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.

 

Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
himselfe's video showed some good points of a demo, but the other explosions from above simple are not large explosions. if a jet didn't breach it, those little explosions wouldn't have chance in hell.


Once again, I will repeat myself. The building on the left is a square structured building with all the floors inside the structure.

WTC on the other hand is a square structured building, accept the floors of the building reside outside of the structure.





www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 27-8-2007 by 11 11]




posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by him_selfe
...clearly showing that the collapse sequence is not at "free-fall speed" as many of you put it.


Jeez not this again. Listen very carefully, when we say near-free fall we're not being literal. It's as close to free-fall as you can get, within a couple of second.
The real point is that it should have taken minutes if not hours to collapse.
It should NOT have collapse to the ground without slowing down.
The building didn't SLOW DOWN at all. IMPOSSIBLE to happen without something taking away the resistance.

Can we end this 'it's not free-fall' crap, cause you have NO argument? Time the damned thing yourself. It fell TOO FAST whether it was exactly free fall speed or not.

If you don't understand that then you need to go back to school.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Lol I make a valid post and the account still gets banned, curious.


Originally posted by 11 11
Actually WTC 7 fell faster than free-fall in a vacuum with no air resistance. WTC 7 fell faster than free-fall.


How exactly do you propose a bomb would make it fall "faster than free-fall in a vacuum"? Did they put downward facing rocket boosters on the roof?

Btw:



himselfe, once again, try learning what the speed of free-fall is!


You prove exactly what you know with that single line right there. Anybody who wants to know the truth can easily read over this entire thread, you're trying to deny reality, and yet I'm the one who's banned?



reply to post by ANOK
 





Jeez not this again. Listen very carefully, when we say near-free fall we're not being literal. It's as close to free-fall as you can get, within a couple of second.


Actually 11 11 is trying to claim that it fell faster than free-fall.


I'm sorry but this is worth it, this cracks me up.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallyobjective
How exactly do you propose a bomb would make it fall "faster than free-fall in a vacuum"? Did they put downward facing rocket boosters on the roof?


Thats why I want to know, what made WTC 7 fall that fast? Thats the reason no matter what you say will never change my mind about 911, because I know with FACT that something helped WTC 7 fall. If WTC 7 was C.D. then WTC 1 and 2 were probably also...



As you can clearly see with the evidence and calculations above, it DID fall faster than the speed of free-fall with air-resistance. It actually fell as if it was in a vacuum!.

All though, technically, if you were picky with words, there is no such thing as free-fall, in our atmosphere. Because if their is air-resistance, it is not free-fall. But we are not being picky with words. When we say free-fall, we are talking about including "air-resistance".

Hope thats clear, since I know people like to pick an choose stupid words.



Originally posted by reallyobjective
You prove exactly what you know with that single line right there. Anybody who wants to know the truth can easily read over this entire thread, you're trying to deny reality, and yet I'm the one who's banned?



You are banned because you are making multiple accounts. B.T.W. you have multiple people here correcting you. You are wrong, and you have no clue what the speed of free-fall is.

It's actually an acceleration. Would you like the answer? Maybe then you will "get it".

Free-Fall = a motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.

When something is going faster than free-fall, that means an acceleration other than gravity was in play, and technically it can't be called free-fall.

Free-fall = acceleration at approximately 9.8m / s2 regardless of mass.





Originally posted by reallyobjective
Actually 11 11 is trying to claim that it fell faster than free-fall.


I'm sorry but this is worth it, this cracks me up.


Actually if you had your facts straight, you would know that I said WTC SEVEN fell faster than free fall. Actually you can see the video above and there is your proof.

WTC ONE and TWO fell as fast as free fall.


Himselfe, seriously, give up, you dig yourself deeper every time.

b.t.w watch your little video again, and you will see that the big piece of steel that is falling faster than everything else was ejected out by an explosion of air or other explosive force.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 





You are wrong, and you have no clue what the speed of free-fall is.

It's actually an acceleration. Would you like the answer? Maybe then you will "get it".


Yeah because I clearly don't know what freefall is.


EDIT: Btw, since you obviously missed it before, Speed is not acceleration.


[edit on 27-8-2007 by reallyobjective]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallyobjective

Yeah because I clearly don't know what freefall is.


LOL you don't LOL!!! Man you are funny, and I can't wait till you are banned again.


News Flash, I just told you I am not talking about terminal velocity. Nor are we calculating the speed it is going, we are calculating the speed at which it is accelerating.

GEEEZZZUSSSS



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallyobjective

EDIT: Btw, since you obviously missed it before, Speed is not acceleration.




LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Next time I get a speeding ticket from the police, I'll say, "I'm not speeding!!! I'M ACCELERATING!!! LOL!!!!!!".

not

dictionary.reference.com...


speed
n.
1. Physics The rate or a measure of the rate of motion.



The rate of motion (A.K.A. SPEED) of free-fall is:

Near sea level, an object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8m / s2 regardless of its mass.


Arguing semantics is the true sign that you lost all debates. LOL.

en.wikipedia.org...

At least use a dictionary. Oh while you are at it, why don't you look up the Synonyms for the word "speed".

Look:
rhyme.poetry.com...

FIRST ONE! WOW! LOOK AT THAT!





[edit on 27-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 





LOL you don't LOL!!! Man you are funny, and I can't wait till you are banned again.


News Flash, I just told you I am not talking about terminal velocity. Nor are we calculating the speed it is going, we are calculating the speed at which it is accelerating.


Perhaps you should try reading and understan the posts you are replying to?


I'm sure I'll get banned again, although I'm sure the mods realise by now that I will post if I want to post. I find it amusing that you are free to imply that I'm an imbecile by claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to things I have already explained when the evidence proves to the contrary, and yet I get banned for calling you deranged, when you clearly have a warped perspective of reality.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by reallyobjective
 



LOL. All I have to say about that is Einstein died trying to find The Secret to the Universe, and I straight give it out to everyone. Then people like you walk all over it. LOL.

I don't know what's more funny, the fact that you and the entire world will die from AIDS and CANCER and probably destroy this planet with your fossil fuels. Or that fact that I am not the only one that knows The Secret, and there is a entire different world out there that laugh at people who dismiss it. A cure for AIDS and CANCER and ANTI GRAVITY, and FREE ENERGY, and TIME TRAVEL. All of that... is possible.. and you laugh at it LOL. That's so funny.

The FACT that "repulsion" and "attraction" build this entire universe, and you mock it, is what I call deranged.

-----back on subject-----

911 was an inside job, for a reason that aren't ever recognizable by people who don't know "The Secret".

Not money, not oil, not war, not power. For their God.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by 11 11]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 


How nice of you to edit out the word idiot before you get warned. At least I'm honest and up front about my implications
. If you don't get warned about your behaviour when you are clearly trying to cover up your insults, then it says a lot. Lets just hope this forum keeps revisions of post edits.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The behaviour of both of you has been completely inappropriate and is currently being reviewed by the staff. I am temporarily closing this thread, and it shall be discussed amongst the staff as well. If we determine that it should re-open, it will be re-opened. If we determine that it shall remain closed, then closed it will remain.

As for your approaches to a constructive discussion on these boards, I would rethink it.

Discuss the subject, not one another.

Thread Closed.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join