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: 9
27
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:17 PM

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Alfie1

According to eminent truther Richard Gage the severed top section of the Tower should settle neatly on the lower section :-

and this is he thinks is a valid demonstration of what happen on 911.... is that really THE Richard Gage from AE911TRUTH?

Lets get your qualifications and CV on the table and compare them with Richards shall we?
I am looking forward to your "air resistance" theory calculations.

PEACE,
RK

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

Lets get your qualifications and CV on the table and compare them with Richards shall we?
I am looking forward to your "air resistance" theory calculations.

PEACE,
RK

Appeal to Authority noted.

Can you please point to us what papers Gage has submitted for review?

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I don't try to explain what did it I only point out what could not do it. Because the next question would be, "How did they get there?" I am not pretending to know what I don't know.

The only force that should have been there was gravity so how could that get the steel from WTC 1 to the Winter Garden?

psik

You won't touch the question with a 10 foot pole.

Why?

Because you would paint yourself in a corner and you're smart enough not to do that.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:26 PM

Something with a wide cross section can fall irregularly - think of a falling leaf.

So now you are comparing falling concrete sections to falling leaves?
concrete has a density of 2.5, a leafs density is a tiny fraction of that.
If a leaf has the same density as concrete you can use this argument, until then, you cannot.

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

I think you know the answer to that don't you?
wind resistance plays a part,
density and surface area must be considered in calculating speed of fall

I hope you are not responsible for teaching kids.

PEACE,
RK

edit on 18-6-2011 by Rigel Kent because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by Six Sigma

I am missing the point here,
This has nothing to do with peer reviewed papers by Gage,
has it??

PEACE,
RK

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
reply to post by Six Sigma

I am missing the point here,
This has nothing to do with peer reviewed papers by Gage,
has it??

PEACE,
RK

Gage has peer reviewed papers regarding 9/11?

Can you please forward me the following information?

- Journal Name
- Published Date
- Page numbers.

Thank you,

S.S
edit on 18-6-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by hooper

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.

This is how things work here on planet Earth,
the pressure waves caused by weight of the falling building would overcome the surface tension of the window panes on the floor below, it would blow them out and thus be released, unless of course you are suggesting that glass has the same strength as concrete and steel.

PEACE,
RK

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by turbofan

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.

Agreed,
In fact I suggest every poster states their profession in the 9/11 forum prior to posting.
In the Aliens and UFO forum we are all equally in the dark and equally educated.
In this forum, some of us are University educated and working lifetime Engineers, others are Mythbusters and National Geographic educated and work God knows where but as soon as they enter this forum they become experts on physics, building construction and collapse.

It is sad but clear that often you are debating these issues with people who cannot begin to comprehend the physics involved. You cannot give 4 years worth of lectures and 25 yrs of experience to someone who thinks they know it all cos they have watched a series of documentaries and are at stage 9 of Government mental programming.

PEACE,
RK

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:26 PM
THATS IT!!
Im declaring a war on gravity.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
reply to post by Six Sigma

I am missing the point here,
This has nothing to do with peer reviewed papers by Gage,
has it??

PEACE,
RK

Gage has peer reviewed papers regarding 9/11?

Can you please forward me the following information?

- Journal Name
- Published Date
- Page numbers.

Thank you,

S.S
edit on 18-6-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

I honestly do not know what you are talking about,
I never suggested that GAGE has any peer reviewed papers.
He is a degree qualified Architect

I did suggest another poster compare his qualifications and resume with those of GAGE' is that what you are talking about?

PEACE,
RK

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:33 PM
This is one of those threads that makes a person sit, and wonder what good could be done by concentrating these efforts on something that we really need.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I don't try to explain what did it I only point out what could not do it. Because the next question would be, "How did they get there?" I am not pretending to know what I don't know.

The only force that should have been there was gravity so how could that get the steel from WTC 1 to the Winter Garden?

psik

You won't touch the question with a 10 foot pole.

Why?

Because you would paint yourself in a corner and you're smart enough not to do that.

You are already in a hole created by physics and think you can talk someone else into a hole.

So you can't explain what happened with the KNOWN forces so you think you win by insisting that someone else explain what you know they can't know. That is truly intellectually impressive.

Pseudo-intellectual bullsh#. We aren't even told the distribution of steel in buildings that had to hold themselves up. Morons claiming to know physics are not even demanding the information. The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the world the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings designed before 1969. The US should be laughed at for the next 1000 years.

psik

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by hooper

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.

This is how things work here on planet Earth,
the pressure waves caused by weight of the falling building would overcome the surface tension of the window panes on the floor below, it would blow them out and thus be released, unless of course you are suggesting that glass has the same strength as concrete and steel.

PEACE,
RK

Doesn't a pressure wave have to be caused by speed not weight? The maximum speed of a cannon ball dropped from the top of the building would be 200 mph when it hit the ground. So how could the PRESSURE WAVE be so great at the start of the collapse when gravity had not had much time to accelerate the mass. The first second only gets 21 mph. Then 42 mph in the 2nd second.

That pressure wave business is crap. You are just making up an EXCUSE.

Speed creates pressure waves not weight. The air has to get out of the way of the mass.

psik

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:48 AM

So how is the analysis going. Do you have any results yet?

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:52 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-

So how is the analysis going. Do you have any results yet?

It is obvious he has not been home yet, as he stated

Once I get home, I'll scale the width of the tower and show all of my work.

That was only 10 days ago, so give him time to get home!

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:03 AM

Originally posted by spoor
That was only 10 days ago, so give him time to get home!

Actually, I've been waiting for you to respond and agree to the values in order to move forward,
but that was only 12 days ago...and I only asked you about three times

Let me know when you agree to the 208 foot wide tower, 32.1704 ft./s/s acceleration so that you
don't backpedal after the results are posted.
edit on 27-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:16 AM

Originally posted by turbofan

You post the calculations that you have, take your time
edit on 27-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:22 AM

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan

You post the calculations that you have, take your time
edit on 27-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)

So you're good with those values? I will measure a 'falling object' from two points outside of the dust cloud
to find the acceleration and nothing more.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:16 AM
Just start the calculations as everyone will agree those figures are accurate.

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
Here is another impossibility and probably the most obvious of the bunch. The top photo shows the
debris cloud descending. The bottom photo shows one of many accelerated pieces of debris shooting
out of the cloud.

Again, IMPOSSIBLE by gravity as there is no additional force available to accelerate individual object
out of the dust cloud.

You are making the silly assumption that the dust cloud is falling at "free fall" speed. It is not, and the debris falling out of the cloud is at free fall speed.

The poster is not making the assumption that the dust cloud is falling at free fall speeds but rather that there is debris coming off the building that is traveling faster than free fall. This is clearly seen in the video archives and is accepted as fact by officials that claim this is caused by mid air collisions within the debris field.

You really should read the post thoroughly before responding

new topics

top topics

27