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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 32
17
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

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.


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

It's after you do the F=ma equation that you add the force of gravity.

As an example:

If the top of the building was falling at 6 meters per second,

and you brought it to a dead stop in 1/10 of a second.

During that 1/10 of a second it would exert a little over 6 Gs on what ever was stoping it.

You would then need to add 1 G for the force of gravity bring the impact to a total 7 Gs.

After the top of the building came to a stop its force would then return to 1 G.

But this is real world physics, How does it work in Truther World again ?




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I said this before.....

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

They fell downwards. Now lets find out who made the planes hit the towers.



The main questions should be asked is (which are ferociously ignored and avoided by 911 debunkers and skeptics) who was remotely piloting the craft? What software and what company provides software to the FAA and NORAD? (ptech) There was an electronic hijacking of the software that was also running simultaneous war game exercises that included cruise missile attacks, air force attacks, ocean born attacks and multiple live fly hijacking exercises.


Which countries funded and planned the attacks? There were wire transfers from pakistan to the hijackers who was also buddy buddy with george tenet. ( head of cia in 2001 ).

Forget the towers. Thats just a trap to keep you from researching what was mentioned above which is barely the tip of the iceberg.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Still flogging your jew hunter thread I see. You bumped it and nobody took the bait, so now you're dangling it here.


Obviously no one is interested.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Still flogging your jew hunter thread I see.


Obviously no one is interested.



What do jews have to do with anything? Your not one of those guys eh? and you speak for no one but yourself.

Here is what I said "The main questions should be asked is (which are ferociously ignored and avoided by 911 debunkers and skeptics) who was remotely piloting the craft? What software and what company provides software to the FAA and NORAD? (ptech) There was an electronic hijacking of the software that was also running simultaneous war game exercises that included cruise missile attacks, air force attacks, ocean born attacks and multiple live fly hijacking exercises."

Where did you get 'jew' out of any of it?

Are you one of those psuedo-skeptics that hate stupid conspiracy theories but only have the ability to debunk those stupid theories rather than confront the real evidence? So you fail. Im watching you.
edit on 1-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

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?


I saw my dad do that with his bare hands. He was a black belt in karate and he used to do it as a bar bet. Don't tell me that is impossible because I have seen it done. Now of course, since you never saw my dad do it you will probably tell me I am making it up. Whatever.

I will live with my memories of my dad smashing cinder blocks and patio blocks. But he did not do 12, he could only do 5 stacked up lying on top of each other.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

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


Actually I am a believer of the OS. I have always been and cannot be swayed because I know what I saw was live and it happened live. I heard the first theories about the "No Jews at work" and the theories of "It was a hologram" and then I heard people say "They edited the video while it was happening live". Now we have people who try to prove there is no way the buildings fell like we saw them fall. They fell, there is no doubt they fell.

So how does the arguments over Newton's Laws actually disprove a building fell? People compare the Empire State Building being hit by a B52 Bomber as comparison and yet the WTC and Empire State building are two complete different architecture styles. They were built differently.

The current theory is based upon debunked theories stacked up like pancakes. The conspiracy theory makers have only done one thing...they called the many eyewitnesses who were standing in the streets of Manhattan who witnessed the airplanes, liars. Why would anyone do that? They are calling the families who had loved ones die on the planes, all four of them, liars. You want to know why they did that? Because their hatred of the government is so great it blinds them to actual truth that we have enemies in the world who hate us.

They bombed the basement of the WTC when Clinton was president, they bombed the USS Cole when Clinton was president. The Iranians took the American Embassy hostages when Carter was president. It doesn't matter who is president, they hate us anyway.The "Truther movement" is merely advancing their agenda. The only president in the world who agrees with the "Truthers" is Ahmandinejad.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

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...


Not according to Ross.

You really should read his truthy paper to see the error in your understanding of how the buildings interacted.

He agrees that the floors are sheared off after each impact.

In his paper, we find:

K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors moving at (8.5 m/sec)
K. E. of falling section after impact = 17 floors moving at (4.8 m/sec)


This is a methodology you need to understand.

The collapse is one floor at a time.He recognizes this and produced a paper on it.

You need to get up to speed here Bob...



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

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.


Your observations are in conflict with reality. But I DO understand why you believe it to be true.

Very few ext columns were crushed, or even buckled. They mainly peeled off to outside the footprint due to lack of the stabilizing floors.

The core column spires existance proves your statement that the core columns were destroyed by the falling debris to be wrong.

The visual evidence of the air shooting out from between the ext columns, driven by the collapsing floors, proves that your statement that everything was destroyed at the same time (in another post) to be wrong.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

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.


Only in freefall.

The lower tower had zero NET acceleration. Therefore its value should not be 9.8m/s/s.

Only the falling part was accelerating, and most probably at slightly less than 9.8m/s/s.

Fix those and start over.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

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.



So if we were to drop them from a sufficent distance for them to achieve terminal velocity.......

You realize what you're saying is that only 2 of the lower concrete slabs can be broken.

You are going against the simple laws of momentum and conservation of motion by holding this belief.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

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!



Most likely in denial.

Or trolling.

These are the only 2 reasons for saying such an easily falsified statement.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

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.


The videos of the "spires" is proof that their "resistance was for the most part bypassed by the falling debris.

But it takes logical thinking skills to see this....



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

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


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.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Man, you really like talk to yourself huh?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello

Man, you really like talk to yourself huh?


Well, I'd love to discuss the event with truthers, but since I bring a level of technical evidence that truthers are unable to understand, and repeatedly point out that truther arguments are for the most part based on incredulity and ignorance, my posts sometimes elicit zero response from those I quoted.

For example, in this thread alone, I've pointed out to a dozen plus truthers that their statements are based on nothing substantial at all. But they can't, or won't reply with anything technical that removes any personal bias.

This is exactly WHY no one can explain just why the towers couldn't have fallen the way we saw on 9/11, and have it all due to non CD reasons. IOW, the OP......

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.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

They fell downwards. Now lets find out who made the planes hit the towers.


New low in trutherism....

So you expect the towers to fall upwards I suppose...?

Its called gravity. Maybe heard about it...

As for the planes have a pretty good idea. Mohammed Atta on American 11. Marwan Shehi on United 175



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

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.


Because I have explained it to the OP before and it was ignored, just like he is ignoring every explanation in this thread. So what is the point?

If you really want to know what I think read through a few threads, like this one...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I go into plenty of detail in that thread.

Having said that though the collapse of a building is simple, it's only shills that want you to think it is more complicated than it really is. A collapse of floors is nothing but a simple collision event, and can be explained perfectly with Newtonian physics.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

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.


You really typed that?

Poor guy...



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



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

it isn't a mistake. you fail to grasp that whatever "a" equals, the results are the same.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

i don't live by what "ross" says. i'm sorry if you don't understand how math works, but that doesn't excuse you. you can't count the top falling floors as a single mass, and the impacted floors as individual masses.

this is especially true of wtc 2 because of the angle the building came down at. it would have hit the walls and the floor, which would provide constant resistance.



new topics




 
17
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join