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.

 

Worst case of 9/11 sheeple I've seen yet

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I am sorry, and i know its off topic and i will stop after this but:

Nothing, no matter how big, hard and heavy it is, that will ever find itself above this mudball with nothing or not enough to support it's weight below it will ever reach the ground faster than freefall. As a matter of fact most things will hit terminal velocity before they reach the ground.

If the towers were in a vacuum they would have reached freefall speed
The only possibility for them to *surpass* freefall speed would be that the culprits increased the gravity in that area. Is that what you are saying? You are aware that that would be way beyond hologram planes and space beam weapons on the scale of space opera - sci fi ness?

... actually even increasing gravity would not make the buildings fall faster than freefall, it would just push freefall accelleration up.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by debunky]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by prepare4it777
 


This is not proof. The paper is full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Jones says he will write another paper that will address the criticisms in the Bentham paper. It may even be peer reviewed, this time.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

I am sorry, and i know its off topic and i will stop after this but:

Nothing, no matter how big, hard and heavy it is, that will ever find itself above this mudball with nothing or not enough to support it's weight below it will ever reach the ground faster than freefall. As a matter of fact most things will hit terminal velocity before they reach the ground.

If the towers were in a vacuum they would have reached freefall speed
The only possibility for them to *surpass* freefall speed would be that the culprits increased the gravity in that area. Is that what you are saying? You are aware that that would be way beyond hologram planes and space beam weapons on the scale of space opera - sci fi ness?

... actually even increasing gravity would not make the buildings fall faster than freefall, it would just push freefall accelleration up.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by debunky]


SSoooo...what are YOU having a problem with?

Free Falling through the atmosphere, is NOT Free Falling in a vacuum

in the atmosphere, you have resistance...in a vacuum, you do not

if you dropped a feather and a 1lb ball from the same height, in the atmosphere, what happens?

resistance affects objects different...falling in a vacuum, doesn't

the calculation shows an object the height of the towers, falling IN A VACUUM...ONLY for comparison of TIME....see the time it would take???

free fall is a motion in which the only force acting upon an object is gravity. Objects which are said to be undergoing free fall, are not encountering a significant force of air resistance; they are falling under the sole influence of gravity. Under such conditions, all objects will fall with the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass.

take a lesson here


so, HOW does a building cause itself to have total global collapse....FASTER than free fall in an atmosphere, but slower than free fall in a vacuum...x2

and WTC7 DID fall at a rate equivalent to the acceleration of gravity...FASTER than the towers....HOW does THAT happen???



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Due to the fact that participants in the thread cannot remain on topic - even after staff instructions - this thread is now closed.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join