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.

 

911 - World Trade fell at free fall speed!!

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Can you all say (911 Gatekeeper!)

I think some people are "afraid" of the truth! (OF GETTING OUT!)

I cant even post anything about 911 on any thread with out being belittled or Attack by the same poster over and over in any of the 911 threads.


These Gatekeeper for the Government will not let you have your say with out Attacking you.

The harder we try to get to the truth the harder the Gatekeepers keep Attacking.

I see them in here, at times "trolling" around waiting to pounce on a truther that just found more proof that the Government version of 911 is a lie.

These people like to suport NIST finding, but then there is WTC7 and NIST "CANT" explain what happened.

There are holes in NIST Hypothies and NIST knows it. thats why the Gatekeepers are needed.




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
i always like to point out that some features went faster than freefall.

faster than freefall



frames were taken from this video:

abc video

you can see debris falling down through air, and you can see explosions progressing down the tower even faster earthward.

also notice that the corner remains intact, while the explosions peel down beside the corner. this correlates with gordon ross' explanation of how they rigged the towers.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
I cant even post anything about 911 on any thread with out being belittled or Attack by the same poster over and over in any of the 911 threads.


I don't think that's a gatekeeper so much as a trollish adolescent with too much time on their hands and not enough attention.


Originally posted by billybob
i always like to point out that some features went faster than freefall.


I had forgotten about that. Thanks for bringing it back out.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I have a question... Is it possible that when the towers were built that explosives were put in place for the possiblity of containing a collapse? It seems to me that if the Towers had gone over side ways there would have been way more damage. So maybe the comtigency for this is to blow them if they are going to fall. Better straight down than not.

Just a thought.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by -Reason-
 


That's highly unlikely as explosives are, by nature, unstable compounds and they degrade over time making them either less sensitive (hard to detonate) or more sensitive to the point of spontaneously exploding and as with all chemical reactions, heat accelerates it. They degrade by reacting with their containers, oxidising from atmospheric air, some are hygroscopic and absorb atmospheric moisture, some simply break down into stable compounds, some form compounds that are dangerously unstable.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 


I started looking at that slideshow but after 30 slides in over 1 hour I could be retired before getting to slide 542 and what I saw was heavily politically biassed (yawn).

I'm not beyond convincing but you're up against it if you're suggesting freefall speed collapses, even in the case of WTC7. Maybe 'near freefall' but the question is then 'how near'.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm not beyond convincing but you're up against it if you're suggesting freefall speed collapses, even in the case of WTC7. Maybe 'near freefall' but the question is then 'how near'.


Dead-on, that's how "near." It fell as though it were in a vacuum.

Here are measurements/calculations that WCIP did to illustrate: www.studyof911.com...

I know how difficult this is going to be for you, but try to attack the message rather than the messenger. Kinematics and accelerations are physics 101, and his math on that page is not wrong.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I'll second your motion to stick to the issue and not the messengers - it's not surprising that a lot of capable people have become jaded with this whole issue over the years and simply gave up trying to discuss it.

The application of maths on that page is good but I do have a problem with the inputs used and it mainly comes down to when the collapse actually started:


The intent is to measure the average acceleration of the collapse of the main structure as opposed to the total collapse time of the entire building, hence the separate collapses of the penthouses on top of the building are not considered as reference points.


I'd ask just how much of the internal structure was intact to provide resistance immediately after the penthouse collapsed. I'll admit that I don't know but neither does anyone else.

Just my opinion but I think it's somewhat dishonest to treat the final collapse of what could have been not much more than an empty shell as if it was a totally intact structure, inside and out when its heart could have been torn out seconds before that final fall started. Remember the 5 story void occupied by the substation at the base when calculating how much vertical movement could have been involved, essentially unseen, except for the penthouse dropping out of sight.

The bottom line is that none of the WTC buildings collapsed at freefall speed and WTC7's final collapse was certainly the fastest but it doesn't represent the whole collapse of that building.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd ask just how much of the internal structure was intact to provide resistance immediately after the penthouse collapsed.


It doesn't matter. As long as there is ANY structure left (and obviously there is enough to keep the building standing until this point -- thus a significant amount of structure left), it will provide resistance, and that includes the exterior supports surrounding all sides of the building. That should not just give up and require 0 energy to destroy. So this really is a moot point.

Not to mention, you can neither calculate how much "resistance" should have been provided in this case, nor in the case of a fully-intact structure, because NIST refuses to disclose critical structural documentation for verification of whatever work it is doing (or giving appearances of doing). All you can say is that it definitely should have required SOME energy, and nothing inconsequent compared to even falling through air and experiencing drag.


Falling through air vs. "falling" through a steel building: which should be slower? In ANY case?



The bottom line is that none of the WTC buildings collapsed at freefall speed


Free-fall here is not a "speed," it is an an acceleration.


and WTC7's final collapse was certainly the fastest but it doesn't represent the whole collapse of that building.


And again, doesn't have to for energy to still be exerted to fail whatever remained (again -- enough to hold the entire exterior of the building up at least).

Accelerating at free-fall means no PE/KE is going towards failing the building, because to convert PE to KE and then use it, takes away from the KE, and thus takes away from the acceleration of the building. It's conservation of energy. The building HAS to fall slower than that, unless something else is providing the energy to collapse it. And this is not a narrow margin of numbers in which we are working, it's a difference between zero and what should be a relatively large number, even if the building was a house of cards. Steel is a very strong material, and the connections would also have been very strong. They don't fold up on their own.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If you see this..

BBC 2 now 23:40

All about this thread!!

NeoN HaZe



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Free-fall here is not a "speed," it is an an acceleration.


I'm well aware of that but I was staying in the same vein as the layman's language thread title


In my archives I located what I believe is the same video (CBS) used in the analysis you gave me a link to a few posts back. It's an flv file so I converted it to mpg2 (my analysis/editing tools only accept mpegs) in order to determine the timing with reasonable accuracy. What I could see of the building is about 19 floors above the lowest fixed reference point which happened to be close to the centre of the building and I measured (in frames at 25 f/s) how long it took from the first downward movement of the top centre of the building until the top (centre) passed that reference point.

The best data I could find indicates the building was ~186m tall including the penthouse so what I could see amounts to approx top 74m of the building give or take a metre. The time taken to fall that 74m was 134 frames (remembering that the version I have was converted from 30f/s NTSC to 25f/s PAL) which amounts to 134/25 = 5.36 seconds.

Acceleration = 2xheight/t^2 = 148/28.73 = 5.15m/s^2
Somewhat short of the claimed freefall rate (9.8m/s^2)

Applying that acceleration to the full height of 186m:
t = sqrt(2x186/5.15) = 8.5 seconds for the full collapse if I assume the rate of acceleration was constant all the way to the ground. At freefall (9.8m/s^2) the roof would have hit the ground in 6.16 seconds and considering the mass involved (estimated 170000 tonnes) there's a lot of work being done in that difference of 2.34 seconds.

Note that I excluded the penthouse events from this and only measured the final total collapse.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The best data I could find indicates the building was ~186m tall including the penthouse so what I could see amounts to approx top 74m of the building give or take a metre.


Can you show us this?


At freefall (9.8m/s^2) the roof would have hit the ground in 6.16 seconds and considering the mass involved (estimated 170000 tonnes) there's a lot of work being done in that difference of 2.34 seconds.


I don't have time now to check your numbers, but in the mean time can you tell me what exactly WCIP ("Winston" on that site) got different from you? He shows you everything he did.


PS -- A 2.34-second difference is no reason for you to say "a lot of work [was] being done." "A lot" is not a relevant quantity and it is not being compared to anything (ie what we would expect given the documents, if we had them). You are still talking about physical work going into folding up an enormous, structurally redundant skyscraper. I seriously doubt you are going to do it in 2.34 seconds, leaving gravity the other time simply to pull it to the ground, in the same way I "seriously doubt" it could be done in 0 seconds without additional devices. It really is not going to happen. Call it my opinion but I at least know better than that, and you are going to have to do better to convince me.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


This pic shows how I arrived at the height observed falling:



From the reference level to the top of the remaining penthouse looks to be the equivalent of 19 floors (count the rows of windows for confirmation and add 1 floor for the penthouse) and as the building is quoted at ~186m tall by NIST (mentioned on the page you linked) and 47 stories,
186 x 19/47 = 75m roughly or approximately 4m per floor. Yes I realise I used 74m in the previous post and the reason is that if the penthouse is additional to the 47 floors the height observed will be 19/48 x 186 = 73.6m.

If only I had the speed and bandwidth I'd post the whole video segment I used for the estimate complete with the frame count.

Like I said earlier about that page, the math is good but I don't agree with the inputs used.

I removed what I said about his geometric error as viewing a lot of other videos I have of the event shows it to be not as far out as I was going to suggest (in relation to the corner he used as a reference). The reason for my arrival at a slower acceleration is that I'm viewing the start of that movement which was near the centre of the building, not the corner. It looks to me like that central collapse dragged the outer walls down behind it via the remaining steel giving the false impression of an unrealistically fast initial rate of acceleration which wasn't uniform over the whole structure.

Also - I'd like to add that if my own independent analysis agreed with his I'd have said so as I really don't have a stake in any of this other than discerning fact from fiction.


[edit on 9/7/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   


freefall, fer sure.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I removed what I said about his geometric error as viewing a lot of other videos I have of the event shows it to be not as far out as I was going to suggest (in relation to the corner he used as a reference). The reason for my arrival at a slower acceleration is that I'm viewing the start of that movement which was near the centre of the building, not the corner.


You're also measuring the building from more of an angle than WCIP was, which has trigonometric effects on the lengths you're measuring. Viewing the building face-on would show a more rapid drop than viewing it at such an angle (an extreme case, for illustration, would be viewing it from below, in which no drop would be witnessed at all), and your measurements surely reflect this.



Also - I'd like to add that if my own independent analysis agreed with his I'd have said so as I really don't have a stake in any of this other than discerning fact from fiction.


That's fine but the reason I want you to try to find out what caused the discrepancy, is that one of you are obviously allowing more room for error than the other, and without knowing why this is, you can't say who is more accurate.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I've gone over it a few times and the reason for the discrepancy is that the corner he used as a reference is the last part of the whole building to drop. I have a hard time believing there was a gravitational anomaly that day so the only explanation for the >9.8m/s^2 initial acceleration of that corner is that a greater mass (the rest of the building) was already well in motion and dragged it down once the upper steelwork took up the strain.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Even if the corners were 'yanked' in the way you describe, towards the center, it still wouldn't cause a free-fall acceleration in the y-axis. This is because pulling towards the center causes the acceleration to be at least partially on the x-axis, so the y-component of that movement would not be 9.8m/s^2 unless it was free-falling in the y-axis anyway. And free-fall in the y-axis is the entire problem to begin with, and the whole building dropped at the same time, roof line locked in with as far down as you can see.

There wasn't a significant movement of the corners towards the center of the building anyway. The slight movement that caused the "kink" was the full extent of it. So it's pretty obvious at least to me, if you have to pick one direction those four corners are going, it's going to be "down" (similar for the whole rest of the building) before it's ever going to be "towards the center."


So are you going to try a less distorted angle, or adjust for the angles that are present in your video, just to see how much closer it nudges your numbers to WCIP's? Because it definitely is going to make your number closer to his.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I have a hard time believing there was a gravitational anomaly that day so the only explanation for the >9.8m/s^2 initial acceleration of that corner is that a greater mass (the rest of the building) was already well in motion and dragged it down once the upper steelwork took up the strain.

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

A falling mass is already subjected to gravity, so it can't accelerate downwards faster than 9.8m/s^2. A falling building, pulling other parts of the building down, will only accelerate at the rate of gravity, at best.

The only way that something can accelerate downwards, faster than 9.8m/s^2 would be if there was an external force pushing the object down. Perhaps, if a bomb, or other similar explosive charge was detonated, then we would expect to see some pieces being forced downwards, faster than gravity would act.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Serious question...

What type of bomb or explosive does this. If you do know, would you happen to know how large this would be and how many decibels would this bomb give off at the moment of ignition?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


i believe you called this tactic a "call for perfection".

keep educating me on debate jargon. it's useful.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join