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 place for actual Proof of 9/11 events

page: 7
4
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:09 PM

Thanks for the link, I'll read it when I get more time as I have yet to find a good explanation for the rate of acceleration observed.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Devino
Towers 1 & 2 were 1360+ feet tall...

This is not accurate at all, you've simply stated this without providing any proof. Dr Greening, Dr Bazant etc deal with the compression and evacuation of air in their paper. Where are your figures?

You need to be more specific on where you believe I am inaccurate, if you need proof for the physics of gravitational acceleration I suppose I could link an online source but it would be better for you to show where I am wrong. Is it the height of the towers? Or the ambiguity of the collapse time? Maybe it's in the estimated time of 10-15 sec. You are correct about one thing, I did not show evidence of how much resistance the atmospheric pressure inside each floor would be and I am speculating as to the amount of time it would add to the collapse but I don't think it would be negligible.

Originally posted by exponent
It's worthy of note that 32ft/s is a velocity, not an acceleration. The actual value is approximately 32 ft per second per second.

I understand the difference between (a) acceleration and (v) velocity. I do not quote (Ga) as 32ft/sec^2 (as I was originally taught) because the value is not squared and I don't say "per second/per second" because acceleration is the rate at which velocity is increased making the added 'per second' redundant as long as we all understand the difference between a & v, but this is just my opinion.

Originally posted by exponent

due to there being no resistance observed in any of the videos.

This is just ludicrous, there was obviously massive amounts of resistance unless you believe explosives were planted...You have absolutely no evidence of this.

Here we go with the ridicule, I do not find anything funny about these tragic events or what people believe happened. Your comment here I find to be repulsively arrogant and I would like to think that this was not your true intention. As for the "obvious amounts of resistance" there is no question that the towers had resistance to a gravitational collapse, steel and concrete are good for that, but what is observed in the videos is a rate of collapse with no resistance. How this happened is a good question and one maybe you could try to help explain but given your comments and that you presume to know what evidence I do or do not have it appears as though debunking/derailing the search for truth is more your focus.
Again thanks for the link and I will take the time to read it as I am interested in understanding what happened.

Originally posted by exponent

Conservation of momentum contradicts the pancake theory...

This is incorrect, you are assuming that there was no deceleration despite the fact that this is evident from the fall times you quote alone.

I suppose I do contradict myself on the collapse time, given that the time for that distance should be a little more then 9 seconds in a vacuum. My comment was that the exact fall times are indiscernible due to the concrete dust obscuring the view, it could very well be at unimpeded free fall speed. Even if you add up to 4 seconds I have a very tough time believing that this accounts for all of the resistance contained in the towers. I am willing to take the time to learn and welcome your help so long as you keep the ridicule and criticism to yourself.

Originally posted by exponent
no wonder your conclusion is "magic".

Oh and btw, my conclusion is not that it was magic, you erroneously assume far to much of me. My conclusion thus far is that the official conspiracy theory is, at best, misleading and incomplete if not totally false.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:19 PM

See, this is exactly what i wanted to avoid. Now you two are having a discussion. Please, what do I have to do to get people to understand that I would like just ONE thread to be just facts. That is it. No side conversations, no oppinions, no one on one debates, no addressing other posters to tell them they are wrong or right. Just post info. It seems to me that if there was one place that was full of nothing but items of information, it could prove very useful in any argument you may be engaged in, SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Do you not see the point or do you all just not care?

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:10 PM
prior knowledge of airline unsafety prior to 911

www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

www.cbsnews.com...

www.msnbc.com...

new topics

4