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.

# 911 - World Trade fell at free fall speed!!

page: 5
8
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
What type of bomb or explosive does this.

Ok, I can see how my previous post might have been misleading. I didn't clarify what I meant by acting faster than gravity.

Consider the following scenario:
Stand on top of a building and hold a bullet-tip (not the shell casing) in your left fingers, drop it and let it fall. At the same moment, hold a gun in your right hand, loaded with the same type of bullet, pointed downwards, then pull the trigger.

At what rate do both of the bullets fall? They both fall at the same rate, as the only external force acting on them is gravity. (Sure, air resistance is also acting, but I'll neglect it, for simplicity, as the effects would be minimal over a short distance). Why does the fired bullet from the gun reach the ground first? It has a greater initial velocity than the dropped bullet. However, after the initial impulse, the fired bullet is no longer subjected to any further driving force.

Exchange the bullets for missiles. A dropped missile will fall at the rate of gravity. However a fired missile will supply its own force, from its engine, so it will fall at a faster rate than gravity, as well having a greater initial velocity than the fired missile.

When a building 'naturally' collapses, all parts of the building have an initial velocity of zero. The parts are subjected to a downward force (gravity) and a resisting force applied by the structure of the building, for a nett force that might collapse the building at a rate slower than free-fall.

However, if parts of a building collapse, with an initial velocity that's greater than zero, then some impulse force must have been applied to provide the initial velocity. An explosion, or bomb can do this, as the impulse force pushes the particles into a free fall, with a velocity greater than zero.

Motion tracking on the videos will show that any free falling piece of building will be accelerating at 9.8m/s^2. The question is does motion tracking also show the buildings (or the locus path of a building corner) falling near to 9.8m/s^2?

Anyway, I'm not able to analyse the videos properly, with the resources that I have.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:06 AM

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.

when it comes to throatyogurt, you must be right. he speaks as if he is someone with knowledge and intellect, yet when his statements across 911 boards are looked at, they are little more than the repetition of talking points as well as contradictory. I think he is starting to realize that noone is buying his line anymore since he cant really pull it off convincingly enough.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:24 AM

re22666,

Can you please point out where I stated anything wrong? I'm far from perfect, I do not know all the answers to 911. As far as I know, the information I have posted in this forum has been pretty accurate and honest. If someone has a question for me, I will do my best to the them the information they seek. I I can't, I'll let you know.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:08 AM

Have you debunked the video that billybob posted on page 4 yet? Besides trying to say that the rest of the building pulled the corners down faster than the center of the building?

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:19 AM

PplVSN...

I didn't know I was supposed to. Sorry.

Does that make me wrong?

I am just curious, if there were explosives...what kind and what would make the debris fall faster? And how much would it take.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:43 AM

No, that doesn't make you wrong, unless you are claiming that building 7 didn't fall at the acceleration of gravity(free fall). You don't have to debunk it, but please don't claim there was resistance to the fall of the building if you can't prove it.
Thanks.

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:14 AM

I see no problems in your reasoning there but my observation of the videos shows that the corner used to show >G acceleration was the last part of the building to drop and it was still attached to the rest of the structure that was already in motion. Slightly left of centre is where the collapse appears to have started so using that as a reference I arrive at a considerably slower acceleration which could be partly due to the energy expended in getting that last corner on its downward journey IE breaking the intact vertical structure at the outer walls.

It's just my observation that the entire structure took longer than freefall time to completely collapse. I don't feel compelled to convince anyone - just having my say

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by Neon Haze

This thread is an excellent example of the Inflationary Model. This model highlights how simple CT assertions must inflate to answer critical questions.

Remember, the original assertion was the WTC fell at "free fall speeds". Notice how the discussion has taken on a new life, encompassing things not present in the original assertion to account for hard evidence the original assertion is not at all true.

As the conspiracy grows in size, and the implications of scale begin to foster yet more basic questions the conspiracy grows yet again. This cycle will continue until the last step of the Inflationary Model.

The final step in the Inflationary Model is including anyone or any entity that criticizes the now HUGE conspiracy, in that conspiracy. Meaning, I am one of "them".

To the OP: this theory is nearly six years old (if not older). It has literally been discussed in hundreds upon hundreds of posts. The short answer is this: no, the WTC did not fall at free fall speeds.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I see no problems in your reasoning there but my observation of the videos shows that the corner used to show >G acceleration was the last part of the building to drop

First of all, falling ">G" is physically impossible, period. Without something physically pushing the building down at a rate accelerated by something other than gravity, which I'm sure neither of us are talking about.

Maybe the old "Foot of God" WCIP always used to talk about?

But what I think is really wrong, is that you never took the angles in your video into account, but measured as if everything vertical were simply a linear measurement, and now you keep ignoring me when I tell you this. You and WCIP got different numbers, he had less extreme angles, and now keep refusing to adjust yours or use his same video. The closer the angles are to lining up with your measurement, the smaller the inaccuracy is going to be and the faster the acceleration is going to "look" in your numbers. You wouldn't measure with a ruler held diagonally, would you?

and it was still attached to the rest of the structure that was already in motion.

I also already explained that any kind of "pulling" in a direction other than straight down, is NEVER going to result in free-fall in the vertical direction, because at least part of that is going to be purely in the horizontal direction. Any engineer will verify me and I could verify myself with trigonometry. Even if it did, the fact that ANYTHING is free-falling in this steel building is PROOF that it was entirely unresisted. That is not supposed to ever happen until the collapse is actually finished, when things stop being broken.

It's just my observation that the entire structure took longer than freefall time to completely collapse. I don't feel compelled to convince anyone - just having my say

Your measurements are wrong and even then you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill's worth of difference. Steel building compared to... falling through a vacuum? You inaccurately get 2-seconds worth of difference and yet still (for absolutely no reason) "feel" as though that's enough "resistance" from a solid steel building? What are you even talking about?

[edit on 23-7-2008 by bsbray11]

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:55 PM

All these posts asking you to actually think for your own self, and you move even more out towards the other end of the spectrum. If Mackey was a cult leader you would be his first convert, wouldn't you?

Now instead of trying to reason with what we say, you just dismiss the entire topic out-of-hand by declaring that we're all delusional, per some immature "theory" you keep puking up, that everyone knew was total BS the first time you posted it. Mackey isn't a psychologist. He's an engineer trying to reconcile how wrong he is with so many people's appropriate reaction to his inability to really show anything. The reason so many people seem "deluded" to him is because he is a blind, biased idiot, and that's the way it's going to remain until he realizes the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth (and that's actually a form of "metaphor", not another sign of my intense delusion, my friend
).

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:25 AM

I'm not ignoring what you said

I agree that faster-than-freefall is impossible without the application of additional force(s) and as we don't see any such force being applied from above, it had to be from below (dare I say 'pulling').

I took your advice and analysed the same video used in the other external analyses at multiple points finding some interesting results. I'll refrain from suggesting what I think caused those variances and just stick to what I found because anything beyond observable facts would be pure conjecture and we already get enough of that.

Here's the points I used to measure the acceleration:

using a=2H/t^2;
Line A is the same one used to suggest >G acceleration
Height 105m : time 4.48 seconds : a=10.46m/s^2 !!!
This point, however, does not overtake the rest of the building?

Line B
Height 89m : time 5.32 seconds : a=6.29m/s^2

Line C
Height 106m : time 5.56 seconds :a=6.85m/s^2

Line D
Height 84m : time 5.00 seconds : a=6.72m/s^2

These figures line up with my previous analysis and as I'm measuring a known length of building passing a fixed point, paralax error shouldn't be a factor in either case. My earlier study was a line roughly between B and C and only ~75m because of the lower filming position but the acceleration I arrived at there seems supported in this video as well.

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I agree that faster-than-freefall is impossible without the application of additional force(s) and as we don't see any such force being applied from above, it had to be from below (dare I say 'pulling').

No, I don't think you understand. Do you think the building fell down (collapsed), or do you think something actually physically pulled the whole building downwards the whole time?

These figures line up with my previous analysis

The last acceleration you got was 5.15m/s^2, no? Corresponding to around the center of the building.

In these last measurements, for the center, you got 6.85m/s^2, which is 33% greater. 33% is an awfully wide discrepancy, when generally discrepancies in numbers of even 10% are seen as bad.

The 10.46m/s^2 number is over 200% greater than your last number. That number is probably too high to be honest, because I very seriously doubt anything was under that building actively pulling on it to have it break free-fall. This whole discussion is absolutely ridiculous to be having with you; it's obvious that no steel was being destroyed by KE by these numbers.

and as I'm measuring a known length of building

That's actually what I'm wondering about.

I'll have to try for figures of my own later, because I can't tell why there are such discrepancies just by looking at all this. I'll post back later.

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 02:21 PM
I have been watching videos were debris from lower in the towers actually accelerates past stuff that is at free fall already. Highly suggestion of explosives used.

I am finding the link and will post it...

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 03:30 PM

* If 911 happend the way the GOVT says it happend then we still have
80+ floors to demolish.
you see both towers came all the way down to first Floor..
DAH~!. -- IMPOSSIBLE

* Congress is guilty too....

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, I don't think you understand. Do you think the building fell down (collapsed), or do you think something actually physically pulled the whole building downwards the whole time?

But I do understand. The absence of any obvious force from above leaves what options?

As for estimating the heights I used, the same method as the external researchers was necessary because that particular video shows little more than a silhouette of the building with not enough detail of individual floors to go by. I scaled the height in relation to the known building width of 100.27m (329') as honestly as possible as I have no agenda here - just looking at the observable characteristics of the collapse. If my result of 10.46m/s^2 looks too high for the corner then the other figures I got would need to be scaled down as well but the relationship of them all should be fairly consistant.

Please do a detailed individual study of this and I encourage everyone with an interest in it to do the same so we can see what the parameter spread is like in terms of times and accelerations at various points on the building.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:33 PM
Where are you getting your times for the calcs? Are you starting the clock when the penthouse starts to collapse or when the actual roof starts to collapse? Can you show your work like the guy in the video did? I am just asking because I have no video editing software to use to verify your collapse times are realistic.

Thanks.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:12 AM

The equations I use to study acceleration, time, velocity and distance are:
1: S=u.t + at^2/2
2: v=u + a.t
3: v^2=u^2 + 2.a.S
where:
S = distance travelled (metres) : the height fallen in this case
u = initial velocity (metres/second)
v = final velocity (metres/second)
a = acceleration (metres/second^2)
t = time difference between u and v (seconds)
1 foot = 0.3048 metres

In this case number 1: is the one to use (known t & S, unknown a) and since u (initial velocity is 0, it becomes S = at^2/2 and transposes to a = 2.S/t^2.

I sampled at 4 points A,B,C,D as marked in the pic included in the earlier post where I supplied the inputs (time taken and distance travelled for each of those points. A & D are at the top of the building but not including the penthouse I estimated at 5m high. B & C are nearer the centre of the building and do include the extra 5m of the penthouse and the reason for that is the silhouette nature of the building in that video which would make it hard to follow where the base of the penthouse is while everything is in motion.

I estimated those heights I used by measuring the width of the building which is known to have been 329' or 100.27m and used that scale to measure the heights. Be careful your viewer doesn't alter the aspect ratio when resizing the window.

I know my results won't be exact (because of the dubious quality of the .flv file I converted) and I expect a small amount of variability in the results if a number of us work it out individually. I expect the relative relationship of the accelerations of the 4 points to be very similar though IE point D at or slightly above 1G and the others somewhat slower.

Special note: be careful of the video format you use if counting frames EG:
PAL 50Hz = 25 frames per second
NTSC 60Hz = 30 frames per second
Count the frames and divide by the video frame rate to get the time in seconds, then plug the height and time into the a = 2.S/t^2 to get the actual acceleration rate.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:10 AM

Thanks for the explanation. That covers most of what I asked except for how you arrived at your time measurements. Did you start the counting when the penthouse collapsed, or when the actual roofline started to drop?
Thanks again.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:18 AM

I timed from the first discernable downward movement of each of those points until they passed the foreground building roofline so B & C include the penthouse while A & D do not.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:55 PM
Well that explains it, after the penthouse roof collapses, the rest of the building is still holding it up so it comes to a stop before the building starts collapsing. I don't know how you got different accelerations for a and d either because if you watch the collapse, the roof is dropping at the same rate all the way across. Either the height estimates are wrong, or your start and stop times are wrong. My guess is because would be due to the smoke, it's difficult to tell exactly when the building reaches the roof of the building you are using as a stop reference. If you watch in real time, the roof clearly is not accelerating faster on the right corner than the left.

new topics

top topics

8