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.

 

Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Some simple factual and visual representations of explosive evidence. These anomalies cannot be explained
by gravity alone. Many of these photos have been taken from D. Chandler's research videos. The following
clip shows several instances of objects accelerating in unnatural forms, faster than gravity can account for:




www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

This photo shows debris shooting upward, and arcing from the middle of the tower core. There is nothing
on top crushing at this point, and there is constant destruction of concrete in mid-air. This cannot happen
as there is no opposing force to break the concrete by gravity alone.



This series of still frames shows one of many objects shooting laterally, or upward from the
debris cloud against the force of gravity. Furthermore, some of the debris breaks apart
in mid air and changes direction suddenly as D. Chandler explains. Impossible by gravity.






Links to Video
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Here is another impossibility and probably the most obvious of the bunch. The top photo shows the
debris cloud descending. The bottom photo shows one of many accelerated pieces of debris shooting
out of the cloud.

Again, IMPOSSIBLE by gravity as there is no additional force available to accelerate individual object
out of the dust cloud.




Core Section

The path of least resistance is not straight down compressing lower sections of steel, or bolted/welded sections.
This structure should have tipped over, not telescoped down. There are a few different angles of this footage
which proves it did not tip over.





Hopefully there is some new material here for people to research. If not, pass it on to your friends who
are looking for more evidence.
edit on 14-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Here is another impossibility and probably the most obvious of the bunch. The top photo shows the
debris cloud descending. The bottom photo shows one of many accelerated pieces of debris shooting
out of the cloud.

Again, IMPOSSIBLE by gravity as there is no additional force available to accelerate individual object
out of the dust cloud.


You are making the silly assumption that the dust cloud is falling at "free fall" speed. It is not, and the debris falling out of the cloud is at free fall speed.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Its a boat in the first picture



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


You need to learn how gravity accelerates objects toward Earth.

Did you happen to take highschool Physics?

Even then, you picked one instance of this thread and totally disregarded the rest.
edit on 14-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I think someone should rebuild a tower, and fly a plane into it. Just to see what happens. It would have to fall just like those 2 did, right? I'm sure if it didn't, there'd be a million and one excuses as to why not.
edit on 14-6-2011 by MidnightSunshine because: spelling



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightSunshine
 


And when it did the build team would simply become part of the conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Good post.

Slightly off-topic; I wonder, is this A&E for 9-11 truth guys funded by any government agency? They are under-funded IMO.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightSunshine
 

Yeah. That's like asking for the funding to actually investigate this blatant false-flag operation.
________________________________________________________________________________________

No addressee;

The Gulf of Tonkin was a false-flag op that to this day- is not being investigated.

There's no sense in investigating what we already know. You're either with us on this or you are not. Just ask Dubya.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
You need to learn how gravity accelerates objects toward Earth.


You obviously have never heard of wind resistance!


Even then, you picked one instance of this thread and totally disregarded the rest.


The rest? An arrow pointing to a boat, and a mast that fell down because the building supporting it fell down....



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
You need to learn how gravity accelerates objects toward Earth.


You obviously have never heard of wind resistance!


Please show me you know the equation for acceleration by gravity and what it means.

Start by posting the formula.

Then you can calculate how fast the object emerged from the cloud using the timer in
the video, or approximate distance traveled by the numbers of floors over time.

You will soon see that the object accelerated faster than gravity, overcoming any sort
of wind resistance.




Even then, you picked one instance of this thread and totally disregarded the rest.

The rest? An arrow pointing to a boat, and a mast that fell down because the building supporting it fell down....


An arrow showing the direction of a dust trail moving upward.

A mast that fell through the greatest path of resistance. What building was supporting it?


What about the object that changes direction in mid air? What force caused that?
edit on 14-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
You will soon see that the object accelerated faster than gravity, overcoming any sort
of wind resistance.


You are the one making that claim, so it is up to you to prove it.


A mast that fell through the greatest path of resistance.


What resistance? Just why did you think it fell, because the building that was holding it up collapsed.


What building was supporting it?


so you think it was just hanging in the air with no support....

Jiust when you thought the truthers could not get any sillier they come up with this.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
What about the object that changes direction in mid air? What force caused that?


If this is so and not just an illusion, what force can you come up with that caused it? How do you make the connection between "this looks odd" and "inside job"? Or isn't there any?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
You will soon see that the object accelerated faster than gravity, overcoming any sort
of wind resistance.


You are the one making that claim, so it is up to you to prove it.



I just proved it with video evidence. The object shoots out of the debris cloud, faster than what
gravity can accelerate such an object.

You told me to think about resistance.

I told you, the object is still out accelerating gravity and overcoming resistance.

What's YOUR explanation?

It appears you don't even have highschool level Physics which explains your initial and last response.
This is the problem with most North Americans, they are not educated enough to debate the science.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I just proved it with video evidence. The object shoots out of the debris cloud, faster than what
gravity can accelerate such an object.


No it does not - care to show it falls faster than free fall? So far you have refused to, so it seems you cannot! You have proved nothing, just showing a piece of debris falling at free fall speed faster than a dust cloud


This is the problem with most North Americans,


And once again you have no clue, what makes you think I am from North America?

you made a silly claim, so it is up to you to back that claim up. that is how it works in the rest of the world, but not to a yank apparently!

This is one reason truthers are not taken seriously by most people, they have no understanding of physics, for example thinking a mast holds itself up and will remain standing after the building supporting it collapses!
edit on 14-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I will gladly, and easily prove the object is accelerating faster than gravity by showing the change in velocity
from two distinct points beyond the dust cloud.

Once I get home, I'll scale the width of the tower and show all of my work. I'll even try to find a clearer video.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I truly don't know what to make of the various theories suggesting that WTC-1 & 2 were brought down in controlled demolitions. I also lack the knowledge to read and fully understand the various papers written on the subject. But, I would like to ask contributors who know better than me to give their opinion on the following scenario:

Assume, firsly, whomever committed the attacks WERE able to access the buildings. Assume they chose to attempt to bring the towers down with planted explosives rather than with planes. Assume they were able to simultaneously blow the core AND perimeter columns on one or more floors.

The question is: how many floors would they have to blow and how far down would they have to blow in order to bring about the global collapses we saw?

Could they, for example, blow JUST the 85th floor such that the weight of the structure above falling down would lead to a global collapse? Would they need to blow 5 floors - say, 80 through 84 - to produce the same effect. Or, would they need to blow more than 5 floors?
edit on 14-6-2011 by coughymachine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Here's an interesting development of sorts...

FOIA request



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


According to eminent truther Richard Gage the severed top section of the Tower should settle neatly on the lower section :-


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy
Here's an interesting development of sorts...

FOIA request


Not really, as the person who posted that could not be bothered to do his own request, he wants someone else to do it.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1


According to eminent truther Richard Gage the severed top section of the Tower should settle neatly on the lower section :-

I think, maybe, you 'misunderstood' the purpose of my post.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join