It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


James Fetzer: WTC2's Disappearing Angular Momentum

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 12:06 AM
I thought I'd get your thoughts on this, since it seems to be totally unexplainable outside of controlled demolition, and seems a solid argument, but isn't an argument I see very often, or have seen made by any member of your organization so far (correct me if I'm mistaken).

When WTC2 first began its collapse sequence, as I'm sure you're aware, and before it began its strictly vertical collapse, it tilted outwards something like 15 degrees.

But if you watch a video (such as this one) of its collapse, and trace the top's movement, you'll notice that within a couple of seconds, the tilting suddenly stops, despite nothing being in the way of the great mass of tilting upper floors.

Well, according to the law of conservation of angular momentum (link included for lay ATS members), the upper floors should have continued tilting outwards unless there was some equal and opposite force exerted on the upper floors (which there clearly was not), or unless the pivot for this angular momentum was destroyed.

So it would seem that, for the official story to be true, the collapsing floors of WTC2 would have to have been crushing the floors below without touching them. If they touched, there would be a pivot for the upper floors, and the tilting via conservation of angular momentum would continue. This would be a blatant paradox for official theory.

For demolition theory, this seems to only indicate that some explosive event(s) physically separated the structure of a whole floor from everything above it in pretty much a single instant.

I think Jim Hoffman is the only person I've seen to make this argument, and Dr. Jones appears to mention something similar in his paper only in passing. Do you think this is something worth pursuing in your organization's investigation, or is there anything you would add or subtract to/from the above?

[edit on 2-7-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:58 PM
I like it. I think you are exactly right. In light of my comments in the last post about Jim Hoffman, if he was the first to address it, then I give him credit for that. We have fond that success in disinformation involved a truth-frequency ratio of about 80%, which means that only about 20% of the information that a source provides can be false at the risk of exposure. Hoffman, if I am right, is a fascinating case one someone who, in my opinion, has gone over to "The Dark Side", as I have explained in the two articles that are archived on at the bottom of the "Articles" section. He has been focusing his efforts on the Pentagon (in maintaining that there actually was a Boeing 757 there) and at Shanksville (claiming that those cell-phone calls were possible and that Flight 93 actually crashed as the official account claims), which are positions that, in my opinion, the evidence not only cannot sustain but actually refutes. But your argument about the falling 30 floors is exactly right and well-expressed. I think you are on top of this one.

new topics

log in