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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Now you see why I encourage all interested parties to do the same analysis. The penthouse at the eastern end of the building started collapsing first some 6.5 seconds before the west penthouse started and the rest of the building went with that. None of my figures are based on the east penthouse collapse and if you look at the pic I posted showing the 4 points I timed you'll see it's totally gone at that stage.

The west penthouse collapse and the rest of the building collapsing was one fluid motion (check it closely over & over) but I took an extra point (D) at the east end which excluded the penthouse because I expected there'd be controversy over my selection of points to monitor


Don't worry, the results were a surprise to me too




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Using your line "C" and start point at the roof instead of penthouse, I come up with 100m fall in 4.36 seconds.
a=(2h)/(t^2)
a=200/19
a=10.5m/s^2
Pretty close for what you got for the right corner, variance I would attribute to frame rate of the video not allowing for a precise start and stop time. I suspect with a high resolution feed and a more exact measurement of the fall distance, we would be closer to 9.8m/s^2. Even if you compensate for a large error in start and stop times and use 5.0s for fall time, that is still 8.0m/s^2.
I used windows movie maker to movie video frame by frame and happened to have a frame that started and stopped even with the points you used for reference.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Just to further muddy the waters I hoped to clear up a little:

I located 2 versions of that video that appear to be the same, in that the top of the building excluding the penthouse lines up with the horizon in both and they appear to be identical (shot from the same camera and location) but studying the 2 I got quite different results.

The one I used has no station ID or logos on it but the second one has a TNN logo and a banner appears at the bottom saying 'Lower Manhattan videotape' with an 'eye' logo (CBS?). An example of how different it is: the right corner of the building seems to accelerate at 9.1m/s^2 in that version versus the 10.46m/s^2 I got for the other video.

Seems we need a much much higher quality video to get any reasonable answers here.

Another thought: at 9.8m/s^2, the first metre of downward motion will take nearly 0.5 second so 'nailing' the frame of that first pixel of downward motion is critical.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I just used the WMV file from the WCIP site (I think) with windows movie maker to see what results I got and it's different yet again unfortunately. It's the one with the 'Lower Manhattan videotape' CBS banner on it btw

Using the same original 4 points:
A height 105m start 7.97 end 12.95 time 4.98 accel 8.47
B height 89m start 6.50 end 12.11 time 5.61 accel 5.66
C height 106m start 6.55 end 12.77 time 6.22 accel 5.48
D height 84m start 6.60 end 12.15 time 5.55 accel 5.45


This has the potential to push an otherwise sane individual over the edge.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
It seems to have gone very quiet here

I had hoped someone could show me a better quality video than this one to be used for more reliable estimates. It's a 1.6meg 320x240 resolution .wmv file apparently created from the original CBS footage.

I've noticed a lot of variation between videos and a lot of that could be put down to conversion aberrations but I can't rule out that some video being used to prove a point may have been deliberately tampered with to enhance the acceleration (I feel the above linked video is the genuinely untainted thing though). This wouldn't be very hard to do and even I could easily snip out a frame here and there to make the collapse appear faster than reality and you'd be hard-pressed to detect the alteration apart from monitoring the acceleration. NOTE - I would not do this



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
that's a two way street.
in fact, some of the original broadcasts were played in slow motion, obviously on purpose.
conspiracy theorists don't WANT "911 was an inside job".
i don't understand how anyone can watch the behaviour of the administration post-911(and pre-911, for that matter), and think that they used 911 to turn america into a near-dictatorship.
they are more interested in spying on their own citizen's and turning free-speech into corralled speech in a police state then they are in 'fighting terrorism'. it is pretty much impossible to fight terrorism. you can't fight terrorists, but not terror.

whatever.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Normally speeding up/slowing down videos is done in factors of 2 but by discretely snipping out / doubling up / morphing frames, increments as fine as multiples of 3-4% are possible depending on the original frame rate.

Looking carefully at the posted utube video of the 'physics toolkit' analysis, there's a cyclical 'jerkiness' in the observed acceleration shown on the displayed graph which is probably normal but I wonder if it's a result of some abnormality in the video used.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
wow. don't drink and post.


Originally posted by billybob

i don't understand how anyone can watch the behaviour of the administration post-911(and pre-911, for that matter), and think that they used 911 to turn america into a near-dictatorship.


should read "and NOT think they used 911...".



it is pretty much impossible to fight terrorism. you can't fight terrorists, but not terror.


should read ,"CAN fight terrorists, but not terror".







posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw...

The towers did not fall at free fall speed. "near" free fall is often the term used.

I have seen a video that shows closer to 18 seconds.



You can't make a timing by just watching a video. Even the NIST agrees on that.


"Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

link



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
You can't get a total collapse time from the videos, but you can find the acceleration for part of the fall that does have a clear start and end point from videos. See this thread: the911forum.freeforums.org... abut 1/3 down the page, posted by OneWhiteEye.

>>no accurate (I.e., undistorted (unless you have video from straight on, perpendicular-to-the wall-at-the-same-elevation)) distance reference.
I guess he's never heard of perspective correction. In some cases it's not even necessary to know the scene geometry to correct for perspective distortion, a (x,y) scaling map might be obtained from known lengths of objects at various locations in the scene. However crude, this sort of correction field can get you to within a few percent which is good enough for many purposes. He betrays his lack of understanding by claiming the ideal orthogonal shot does not need perspective correction. Oh yeah?


>>and a whole hell of a lot better analysts and equipment than the average troother
All that's needed is a computer and freeware. I can't speak for the 'average troother' (whatever that is), but I write my own software to extract data from frames.

I bolded his response to the JREFer's statements.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
You can't get a total collapse time from the videos, but you can find the acceleration for part of the fall that does have a clear start and end point from videos. See this thread: the911forum.freeforums.org... abut 1/3 down the page, posted by OneWhiteEye.


Einsteen has done this over at Physorg. His values were 3/4g for WTC1 and 2/3g for WTC2. This obviously results in huge amounts of energy expended in deforming and damaging the structure. Gregory Urich from one of the scholars groups has a decent paper on this. Unfortunately don't have a link to hand, I don't know if he has a website he stores all his papers on.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Core beams, I haven't seen them in awhile.
Kids going off to college never heard of them.
In sixty years all the same material will be available for them to jabber about.

Our knowledge of the most critical events in history 60 to 100+ years prior
from today, we are running on empty.

There are no 911 Truthers only 911 Government Liars.
The lies continue from today back 100+ years.
But why should the government tell us the truth in history.
Not a constitutional requirement.
Put more lipstick on 911 and the WTC 7 melts away like the
mk-ultra Wizard of Oz tells us in the Big Lie.

ED: From my thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
9/11: WTC1 & 2 Compilation (beta) by jkeogh (1of2)
www.youtube.com...
The falls...



[edit on 9/13/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Is there any updated information on this?

do we have any proof or disproof of this??

Thanks,

Korg.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join