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.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
. err... 9.8 m/s is the rate of acceleration due to gravity. as i've already shown, what "a" equals DOESN'T EFFECT THE OUTCOME! at all. a=the acceleration of the mass.
Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Shadow Herder
Still flogging your jew hunter thread I see.
Obviously no one is interested.
Originally posted by AngryAlien
reply to post by ANOK
So in your mind, it should be impossible for a man to break 12 concrete slabs or wooden boards with one swing of his hand, right? I mean equal and oposite reaction, the hand should be stopped, right?
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by WarminIndy
It is always ignored, and just gets buried in all the BS that the OS supporters usually spread to try to cause doubt in our claims.
It shows how much the core columns tapered, and it's A LOT. Of course now the OS supporters are starting to claim the core columns fell over, and didn't fall straight down as we can all see in the videos. Like they try to claim all the floors were still in the footprints post collapse. They hope the casual reader doesn't look to far into their, or our claims, because if you do you realise it's complete BS. Most casual readers are already biased towards the OS simply because of the stigma that has been associated with being a 'truther'. We are not debating with intellectually honest people here, that is obvious.
edit on 9/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
if we were to do it floor by floor, it turns into the same equation. (1*9.8) fifteen of those minus (1*9.8) 90 of these. works out to the exact same thing...
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
for your model to be correct, the "tube" would have to be left standing on the outside, yet it was destroyed at the same rate the floors were, meaning it offered it's maximum constant resistance. same for the core columns, they were destroyed completely while becoming stronger on the way down. this means they gave up all of their potential energy, or resistance was removed.
the tube was destroyed, as were the core columns, which means your model of collapse is wrong. constant resistance between floors existed, or SHOULD have existed.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
If "F" is the force exerted by the object due to gravity then "a" is 9.98 m/s^2, the acceleration an object experiences on earth.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
they're different materials with different resistances. drop 2 of those concrete slabs on the other 10, then tell me what happens. you can plug it into my formula and find out before hand. the falling 2 will break, and the top 2 will break, depending on how high you drop it from.
however, the top two cannot fare better than the larger bottom structure.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Bob open your eyes when you watch the videos YOU see wall panels falling or are you really that DUMB!
Originally posted by ANOK
Of course now the OS supporters are starting to claim the core columns fell over, and didn't fall straight down as we can all see in the videos.
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
Why do you need to ask this when every thread on the subject you have been involved in has explained it already a million times.
I'll explain one time very simply, and then you can go and look up the details in the other million threads were the physics are explained.
The laws of motion.
edit on 9/26/2011 by ANOK because: typo
Originally posted by Saltarello
Man, you really like talk to yourself huh?
The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."
They fell downwards. Now lets find out who made the planes hit the towers.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Mechanics is never simply explained. Why don't you explain it to us in detail, rather than just saying "the laws of motion"? How about you get the structural engineering calculations that were done on the towers when they were designed, and do some calculations of your own to explain how "the laws of motion" applied in this particular event.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It cannot be done cuz they have no evidence against. Only questions that no one other than an educated person such as myself is interested in answering.
This is your mistake "a" equals the negative acceleration of the top of the building when it impacts the lower part of the building. Not 9.8 m/s