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: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
You forget the effects of wind resistance on lighter objects. They will be projected by the initial force then as soon as the wind resistance is greater than the forward momentum gravity takes over. This is why the downward "trail" is not straight but buffeted sideways by wind resistance.

The analysis also forgets about collisions which can cause objects to bounce/break off at different angles.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


So where is the stack of floors in the rubble?

What is the explanation for the destruction of the core? Please explain the OBVIOUS about that!

psik



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
You forget the effects of wind resistance on lighter objects. They will be projected by the initial force then as soon as the wind resistance is greater than the forward momentum gravity takes over. This is why the downward "trail" is not straight but buffeted sideways by wind resistance.

The analysis also forgets about collisions which can cause objects to bounce/break off at different angles.


Hey Psik, why do all of these smart people keep talking about wind resistance, even though the object is
accelerating faster than gravity can allow with, or without wind resistance?

edit on 14-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 





The analysis also forgets about collisions which can cause objects to bounce/break off at different angles.


Yep. I was getting ready to say this. I'm not a scientist, and I really haven't made my mind up yet what I believe to be true, but I image things would be free falling, and smacking into other things causing their courses to be altered.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
But when you have only 15 floors falling on 95 undamaged floors


But that is NOT what happens, you had 15 floors collapsing onto the floors below them - not collapsing onto 95 floors.

You really have no idea how things actually work



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
even though the object is accelerating faster than gravity can allow


Any proof at all of that silly claim? How do you know it is accelerating faster than gravity will allow?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Very easily, shall we do the math? Maybe we can start a new thread and I can show you the errors in your
logic. Hopefully, you've already done this exercise and have your own numbers to show for.

So, let's start. Do you agree that the tower was 208 feet wide?

We will use this value to scale the rest of the measurements.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
My post went pretty much ignored. My questions was, how is any of this evidence of explosives? We see or hear no blasts from explosives, immediately disproving them as cause. So there must be another explanation than explosives for these observations.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

I wonder, hmmm...., how many fire extinguishers were in the WTC? I wonder, what would happen when a fire extinguisher is punctured.

Oh, I get it! A fire extinguisher under pressure, when punctured, will accelerate!!!!

Lets do the math. 110 floors, estimate 100 extinguishers per floor = 11,000+ high pressure devices waiting to explode.

Do you think that could be the cause of your mysterious projectile?

Next, as the floors collapsed, under the ENORMOUS weight, objects would also fall along the line of least course of resistance. Take a bag of marbles. Hold it up. Cut out the bottom. Do the marbles fall straight in line to the floor in the same pattern they were while in the bag? Or do they scatter on the way down "accelerating" outward if resistance is met directly below them (other marbles)?

Get a clue truthers! There is no smoke and mirror conspiracy here.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I tend to go along with the idea of planes jetting into the towers and that being the reason the towers collapsed. No holograms. No hidden explosives. No mysterious military planes disguised as passenger planes. Just airliners full of fuel which crashed into the buildings. I consider myself a logical thinking person. I can see the logic in that being the cause of the WTC buildings coming down.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


When you learn how to calculate the acceleration of object by gravity toward earth, you'll stop your nonsense.

Stick around and learn something as "Spoor" and I go through some basic highschool Physics.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I'll scale the width of the tower and show all of my work. I'll even try to find a clearer video.


So how about showing "all of your work" then



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
My comments seems to have been ignored as well.

I assumed you meant the boat when you were talking about the object shooting out. but apparently you mean a sort of jet of debris. I'm not sure that the forces in the tower's pulverisation couldn't force out something composed of lighter materials in that manner.

But as to the "gravity can't make objects drop faster than gravity" have you any actual evidence to show that they are falling at a faster rate than gravity? Your assumption seems to be based on the notion that the dust cloud is descending at free-fall speed. I don't think it is.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Okay, so I am re-watching the video in the OP just to make sure I didn't miss anything that validates the point of explosives were used.

First off, note around the 00:20 mark. He is stating this is evidence of explosives being used as the left side of the building bulges out. I see this as weight of the upper floors falling down displace the air and material outward. Had there been an explosion, I think the force to move that much mass would be much more noticeable and push it out much farther had explosives caused that.

At the 00:30 mark, the right side of the building seems to be falling outward as it collapses. He is stating explosives are what make is disintegrate as it falls. I say there is no way that could be as again, you would see more of an explosive burst would have been seen. I cannot say why it disintegrates as I cannot see inside the plume of smoke and dust.

At the 00:53 mark, he is stating that you can clearly see debris accelerating faster than gravity allows. I see an object moving faster downwards than the plume of smoke and dust. We cannot see where this object originates from. It could be something that fell from higher above and has achieved a higher velocity than the other objects around it.

At the 01:10 mark he sees a projectile that seems to change course. He states even taking perspective into account, the object loses momentum then falls due to gravity. I think perspective is nottaken into account. This could be an object moving away from us. It could appear to stop in mid-air then fall if we are looking at it from an angle behind the projectile. Not sure if i could explain this correctly. Had we been facing that side of the tower, I think we would see this object move outwards and graciously arc downwards as gravity take hold of it. But since we are behind this object, we see it move outwards, then take a sudden turn downwards. Perspective.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by malcr
You forget the effects of wind resistance on lighter objects. They will be projected by the initial force then as soon as the wind resistance is greater than the forward momentum gravity takes over. This is why the downward "trail" is not straight but buffeted sideways by wind resistance.

The analysis also forgets about collisions which can cause objects to bounce/break off at different angles.


Hey Psik, why do all of these smart people keep talking about wind resistance, even though the object is
accelerating faster than gravity can allow with, or without wind resistance?


Coming up with complicated but irrelevant obfuscations appears to be a standard strategy of SMART people.

They assume the DUMB people can be confused with the obfuscations. Most of 9/11 confusion is built on that. Talk about skyscrapers for nine years without going into any detail about how the steel had to be distributed just so they could hold themselves up for 28 years.

INCREDIBLE!

And plenty of people claiming to be scientists have been silent while this travesty went on. When is the Reich Ministry of Education going to be established?

psik



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Clearly he didn't fully see his own video. The section is quite in piece and solid a few seconds after his comment that it disintegrated.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Your magical jet propelled faster than "free fall speed" piece of debris...



can also be seen in this video.



So how fast is it ?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:22 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


I 100% agree.. If not a full tower, maybe a 70% to scale .. I really think we'd be suprised with the results.. when we have to figure out how to really bring it down after the plane does nothing. we'll learn the truth then.

I think we should have rebuilt them. put surface to air rocket launchers and machine guns.. I still havent gone back to new york.. and I dont think I will.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by ANOK
But when you have only 15 floors falling on 95 undamaged floors


But that is NOT what happens, you had 15 floors collapsing onto the floors below them - not collapsing onto 95 floors.

You really have no idea how things actually work


Wrong. It is one block falling on one block, or one floor falling on one floor. You can not ignore all the structure bellow the collapse point, but include all the mass of the falling block.

You have to work the problem by including all the floors of both blocks, or just the two impacting floors otherwise your calculations will be wrong. The whole lower block is acting against the whole falling block.

When the two floors impacted the forces on each floor would be equal according to Newtons 3rd law, you have the mass of the other floors above pushing down, but you also have all the floors of the lower block pushing up against the falling block equally.
Equal opposite reaction law. It might be hard for you to understand that but think about it for awhile.

We know for a fact floors were destroyed during the collapse, as there were no intact floors left in the footprint, so according to the laws of motion the top block would run out of floors before the bottom block was completely destroyed. The top block was less overall mass then the bottom block, and each concrete floor was of equal mass. But if you include the central core then you have even more problems, such as the mass of the columns increasing down the building which would increase resistance against the core failing.

There had to be another energy involved that was not considered by the official reports.
YOU obvioulsy have no idea how it works mate.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Can anyone tell me when these "HUSH-A-BOMBS" will be on the market and where I may be able to purchase some? 4th of July is just around the corner. I would like to amaze my friends and family at my annual party. These silent bombs look COOOOOL!

Please post info here or please feel free to U2U me.

Thank you!
edit on 15-6-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join