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.

# A Challenge for All 9/11 Debunkers

page: 4
7
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:25 AM
BillyBob, would I be right in saying you're imagining a column coming out that still has intact "neighbors", especially below? So it would be hard for a column to come flying down from some non-conservative force when there was already something in the way that would have caused it to have to move outward with a negligible "y-component" first (ie the columns below)?

I can also imagine a situation where a group of columns comes apart and is subjected to some force simultaneously, or where members aren't simply cut, but are hit with some considerable pressure. Depending on where the blast is coming from, this could impart a negative force on the y-axis (if a column is slightly below/diagonal to a blast coming from the core, for example), and it could come flying down with a velocity greater than what it would if it had simply fallen on its own.

Honestly I think the difference in any case would be so small, that it would be next to impossible to actually be able to measure it and make it match up with anything. You could give a column an extra "kick" on the way down, but in a few seconds, especially with friction from the air working against the column, how is anyone going to be able to tell the difference? You have to know the height the debris fell from, take the geometry into account to come up with figures for drag, and that alone is already going to be hard to match to videos within any good margin of error.

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:14 PM

sounds about right to me. i think that if you actually plot the acceleration of the large chunks of debris falling parallel to the wall, it would match gravity's. something accelerating from a different, presumably more extreme force, should have a different acceleration curve, unless the AMAZING 911 COINCIDENCE FACTOR was also in effect for forces.

to me, i simply see stuff falling, and it looks like it's falling. we also see in other videos, pieces flying UP and OUT with comet tails behind them. that debris looks like it is DEFINITELY something besides gravity is at work.

why didn't the NIST chart the velocities and locations of the events? you don't need fancy GIGO computer simulations when you have measurables.

i wish i wasn't so popular, and i had time to do it. to do it right, though, is not a quick thing. there are lots of events to measure, and lots of unknowns regarding framerates and resolution.

have you seen physorg, lately? they have a good method of measuring positional changes in the building. single pixel 'slices' of video are taken, and put side by side. the movement of a feature can then be seen as a curve.

thanks to 'einsteen' for this.

einsteen's post

[edit on 31-8-2007 by billybob]

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by billybob
something accelerating from a different, presumably more extreme force, should have a different acceleration curve

Only at the very beginning, almost like a transient if you're familiar with those in wave functions. Just a quick, non-conservative force, like a small "push" at a certain angle from what's left over from an expanding explosion, for example. Btw, it would have to already be free from its connections by this point. Then it would continue to accelerate due only to gravity, and being slowed down by friction through the air. But it would still be going slightly faster than if it hadn't been hit by that quick "push" earlier. But, like I said, I think the difference there is negligible and you probably wouldn't be able to measure it.

I'm looking over that post now.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by bsbray11]

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:34 PM

cool.
BTW, that curve in einsteen's pic is the dark band on the antenna, if that is useful in any way to you.
it seems a little too linear, eh? like, the cap is falling at a steady velocity, as opposed to an acceleration or deceleration.

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by billybob
it seems a little too linear, eh? like, the cap is falling at a steady velocity, as opposed to an acceleration or deceleration.

That's what I've been saying about the towers. I could only find two good reference points for the speed of the collapse over time, and they showed no significant acceleration at all. It pretty much is a straight line, because the charges on each floor must have been going off in set intervals, that worked out to be equivalent to slightly slower than the debris free-falling.

If the building was falling under its own weight only, I don't see how in the world it could've stayed linear. Massive amounts of energy are being used over time, and the structure is getting stronger and stronger all the way down. Yet it keeps virtually the same speed? Then the falling debris wasn't what was causing the "collapse".

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:47 PM
I think that people will believe what makes them feel most comfortable most of the time, just like the mother whose child swears with big innocent eyes, they didn't do it, no matter the evidence, she believes her child is telling the truth. She can not believe her own child would look so innocent, and be so evil.

For all the world is asleep, and in their slumber they dream; they dream of Utopia, where there exists no harm, and the milk of satiety, though curdled tastes sweet on the tongues of babes starving, dying for Utopia. Denial is self defense against the fury and unraveling of falsities, and, having been a barrier against that which they most fear facing, for which they can find no other refuge, has grown ever stronger, and ever so much more insidious, that the practitioners of this art, do not understand the mechanism them employ, but do non the less, enjoy it's fruits. Thus is the habitual thinking of one addicted to feeling good.

[edit on 8/31/2007 by Churchmouse]

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by billybob
the velocity of vertical ejections of dust plumes are going faster than gravity(and perhaps you are correct, too, and the falling debris is actually going faster than gravity as well, but is still outpaced by dust ejections from inside the building.), and some are highly localised, and right about where you put a series of bombs if you wanted to drop the building(building corners, specifically).

I believe your analysis of the faster than freefall with the dust clouds is still correct either way. BTW, that was a good thread.

I'm just saying that the exact collapse time of the building can't be judged by the falling debris because the debris is not being thrown out perfectly horizontal is all. Like how NIST used the debris to come up with their collapse times. Not very scientific IMO.

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Honestly I think the difference in any case would be so small, that it would be next to impossible to actually be able to measure it and make it match up with anything. You could give a column an extra "kick" on the way down, but in a few seconds, especially with friction from the air working against the column, how is anyone going to be able to tell the difference? You have to know the height the debris fell from, take the geometry into account to come up with figures for drag, and that alone is already going to be hard to match to videos within any good margin of error.

You could be right because no matter how much force, the members would reach their terminal velocity anyway. But, that still makes my argument that much more. NIST used these things to get their collapse times. How scientific is that?

new topics

top topics

7