It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Faster than Freefall, Proof of Demolition

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:06 PM

you can see in this gif, that the demolition waves are progressing down the tower faster than the rate of acceleration due to gravity, which can be measured by the freefalling debris beside the tower.

this is not possible without explosives. this is proof that bombs were used.

copy it and pass it around. the video i took those frames from is already out there, so if you go to this thread, how they rigged the towers, you will find the video, and can see other freefalling piecs of debris being outpaced by the bombs' sequence.

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:17 PM
I guess the plane explosions that knocked the debris off of the building in the first place, would not have anything to do with the downward speed eh?

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by acura_el2000
I guess the plane explosions that knocked the debris off of the building in the first place, would not have anything to do with the downward speed eh?

i have no idea what you're talking about.

gravity determines the downward speed. and 9.8 meters per second squared is the acceleration of gravity. the airplanes crashed over an hour earlier. this is the collapse.
steel frame buildings offer more resistance than air.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by billybob]

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:25 PM
Take a tennis ball, stand on top of a building, throw the ball downward. now compare that speed to a ball you simply drop. what falls faster?

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by acura_el2000
Take a tennis ball, stand on top of a building, throw the ball downward. now compare that speed to a ball you simply drop. what falls faster?

what are you implying was 'throwing' the tower?

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:47 PM
fire, explosions, other debris smashing off each other,

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:01 AM
fire cannot do that. nor collisions from objects(that slows things down, not speeds them up)
it was explosions. timed to blow out the floors below the collapse horizon.

here is the video, plaguepuppy. you can see other debris being outpaced.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:11 AM
Have there been measurements done to prove that the debris is actually falling at the acceleration of gravity and not slower due to air resistance?

The pieces that are visible are clearly large and flat. Windows, sheets of metal, and the like. They are tumbling as they fall, thus causing significant air resistance. You can even see some larger pieces falling at a markedly slower rate.

Just curious if anyone had any info on this.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:24 AM
Those objects have not reached terminal velocity in the pics you are showing.

Later on in the fall after the debris has reached terminal velocity i.e. free-fall speeds, the collapse is going slower.

Just another great example of the deceptive tactics used to "prove" demolition. Reminds me of the WTC 7 "squibs".

The cloud you point to is below the collapse. You can still see the side of the building further up. The part falling "faster than freefall" is actually just part of the debris cloud.

Do I really have to post that pic again?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by LeftBehind]

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:29 AM

Originally posted by eaglewingz
Have there been measurements done to prove that the debris is actually falling at the acceleration of gravity and not slower due to air resistance?

The pieces that are visible are clearly large and flat. Windows, sheets of metal, and the like. They are tumbling as they fall, thus causing significant air resistance. You can even see some larger pieces falling at a markedly slower rate.

Just curious if anyone had any info on this.

are you saying that wind resistance is greater than building resistance?

there is not way that something can fall through the building faster than those big chunks(remember how far away it is, and how huge it is).

those are not small pieces. (nor are they 'clearly flat) . there is a lot of debris falling. i see a few steel(dark) beams falling. it falls at pretty much the same rate. it's in the video. if you study the video, like i did, you can easily see that these are explosions progressing down the side.

i picked the most obvious frames(which are one frame apart, presumably 1/30th of a second).

i like to see a window that could come out of there as a big piece.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:00 AM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Those objects have not reached terminal velocity in the pics you are showing.

The building shouldn't be at terminal velocity either, should it?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:09 AM
I believe it's because the force on the debris to the left is going outwards rather than falling straight down.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Xeros
I believe it's because the force on the debris to the left is going outwards rather than falling straight down.

WTC 2 correct?
www.terrorize.dk...

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Those objects have not reached terminal velocity in the pics you are showing.

Later on in the fall after the debris has reached terminal velocity i.e. free-fall speeds, the collapse is going slower.

Just another great example of the deceptive tactics used to "prove" demolition. Reminds me of the WTC 7 "squibs".

The cloud you point to is below the collapse. You can still see the side of the building further up. The part falling "faster than freefall" is actually just part of the debris cloud.

Do I really have to post that pic again?

you're a little wrong, there, dude.

the things that are falling through air are by definition 'freefalling'. the freefalling objects are actually from higher up. did you watch the video, and analyse it? 'cause i made that .gif, dude, and i KNOW what's going on with the speeds.

i wouldn't want to accidentally make a strawman.

the fact that the falling debris may not have reached terminal velocity is a red herring. the debris exploding out of the building is travelling down the side faster than the objects falling through the air. are you saying we should put steel walls in front of race cars so they can go faster? because, that's what your saying.

you are saying something inside the building can travel faster through an intact steel frame than an object already falling through the air.
those are just the indicators i circled. in the next couple frames, the falling debris is swallowed by the lateral ejections from the bombs.

sorry, you're wrong. that's a squib that's blowing out floors ahead of the collapse horizon.

it's clear as day, once you see it.

i suspect the damage control cointelpro central thought police are skipping their coffee break tonight coming up with new fairy tales to counter this potential runaway collapse of the official lie.

by the way, i just heard that brazant/zhou's calculations for fall times, were 1 minute, 30 seconds. a little fact they left out of their analysis.

there was a chinese engineer who modelled the damage and collapse(assuming no bombs). his fall times were around 1:30.

jane doe's billiard balls take about 96 seconds(1:30).

i think it's fair to say, that the collapse should have taken WAY more than 12 seconds.

you can post whatever picture you like. i'm no mod.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:36 AM

I believe it's because the force on the debris to the left is going outwards rather than falling straight down.
I've realised i'm wrong here as the force of gravity is the same so they will still fall at the same rate of speed even if the force is directed outwards too. But could wind resistance be a factor?

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Clark_Kent

Originally posted by Xeros
I believe it's because the force on the debris to the left is going outwards rather than falling straight down.

WTC 2 correct?
www.terrorize.dk...

i can't view .avi files.

this is the one i used, ...abc footage of collapse, zoomed in on corner

is that the same one?

anyway, the debris on the left is falling down pretty much straight.
the collapse front passes it. that means air is somehow providing more resistance than a steel skyscaper. there are some steel beams that just fell out of view, and they were going at about the same rate as the debris to the left, which has, incidentally, arched out about as far as it's going to go, and is falling pretty much plum.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:00 AM

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Clark_Kent

Originally posted by Xeros
I believe it's because the force on the debris to the left is going outwards rather than falling straight down.

WTC 2 correct?
www.terrorize.dk...

i can't view .avi files.

this is the one i used, ...abc footage of collapse, zoomed in on corner

is that the same one?

anyway, the debris on the left is falling down pretty much straight.
the collapse front passes it. that means air is somehow providing more resistance than a steel skyscaper. there are some steel beams that just fell out of view, and they were going at about the same rate as the debris to the left, which has, incidentally, arched out about as far as it's going to go, and is falling pretty much plum.

Its a different video. If your a Mac user like me, Flip4Mac helps view avi files in Quicktime. Best.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:18 AM
Right. . .

So let me get this straight, it starts out faster than "free-fall" and ends up like this?

Obviously your pictures are misleading. Some debris encountered air resistance and stayed above the collapse as is seen the above pic. Any solid debris continued falling at "free-fall" speeds and hit the ground before the building finished collapseing.

So, no Bsbray, the building never reached terminal velocity as the debris that did, beat the building to the ground.

Do you have better pics Billybob, that show exactly what point in the collapse those stills were taken? Or did you crop them that way to hide that they were taken near the begining of the collapse.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Do you have better pics Billybob, that show exactly what point in the collapse those stills were taken? Or did you crop them that way to hide that they were taken near the begining of the collapse.

i have linked to the video twice in this thread. do you do anything besides instant authoritative refutation based on pure speculation?
it's all in the video. the collapse is well under way at that point. the debris i circled has been falling through air for a while, already.
the puffs coming out the side of the building, are explosions.
i put the blue line in the middle of the dark clump of whatever(it's probably a kite or a paper airplane, maybe a helium ballon), and i started the purple line at the lowest point of the debris shooting out the side of the building(no doubt, dust of element 115). this picture should act as a guide to see what to look for in the video.

it's clear as day(in the video), and your wild speculation makes you the well-dressed emperor for a day. (like, i didn't already know you were royalty. king of the hand wave. these are not the droids you're looking for)

those frames are broadcast quality video, so i assume the two frames are 1/30sec apart.
in the next thirtieth of a second, you can see that bottom squib, and it's cousin in profile, blow out huge and pass even more debris.

p.s. it's in the video, everyone. be the first on your block to realise.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:18 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So let me get this straight, it starts out faster than "free-fall" and ends up like this?

Yes.

Free fall speeds up, remember. If the collapse was ever ahead of free fall, it means other forces at work besides gravity alone.

Hopefully that makes things a little clearer, LB.

So, no Bsbray, the building never reached terminal velocity as the debris that did, beat the building to the ground.

I was asking a rhetorical question that I don't guess you got.

top topics

3