Gravity Can't Do This!, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 02:35 PM by psikeyhackr
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


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 03:13 PM by Chrisfishenstein
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.....



reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 03:20 PM by waypastvne
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.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 03:33 PM by ANOK
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...




reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 03:41 PM by richiev
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.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 05:03 PM by turbofan
reply to post by richiev


Notice how the walls tip over, not straight down.



reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 05:14 PM by waypastvne
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.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 05:27 PM by turbofan
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.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 05:31 PM 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.


reply posted on 14-6-2011 @ 05:37 PM by turbofan
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?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 12 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 4 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 15 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 8 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 16 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 8 days ago with 8 member flags