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.


Angular Momentum of WTC 2

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:39 PM
New take on the angular momentum issue

I have seen and participated in many discussions of the angular momentum issue on many forum threads. Many of those conversations have ended up in circular debates of questionable value to all concerned. Most end up to be conjecture from the various camps involved.

I decided to take another hard look at images of the WTC 2 collapse in order to discern if more light could be shed on the angular momentum subject.

Most posted photos and video show the towers as the upper floors tilt to the left. The series from that angle appear to support a loss of angular momentum that many attribute to the destruction of the "fulcrum" by demolition. Others debate that mechanism of collapse destroyed the "fulcrum"
Not much can be seen later in the series due to dust and debris cloud adding to disagreement on this issue.

I found an image showing the tower very early on in the collapse taken from the opposite view of most images. What I saw by taking a new look in light of angular momentum was surprising.

It appears that the base of the upper tower portion has slid left a substantial distance in relation to the intact lower portion of the tower. The upper portion base in otherwords was sliding across the fulcrum formed by the lower floors. Indeed there were two directions of movement requiring the conservation of angular momentum. One direction being the upper base moving left and down, the other being the upper top moving right and down. More or less the base kicked left early in the collapse.

Heres the image,

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Follow the line of the right rear corner of the upper section downwards
to intersect with the top of the lower section, do you see the leftward movement?

Now follow the line of the right front corner in the same fashion, it appears that a counter-clockwise twisting is beginning.

What could cause the base of the upper portion to "kick" left was the next photograpic evidence I searched for.

I found an image that unmistakably shows enough buckling leftward at 9:59am just prior to the collaspe to have been the mechanism for the motion of the base.

Heres that image,

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

I suspect that as the structure on this side initially failed a large lateral load was introduced upon the remaining structural elements as the upper tower went out of the vertical plane. I would agree that for a short period the opposite side was in tension until core failure resulted in loss of the narrow fulcrum. The fulcrum then became wider encompassing entire floor plates. Remember posit this with the upper base in leftward motion as the top goes rightwards while the entire assembly moves downwards.

Some of the later photos support what happend next which is another great discussion in the community. Its always been a quandry why portions of the upper tower landed on both sides of the original footprint. I think taking into consideration that the base of the upper portion went one way while the top went the other explains the debris question quite well. Angular momentum was indeed maintained and the laws of physics were not broken. The upper portion simply continued its rollover to an almost perpendicular position in relation to the lower section. The base moved left, the top moved right, downward motion continually fixed the fulcrum as floors collapsed underneath, the axis of angular motion was within the upper portion. The laws of physics were maintained. The motion did not stop and then go another direction. The difference is the base having its own angular momentum around the opposite side of the axis from the top.

This is one of the most popular views posted,

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

A more pronounced counter-clockwise motion is visible

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Upper tower debris falling to west

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

I believe the large section is the roof or top of the tower, notice the straight line of columns on left while the right side is segmented

I am satisfied that angular momentum may not be the cliffhanger that it has been made out to be, maybe we can move on in the debate.


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:05 PM
Very well done explanation, I think I even followed most of it, though I had to read it three times. Could you perhaps draw a simple diagram to show exactly what you think happened during the collaspse.

I think you are saying the tilt of the top section was in response to the buckling shown in the photo you included. Is that correct? Then after the start of the fall, main parts of the upper tower as they split moved in different directions. Again is that correct. Forgive me if I sound dense, I just want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

Nice job again.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by pavil]

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:02 AM
Still photos don't really show much, the problem people have is with inertia, the leaning part seemed to be sucked back into the collapse, meaning some force acted upon it to change its initial motion. There is no doubt that angular momentum is conserved, it's a law. No laws of physics were broken that day, that's why people are so upset with the official story. You have to trust the science before you trust anything else.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:06 AM
This theory sounds like wishful thinking to me. Now please note that I am new to this conspiracy and I virtually have no knowledge of what is generally believed around here. I don’t have any bias to either side of the story. But what you suggest above sounds like a fantasy theory tailored to fit a certain explanation.

As I understand it the 757 hit the very corner of WTC 2, spewing a large percentage of its fuel into a huge fireball out of the other side of the building. So it is reasonable to assume that the majority of the core structure remains pretty much intact. It is absolutely absurd to assert that fires raging for only about 1 hour would weaken the core structure to such an extent that collapse should ensue. So therefore I am extremely puzzled as to why the building still collapsed.

Anyways, let’s say the entire floor, or even several floors in the initial collapse zone actually collapsed due to the fire weakening the steel sufficiently to cause a “natural” collapse. Now, unless you are insinuating that the all floors below the initial collapse zone were also dangerously weakened (due to magic?) I don’t understand how it is even feasibly possible for the top part of the tower to continue in a downwards movement without significant resistance from the rest of the structure. I would say it is logical that the weight of the top part of the tower would come crushing down and smash through a few or even several floors before the resistance of the structure would slowly halt its movement causing the top section of the tower to continue topple over and into the streets below, leaving the remainder of the tower standing.

I’m just asking, how could the top section of the tower just continue downwards crushing the below structure with no or little resistance, this is a mind bending puzzle to me. I cannot envision any natural explanation for this after finally bothering to study the collapse (I never really cared about this stuff until now). Sure the top collapsing section of the tower is very heavy and exerts a lot of downwards force due to gravity, but the tower has been designed to carry its weight in the first place, why should it just fail entirely to even offer resistance to the collapse? I don’t get it! Do you?

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:16 AM
The reason is because they used explosives to demolish the tower, a natural collapse would stop very quickly as the energy is lost. The collisions would be inelastic so kinetic energy is not conserved only momentum. In the videos it seemed as if the top part never even touched the floors below. This thread is discussing angular momentum so we should try stay on topic.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:22 AM
Then as a set of blocks would do.. Once you build them up they dont fall straight down they fall on where most of the weight is centered..

I will show this in a 3d model if I get a chance sometime this weekend and show what I am talking about.

[edit on 7/13/2006 by ThichHeaded]

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 07:37 AM
There are images out there that show a slightly different story.

The first picture you sho only show (i am estimating) a 5-10 degree tilt. MAybe this is the start of the rotation or maybe it is a visiual anomaly between the differing photos, BUT other photos exist that show this block of floors at a MUCH greater angle and apparently not even touching the intact structure below.

I know the photo(s) can be found in Steven Jones' paper, but I caurrently am having a hard time linking it outside of the document here.

Gieve me a few and I think you will see that if we look at it at a different angle at a different time the photos may tell a very different story.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix
The upper portion base in otherwords was sliding across the fulcrum formed by the lower floors.

I can't really pick up on this movement. :-/ Maybe you can point it out more clearly?

The image you of bowing columns shows that columns were no longer being able to support their loads, but that doesn't really lend support to either theory. You can't tell whether those columns giving out are causing the collapse, or an effect of another collapse mechanism (ie thermite). Either would obviously cause failure.

new topics

top topics


log in