as it is correct...

Therefore the move to discredit it begins...

O.k.

This video was made to get the main points across... It is however backed up with Math and Science.....

knock yourself out... if you can find an error in the calculations we would be delighted.

Chandler_DownwardAccelerationOfWTC1-NoMath.pdf



The building collapse will accelerate downwards as a result of gravity. The asymptotic limit will be free fall. There will be an equilibrium velocity reached that is limited by the resistance to collapse. What happened in this video is that the plot was stopped too soon and, if continued, would reach that limiting velocity which is, of course, less than free-fall. To clear each floor under 150 milliseconds by demolition would require an obvious amount of explosive and would probably slow the collapse. All you could really claim would be teams of operatives surreptitiously unbolting the structure. A&E should explore that. I'll bet the Gummint sent all those surplus socket sets to China.
edit on 12/17/2016 by pteridine because: Use of < truncated text



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are so wrong......

Did the structures ever accelerate faster than 9.8 m /s^2? Or slower than? Simple question.......



The simple Logic....



Simple logic by simpletons. What dolt made this video? Actually, I thought that the Death Rays from Space was far more imaginative. Bring us more dustification!


of course... you cannot discredit the information as it is correct...

Therefore the move to discredit it begins...

O.k.

This video was made to get the main points across... It is however backed up with Math and Science.....

knock yourself out... if you can find an error in the calculations we would be delighted.

Chandler_DownwardAccelerationOfWTC1-NoMath.pdf



double
edit on 12/17/2016 by pteridine because: Double post



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

So you are angry because the falling floors encountered enough resistance they never reached the free fall acceleration of 9.8m/s^2.

You are angry because large sections of vertical columns were left standing after the complete collapse of the floor system, and took measurable seconds to complete their toppling over?

And you offer no alternative after 15 years to the theory of inward bowing as recorded and documented during the WTC 2 collapse from one of the most recorded and documented events in human history?

Mean you cannot come up with a more provable theory than the one you labeled bunk?

What were you arguing again?
edit on 17-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Corrected alternative and bunk paragraph



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

By not providing an alternative theory to inward bowing, you are saying it's the most likely cause and has the most supporting evidence by proxy.
edit on 17-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Replace than with to



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

So you are angry because the falling floors encountered enough resistance they never reached the free fall acceleration of 9.8m/s^2.

You are angry because large sections of vertical columns were left standing after the complete collapse of the floor system, and took measurable seconds to complete their toppling over?

And you offer no alternate after 15 years to the theory of inward bowing as recorded and documented during the WTC 2 collapse from one of the most recorded and documented events in human history?

What were you arguing again?


Anger is not an emotion I have felt here at all, amusement would be the better term to describe my emotional state, since an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 would mean the wtc collapsed upwards into the air!

So the acceleration of the collapse was -6.31 m/s^2 which is taken from the observations of the video evidence and corroborated by cross referencing a variety of other data sources.

So the Collapse Accelerated straight down.........

You do Acknowledge that fact right?

Korg.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

There will be an equilibrium velocity reached that is limited by the resistance to collapse.


The acceleration remained constant the entire way down... WTC1 collapsed in approx 11 seconds.... exactly as would be the case if the acceleration remained constant at -6.31 m/s2.

I might add that the data isn't the result of any manipulation at all, the sample points sit very well on a projected line with a deviation of only 0.003%....

So in other words, we know the building came down and experienced a constant acceleration....

Do you see?

Korg.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

Anger is not an emotion I have felt here at all, amusement would be the better term to describe my emotional state, since an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 would mean the wtc collapsed upwards into the air!

So the acceleration of the collapse was -6.31 m/s^2 which is taken from the observations of the video evidence and corroborated by cross referencing a variety of other data sources.

So the Collapse Accelerated straight down.........

You do Acknowledge that fact right?

Korg.



You might want to refresh on your basic physics, because you just made a mistake out of simple ignorance trying to be cute.



whatis.techtarget.com...

Gravitational acceleration (symbolized g) is an expression used in physics to indicate the intensity of a gravitational field. It is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s 2 ). At the surface of the earth, 1 g is about 9.8 m/s 2 .



If the definition is acceleration due to gravity, what do you think a negative acceleration due to gravity really means?
edit on 17-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Fixed finger fumbles



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: pteridine

There will be an equilibrium velocity reached that is limited by the resistance to collapse.


The acceleration remained constant the entire way down... WTC1 collapsed in approx 11 seconds.... exactly as would be the case if the acceleration remained constant at -6.31 m/s2.

I might add that the data isn't the result of any manipulation at all, the sample points sit very well on a projected line with a deviation of only 0.003%....

So in other words, we know the building came down and experienced a constant acceleration....

Do you see?

Korg.





What did you expect it to do?



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

You might want to refresh on your basic physics, because you just made a mistake out of simple ignorance trying to be cute.



WoooW!

This will make my colleges chuckle


Thanks for the advice... I'll look into that one

an acceleration of one G UPWARDS is a positive value.... oppsee your mistake...


edit on 17-12-2016 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I think you just conformed how ignorant you are. Gravitational acceleration is the pull of an object to the earth here down on earth. 9.8m/s^s means accelerating towards the earth, not away from the earth.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join