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: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The pressure would be distributed throughout the lower part of the building before it made things shoot out rapidly from the sides. That is nothing but a STUPID rationalization.


No, there is not. The pressure wave from the collapsing structure would immeadiately affect the floor below it. Thats how things work here on planet Earth.


So you can claim the pressure wave could do that. So what caused the squibs 10 stories below the progress of destruction? That is what people use the bicycle pump theory for. But if it did that it would increase the pressure even farther down the building also and therefore the increase would not be that great until there were fewer than 30 stories left..

psik




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I know this video doesn't represent exactly the same thing but notice how this burning building collapses.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by turbofan
 


When the government/army removes ALL evidence of this almost immediately and takes it oversees to sell to the lowest bidder, that would mean there is more to the story then just a plane hitting it IMO....



What a pity you didn't do any elementary checking before posting that :-

911blogger.com...


Wow so much steel there, looks like over 40 stories worth to me???


Your information is from a blog website.....Man I got to stop taking people's responses so personally.....



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by richiev
I know this video doesn't represent exactly the same thing but notice how this burning building collapses.


Take a look at 8 sec see how badly that truss is sagging. At 15 sec we see the floor collapse and pancake to the ground then the exterior walls tilt outward and fall at "free fall speed". Actually it is a very good small scale representation.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


The big difference is that building didn't have 110 stories of floors to collapse through.

The OS claim is the top section was too heavy for the bottom section to arrest it's downward force. It is possible when there are only a couple of floors, as in your vid, and the whole building is on fire for that to happen. But when you have only 15 floors falling on 95 undamaged floors it is a different situation altogether. Equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation will not allow the 15 floors to stay intact while destroying floors of equal mass, and not be destroyed themselves causing the collapse stop due to no more falling top floors.

Also how long was that fire burning for?

Also if you consider WTC 7, the walls did not fall outwards as that vid shows a building should when it collapses naturally, the walls of WTC 7 ended up falling inwards to land on top of the collapsed building which is not possible unless it was an implosion demo.

Sry but that vid kinda contradicts the governments claims, not supports it. As that vid shows outer walls do not fall inwards from a natural collapse...




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I think so too. I am not taking any sides on this issue. I just see the WTC building collapse under its own weight just as this smaller building does. The OP doesn't show any damning evidence of conspiracy IMO.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Do you assume that everything falls uniformly at the speed of gravity?


What does "everything else" have to do with the object that I'm showing in the video?


Your assumption is based on a comparison. And that comparison relies on your certainty that the objects compared are descending at free-fall speed.



Do you assume that falling debris can magically accelerate faster than gravity will allow without any other
forces acting upon it?


No. But I know that your comparison relies on a false assumption.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


How can such a thing be built if we aren't even told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

psik


Can you PM me your address? It's just I'm building a tower and I want to make sure you've got all the relevant information.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Why do people keep debating this 911 thing...Everyone knows a few rag-heads with box cutters and with the help of Ali did this to the most secure nation on earth....What is there to debate? This is a no brainer...hell, give me a pair of scissors, a blur scarf, and yahweh, and I could take down the Empire State Building without any problem and may even use a shoe lace to lasso the sears tower and bring it down also like they did building 7......Come on people.......



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How can such a thing be built if we aren't even told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

psik
Can you PM me your address? It's just I'm building a tower and I want to make sure you've got all the relevant information.


So build it and make a video and put the specs in the description.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightSunshine
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


Ohhh, i see a highly provocative episode of Myth Busters in the future



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by richiev
 


Notice how the walls tip over, not straight down.



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

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by turbofan

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)


I think this is purely a case of D. Chandler's seeing what he wants to see......rather than what is actually in the video.


Now this is getting beyond ridiculous. I am going to have to find that video from another source but it appears multiple times in that looped video.

0:19, 0:42, 0:50, 1:07, 1:16, 1:20, 1:24, 1:29, 1:32, 1:45

He doesn't point it out until:

1:16, 1:20, 1:24, 1:29

So anybody that says they don't see it is in extreme denial, or a liar.

Truly ILLOGICAL, oh Logical One!

psik



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by richiev
 


Notice how the walls tip over, not straight down.


Yes the unsupported walls tip over, just the same as WTC 1 and WTC 2 .The floors pancake, unsupported walls tip over. So simple even a Truther can understand it.

Well... maybe not that simple.

This is probably to complex for a Truther to understand.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viking9019
Its a boat in the first picture


agreed, obviously a boat.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Please don't even think you have the science figured out. You are the one that said AIR cut steel columns!


That video is nothing like WTC7, and those that relate the two collapses are covering for the government, or
not educated enough to understand. Plain and simple.

The wall tips over. WTC 7 fell straight down without any resistance for at least 2.5 seconds AS NIST ADMITS AND IGNORES.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I am surprised that these bits flying out at different angles have not been called UFOs yet.
Freefall under gravity does not mean that objects fall at a steady speed.
They accelerate continuously until they hit the ground.
Basic physics really.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
This is for all of the blind, dishonest, government loyalists who are too emotional, or uneducated to see the
jet of dust shooting upward.

Look inside the green enclosure.



This is why I stopped debating those who intentionally cover up and skew the facts. You should all be
tried for treason like those responsible for 9/11.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by turbofan
 


I am surprised that these bits flying out at different angles have not been called UFOs yet.
Freefall under gravity does not mean that objects fall at a steady speed.
They accelerate continuously until they hit the ground.
Basic physics really.


If it's so basic, why haven't you figured out the object is acclerating faster than gravity will allow?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I can not tel if gravity speeds up rocks.
but it would speed it all up.
if they use'd some thing on it.
and on the video 2ndyou can seem some thing
ark across then go strait down?
and the pic. dont look at the boat!
the arrow shows the path of rocks shooting over the water.
its to fast and low to be some thing simple.
take a good look at the 4th video.
some metal tips out Then drops.
this metal is holding up the building.
then lower down it happens again.
it is 4 tone of steel.
what pushes to top Out?
an explosion.
this is the Best evidence so for.
let the government and the brain wash't discredit it.

gravity?
that first rock that falls out of the dust cloud!
why is it travling so much faster than all the others.
the rest all come out of the dust cloud at about the some time.
edit on 14-6-2011 by buddha because: I felt like it.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join