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: 6
27
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:22 AM

No we still want the drag.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:31 AM

Originally posted by waypastvne

No we still want the drag.

Well, why don't you give me a value for drag then. Too bad you can't grasp the fact that drag hurts your case.

Thankfully Spoor was able to see past the nonsense and figure it out. Maybe you will one day...

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Thankfully Spoor was able to see past the nonsense

Very true, I have been able to see past the nonsense you post, and your silly truther claims!

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:51 AM

You are going to give us a speed based on the time it takes this object to travel a 208' at some random point during its accelerating fall . So you will need to give us the mass weight, frontal area, drag factor and time in free fall so we have something accurate to compare it to. How else are you going to prove it's faster than free fall. Good luck.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:52 AM

Are you going to agree to the values so we can move forward, or not?

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by waypastvne

You are going to give us a speed based on the time it takes this object to travel a 208' at some random point during its accelerating fall . So you will need to give us the mass weight, frontal area, drag factor and time in free fall so we have something accurate to compare it to. How else are you going to prove it's faster than free fall. Good luck.

Why do I need the "mass weight", frontal area and drag factor to calculate velocity?

Are you SURE you're a design engineer?

edit on 16-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:56 AM

You need it for the comparison velocity dimwit.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by waypastvne

You need it for the comparison velocity dimwit.

Comparison of what SMART guy?

We already know the acceleration of gravity...so what else do we need SMART guy?

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:12 AM

Even if you can approximately calculate the velocity of a particular item of debris I don't see how you can prove anything.

You can't begin to know the forces which acted on the piece of debris before you started measuring it's speed. It may well have been involved in any number of collisions before you started observing it and, in particular, you can have no clue as to how it was ejected in the first place.

Ever played "tiddlywinks" ? You apply pressure to one side of a plastic counter with another counter and the counter being pressed will fly off at great speed at some point :-

en.wikipedia.org...

There must have been innumerable such ejections resulting from pressure from above during the collapses of the Towers.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:26 AM

We are measuing "change in velocity".

After any sort of initial force has acted upon it, gravity is left to accelerate it to the ground.

Do not confuse speed with velocity, and acceleration by gravity with forces ejecting it from the building.

The change can only come from gravity by the official story.
edit on 16-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:27 AM
Maybe little summary helps to sort this mess out.

The video shows an object falling that is ahead of the dust cloud and ahead of the point of collapse. The claim is that this proves that something else than gravity is acting on the object.

A very reasonable explanation for the object that is falling ahead of the dust cloud is that this object started falling all the way up at the moment the building started collapsing. It is not slowed down by anything but air. The dust cloud is, because of air resistance. The collapse front also is, because of the resistance as result of the crushing the building.

To disprove this explanation, what you should do is draw an imaginary object next to the tower that start falling the moment the collapse starts. Draw this object in every frame, and make sure it has an acceleration equal to gravity.

Now when it turns out the real object in the video is ahead of this imaginary object you just drew, then you have evidence that some other force than gravity has been acting on this object. Note that by no means this is evidence of explosives, it is just evidence that some other unknown force is at work.

Until you have done this, all you have is a baseless assertion. I know that you as a truther very much like baseless assertions, but most other people require evidence to support a claim.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:31 AM

No you are wrong.

All we need to know is the CHANGE IN VELOCITY.

We already know the rate of acceleration by gravity.

If the object continues to accelerate at a FASTER rate than gravity can allow, then we know something is up.

There is no need to calcualte anything else in your post.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:33 AM

Then show this to be the case. You can use the same method I described, draw an imaginary object next to the building that accelerates with the rate of gravity. See if the real object gains on it.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:40 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Then show this to be the case. You can use the same method I described, draw an imaginary object next to the building that accelerates with the rate of gravity. See if the real object gains on it.

Why? It's the same thing!

If I draw an object falling at the rate of gravity, what is the difference from finding the rate of change in velocity
in two distinct points?

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:41 AM

The situation I am envisaging is where the initial unknown force propelled the debris at such a speed that it exceeded what would have been possible by gravity alone through the whole of its journey to the ground.

The unknown force could have been been explosives but could have been many other unproveable things could it not ?

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:49 AM

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:05 AM
Nice pictures but you cant prove a damn word you say.

Just another to jump on the bandwagon and offer absolutely nothing original of his/her own.

Did YOU take those pics?

NO i hear you say!!!

Well you borrowed them from some other site. Whos to say the originals are not faked? Can you prove they are not?

NO i hear you say!!!

A lot of NO's from you. hmmmmmmmmm

Brains Deleted!

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:07 AM

It's video of the actual collapse. Yes, I DID TAKE THOSE SCREEN SHOTS! THEY ARE NOT BORROWED!

Nice try.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:11 AM

I would agree with you if the object followed a straight line acceleration, or even angled acceleration.

The object we are going to measure is arcing away from the tower. It has lateral motion and is also falling
toward earth.

The initial force (whatever we believe it was) was lateral, and then gravity took over to acclerate it in a 'vertical'
motion toward Earth (thus creating an arcing motion).

Do you agree with this statement (arcing objects vs. angle, or straight line acceleration)?

edit on 16-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:23 AM

You can ignore any horizontal motion and just focus on the vertical motion.

ps, to make your posts better readable I suggest not using enters at the end of the box you are typing in. Just continue typing and you go to a new line automatically.

top topics

27