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.

# Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 10
27
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
is accepted as fact by officials that claim this is caused by mid air collisions within the debris field.

care to name these officials, and show a source for that claim?

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:30 AM
I've started doing some measurements for this calculation. I've taken a screen shot from the video, and imported the image into a photo editor. The picture itself is 235 pixels wide, by 425 pixels high.

The red line spans the entire image, and the green line crosses the mid-way point of each outer column
on the forward facing wall.

PS CS4 resolution shows 96 dots per inch.

Cursor positions along the x-axis of:

Red line 'x' coordinates are 0 to 3.259

Green line 'x' coordinates are 0.435 to 2.935 for a difference of 2.500

235 pixels / 3.259 = 72.108 pixels (don't round off until the last calculation)

The green line represents 208 feet across the wall of the tower. I will use 72.108 to figure the amount of pixels
per foot.

This yields 180.27 pixels for the facing wall of the tower, and 1.15 feet per pixel for scaling.

If these values look good, I will draw a vertical line using the same scaling to measure the "falling" object.

Agree?

You should be able to right click and save this image to verify these numbers in your own picture editor.

The next step will be importing the original video into my video editor to capture each frame for more precise timing.

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:07 AM

Looks correct but you don't need to share all the basics, I trust you will do it right and if you don't I will point that out to you in your final result. This isn't exactly hard to do, just take 3 screens, determine the difference in distance and you know the acceleration. If you are able to find any sequence of 3 frames that shows a>g then share it. If you don't find it then just say so and we don't even need to see your analysis.

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:06 AM

It's not difficult, but it's not really that basic. Without the proper software it's not easy to determine the results.

With three screen shots alone, there is no basis for time. That is why a video editor is needed.

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:40 AM

Why don't you use the frame rate to determine the time? If it is 30fps, the time between each frame is 1/30 of a second. Just keep in mind that there could be a frame rate conversion (for example 2:3 pulldown) before you jump to any conclusion, but I doubt that to be the case.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:23 PM

The officials are the 200 plus physics experts that did model simulations of the towers, and of course the officials that told other officials, that eventually addressed it in senate committees. Why is it that every time anything comes up you need others to google it for you ? For a 911 denier such as yourself, shouldn't you at least be partially knowledgeable on the official story ? This is the last time I do your research for you ,, start here and learn about everything that the official story is "supported by" www.scienceof911.com.au... , then continue on to the links. People that have no knowledge and then request that others look up the most mundane of information for them, are in my opinion sad, weak minded, and utterly pathetic in what they can bring to the table. Yeah spoor I'm talking about you.

People with no knowledge on the topics they feel fit to discuss =

edit on 30-6-2011 by

edit on 30-6-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)
extra DIV

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
start here and learn about everything that the official story is "supported by" www.scienceof911.com.au...

No claim there about objects colliding, and that is a "truther site", full of the normal truther garbage.

Also no science there, the author has never even heard of kinetic energy!

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:27 AM

Are you seriously so daft that the above picture doesn't say it all ? Yeah there is no way that the debris would hit other debris in midair, that's just impossible
You obviously didn't take the time to follow the info. Here are some numbers for another poster asking for the math and once you have had the time to go over it I would like you to try to explain how 20 ton steel columns were able to be launched so violently in a horizontal manner to embed themselves in buildings 3 city blocks away ? I mean that wouldn't happen in a free fall collapse so what else is there ?

Ejection of Steel Beams and Aluminum Cladding
Steel Beams

During the destructions of the twin Towers, massive steel beams, weighing 4 - 20 tons or more, were ejected horizontally as much as 520 feet. Their motion can be examined as for projectiles.

Projectile motion consist of a vertical and a horizontal component of velocity.

If a beam were ejected from the 95th floor of WTC1, the height at ejection is 95/110 x 1365 = 1179 feet.

The time to hit the ground is given by distance = ½ x g x (time)² where g= 32.2 ft/sec² is the acceleration due to gravity.

1179 = ½ x 32.2 x (time)²

(time)² = 1179 x 2/32.2 = 73.23

time = 8.56 seconds.

The horizontal distance traveled is given by distance = velocity x time.

520 = velocity x 8.56

velocity = 60.75 feet/sec = velocity of ejection = 41 miles per hour minimum.

This is a minimum velocity – air resistance will cause the horizontal velocity to decrease. Beams ejected at lower floors from WTC1, or beams that hit other buildings higher up than ground level, have less time to fall, and must therefore travel faster to reach a horizontal distance of 520 feet.

How does expelled air propel these beams with such force? In the official story of 9/11, the only other force available is that of gravity acting vertically downward. A theory that buckling steel columns were severed and ejected with a spring action, a very unlikely occurrence, is not supported by the uniform debris fields and lack of observed rotation of steel beams seen in mid flight on videos. Extensive debris fields with ejected steel columns and sections of aluminum cladding surrounded the demolished towers on all sides for hundreds of feet. A very large proportion of the steel was projected outward. Only explosive force can explain the debris fields.

The official account of 9/11 dismisses this indisputable evidence by entirely ignoring it. The controlled demolition theory, on the other hand, readily explains this evidence. In a controlled demolition of a building, charges are placed so as to break the structure into pieces of manageable size for easy removal by truck. Thus, the steel columns were broken and ejected by explosive force. This evidence alone is quite enough to disprove the official account of 9/11.

Then after these numbers were brought up, the first thing that was asked was if there was a secondary force besides gravity acting on the debris besides explosives. They had a myriad of scientists work out that debris collided with other falling debris to enable the 20 ton steel column sections rooted in the above picture , to gain a horizontal momentum.

Do you want to go ahead and say that the debris didn't collide in mid air with other debris ? If you do there goes the official story and I guess your basically a truther, hum. So I guess you would also say its impossible for the plane to make it all the way through the wtc and out the other side as well ?

Its okay if you do because I totally agree it is impossible considering that a bird does this to the nosecone of an airliner in a mid air collision.Considering that the nosecone is made of aluminum and the wtc is made of steel, its really quite impossible.

DO I SERIOUSLY HAVE TO BE YOUR GOOGLE ? ? ? ? ? ?

Also since you mention kinetic energy ... What is the mechanism for converting the vertical kinetic energy of gravity to horizontal kinetic energy sufficient to rip exterior framework sections apart and eject them 500 to 600 feet? I am sure you will have an answer for this as you are obviously an expert in the subject material, and I would love to see an expert such as yourself explain it,

edit on 1-7-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:28 AM

Mr. Spoor, I'm confused. Would you take a few minutes and explain 'kinetic energy' to me? Or, am I being unduly influenced by 'truther garbage' again. Thanks, in advance. You're a huckleberry.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:07 AM

The controlled demolition theory, on the other hand, readily explains this evidence. In a controlled demolition of a building, charges are placed so as to break the structure into pieces of manageable size for easy removal by truck. Thus, the steel columns were broken and ejected by explosive force. This evidence alone is quite enough to disprove the official account of 9/11.

Explosives? Care to show how many explosives are required to blow a piece of steel that far at ? Care to demonstrate what such an explosion would look like an why we don't see any evidence of a blast on videos? When you start asking questions like that, the theory becomes quite silly. In a controlled demolition explosive charges are used to prevent debris from flying all around. The silly thing with these truther theories is that debris falling straight down in its footprint is proof of controlled demolition, and debris chaotically flying all around is proof of controlled demolition. Or any mixture between the two for that matter.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-
Explosives? Care to show how many explosives are required to blow a piece of steel that far at ? Care to demonstrate what such an explosion would look like an why we don't see any evidence of a blast on videos? When you start asking questions like that, the theory becomes quite silly.

First you need to explain how a gravity driven collapse can do that.

In a controlled demolition explosive charges are used to prevent debris from flying all around.

Yes because in a normal controlled collapse people are concerned about those things, obvioulsy with the WTC towers not so much.

The silly thing with these truther theories is that debris falling straight down in its footprint is proof of controlled demolition, and debris chaotically flying all around is proof of controlled demolition. Or any mixture between the two for that matter.

No, the silly thing is you can not get the difference between the towers collapses, and the collapse of WTC 7.
But, both falling into its footprint, and steel being ejected, are signs of some kind of energy being involved other than gravity, but for different reasons, something you fail to be able to grasp. A controlled collapse can do whatever the controllers want it to do, you seem to think anything not adhering to your extremely narrow definition of controlled collapse is not a controlled collapse. You are being extremely unreasonable and unrealistic in your argument. Your logic from incorrect information fails again, as it is always bound to do.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
First you need to explain how a gravity driven collapse can do that.

I don't need to do anything. A lack of explanation from me does not make any crazy controlled demolition theory any more likely. This is a typical creationist argument. Explain how this and that happened with evolution and if you can't creationism is true.

Yes because in a normal controlled collapse people are concerned about those things, obvioulsy with the WTC towers not so much.

If that was their goal they would have made the buildings topple over. The buildings did not collapse in the most damaging way at all so your argument is weak.

No, the silly thing is you can not get the difference between the towers collapses, and the collapse of WTC 7.
But, both falling into its footprint, and steel being ejected, are signs of some kind of energy being involved other than gravity, but for different reasons, something you fail to be able to grasp. A controlled collapse can do whatever the controllers want it to do, you seem to think anything not adhering to your extremely narrow definition of controlled collapse is not a controlled collapse. You are being extremely unreasonable and unrealistic in your argument. Your logic from incorrect information fails again, as it is always bound to do.

I am able to grasp a lot more than you concerning this subject. For example how a building can collapse driven by gravity alone. I do not need to make up all kind of fantasies in order for it to make it work.

A controlled collapse can not do whatever the controllers want it to. The controllers will have to obey the laws of physics. Explain how much explosions are required to eject those steel beams that far, and explain why there wasn't any evidence of a blast.

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 06:14 PM
Yeah the official story of how the towers collapse defy 2 of Newtons 3 laws of motion, but mainstream media said that's what happened so nod your head and submit to the impossible being possible. 2 + 2 = 5

Check this video out, 'Hijaqd' posted it in another 9/11 thread and it is pure gold. Watch out for the debunkers though, the laws of physics don't seem to have any relavence in a discussion on what is possible and what is impossible:

Every claim made in that video has evidence, facts, and experimental confirmation to back it up.
edit on 3-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:36 AM
Does anyone know of a decent program to capture video with reasonable resolution?

I'm using CamStudio but the quality of the image degrades noticeably when transferred.

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 09:27 AM

I think virtual dub should be able to do the trick.

posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 03:35 PM

Explosives? Care to show how many explosives are required to blow a piece of steel that far at ? Care to demonstrate what such an explosion would look like an why we don't see any evidence of a blast on videos? When you start asking questions like that, the theory becomes quite silly. In a controlled demolition explosive charges are used to prevent debris from flying all around. The silly thing with these truther theories is that debris falling straight down in its footprint is proof of controlled demolition, and debris chaotically flying all around is proof of controlled demolition. Or any mixture between the two for that matter.

Sure But I asked first, so as soon as you answer my question I will show you how how metal is launched using explosive force, that's actually incredibly easy. Now if you could just answer the question I asked first, WHAT IS THE MECHANISM FOR CONVERTING THE VERTICAL KINETIC ENERGY OF GRAVITY TO HORIZONTAL KINETIC ENERGY SUFFICIENT TO RIP EXTERIOR FRAMEWORK SECTIONS WEIGHING 20 TONS AND EJECT THEM 500-600 FT HORIZONTALLY
Sorry for all caps but I am just waiting for someone to answer just 1 of the questions I have, instead of just asking more questions of me.

And you fail with labels, why are you labeling me a truther when all I have asked is simple physics questions and given simple math equations. I guess Math and Physics are thruthers too ?
edit on 5-7-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 10:23 AM

Can you show the 20+ton section that flew 500+ feet and from what tower?

posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't need to do anything. A lack of explanation from me does not make any crazy controlled demolition theory any more likely. This is a typical creationist argument. Explain how this and that happened with evolution and if you can't creationism is true.

Yes you do, you are making the claim, so back up your claim. This is nothing like creationism, we have two choices here, either it was a natural collapse, or it wasn't. If it wasn't natural then there is only one other thing it could be. Physics points to the later, unlike creationism which has no basis in science.

If your hypothesis is true, then you have to be able to explain it using known physics, otherwise you are just acting on faith, which is exactly what creationists do.

I have yet to hear you explain the laws of motion and how it relates to the collapses, all you do is dismiss it. You are dismissing the physicist that you should be using to make your argument, which is ridiculous and just shows your level of education on this subject.

If that was their goal they would have made the buildings topple over. The buildings did not collapse in the most damaging way at all so your argument is weak.

I never said they collapsed in the most damaging way, I said they had no choice because the towers could not be 'imploded' (too tall). They still collapsed in a way to minimize damage to surrounding buildings, not maximize. They could have toppled them over which would have been more convincing to their story but would have caused far more damage to surrounding buildings. More damage, more cleanup, more money.

I am able to grasp a lot more than you concerning this subject.

No you're not, your posts prove that. Want me to site some past examples for you, Mr. Electrical Engineer, who couldn't answer basic physics questions? Did you forget that already?

For example how a building can collapse driven by gravity alone. I do not need to make up all kind of fantasies in order for it to make it work.

NO steel framed building has EVER collapsed from gravity alone. In fact NO building has EVER collapsed into it's own footprint from ANYTHING other than controlled implosion demolition, so you are wrong again.

Explain how much explosions are required to eject those steel beams that far, and explain why there wasn't any evidence of a blast.

Why do I need to explain how much explosives it would take? How about you explain how gravity can eject those beams? Then when you can't do that, try to think of an alternative. Is there an alternative PLB, that doesn't involve another energy other than gravity?

posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Can you show the 20+ton section that flew 500+ feet and from what tower?

Winter Garden was almost 600ft from the towers...

The Deutsche Bank building was also about 600ft away...

www.dockersunion.net...

posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 04:57 PM

As YOU would no doubt say link to evidence of the mass of the panel please!

Worked out that DYNAMIC load equation yet????
edit on 17-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added

new topics

top topics

27