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.

 

Alternative 9/11 Theories

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Frankly, flawed physics can not be answered. I am not a physics major, but the vast majority of Professors, Professionals, Engineers & Experts seem to excuse the point of angular momentum as misunderstood on the CTers part or just plan pointless to the facts.

Global collapse has been explained and proven time & time again. The fact that people are not willing to consider the views of the majority of engineers & experts is the problems, not a lack of explanations. It is not the job of engineers & experts to spoon feed people and bring them up to speed on their lack of education.

This thread will surely go the way of so many others because so many CTers confuse questions with being just that, questions. Having a question about something does not prove anything either way. Its great to be interested and have questions, but it is another to armchair quarterback things from your parent’s basement and claim you know better then someone from MIT. For the record, 100s of witnesses to recent tornadoes stated what “sounded like explosions” or “a bomb going off ”. Maybe a grand jury should be convened on Mother Nature. The Bush Administration can barely pull off him speaking in public, let alone being behind what would be the largest conspiracy in history.

Before this degrades into that thread, I should point out that the pointy that we are all here shows a common ground. I just feel the largest percentage of folks on this site have created their vast conspiracy theories on a few misunderstood points, no doubt based on a general distrust of authority or government. I understand that feeling; I just need evidence for something other then the basic official story.

I’m still looking at all the evidence, but it doesn’t look good for the CTers…




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
4) Why at WTC you got pictures leaked of ground zero when it was supposedly on "lock down" but with Shanksville you get none that I know of.


Because it's New York City.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Please explain how the tilting top of WTC, which was under angular momentum, did not continue its angular momentum and fall in the path of least resistance as physics says it should?


I don't understand this question. Are you a physicist? Does the collapse violate the laws of physics? Most studies I've seen conclude that the collapse followed the laws of physics. So, tell me, why do you think the "tilting top of WTC" didn't "continue its angular momentum"? Because of bombs? Did bombs change the "angular momentum"? The idea that the WTC towers were wired with bombs is preposterous for a host of reasons. It takes months to wire buildings for demolition. Someone would have noticed. And what would be the point? As if airplanes being flown into the buildings wasn't horrific enough. Sheesh.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClashWho
Does the collapse violate the laws of physics? Most studies I've seen conclude that the collapse followed the laws of physics.


The question is not whether the buildings followed laws of physics as they came down, but whether or not a given collapse theory can account for the given phenomena, based on what the theory asserts.



So, tell me, why do you think the "tilting top of WTC" didn't "continue its angular momentum"?


What actually caused the tilt to stop is irrelevant to the fact that it is not considered by "pancake collapse" or any other global collapse theory that doesn't involve devices being placed.

It's also especially curious, since as the building leaned more and more (up to almost 15 degrees outward), the rotation should have continued accelerating. Instead, it briefly stopped at the exact same instant expulsions started coming out from the first floor to "fail," and the building began dropping vertically after that. If you are somewhat familiar with physics (and the structures themselves) then it doesn't take much imagination to realize what must have been going on inside of the building to make all of that possible. You don't really need anyone to explain it to you, especially when they try to explain it in a way that makes no sense or offer no explanation at all.



The idea that the WTC towers were wired with bombs is preposterous for a host of reasons. It takes months to wire buildings for demolition. Someone would have noticed.


Yeah, like you pester the maintenance men servicing the buildings you go into. Or even give them a second glance, let alone try to stare and be able to figure out what they're actually doing. As you walk to where you're going. You wouldn't even get that much of a chance if the area undergoing maintenance was cordoned off. Easy as pie if you have proper security clearance (Securacom at the WTC, cough cough) and a good excuse for the right permit (records of which are missing since 9/11).

[edit on 30-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
My view has not changed from the day I saw it.

I work in construction and I have built many steel structures. I have worked in demo as well.

The bottom line to me is this, that a couple of tanks of kerosene (Jet Fuel)
brought these buildings down...sorry..no way.

I have cut, welded, torched, hammered almost every metal out there and no...you cannot demo a building this way. If you could it would sure be a lot cheaper then the way we do it.

The moment I saw the first building come down I knew it was a planned demo.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by ANOK
 


Dude.
I have spend more time then I would care to arguing with you so I will not continue it here. You think your right and your information spot on regardless what holes others TRY to show you.


GO ELSEWHERE. I did not create this thread to continue the BS argument with you or your kind. GO ELSEWHERE.


So why not discuss these "HOLES" in ANOK's post rather than sitting there telling everyone to go else where to post when in fact in your own thread it states:

This is a place to talk evidence

We are talking evidence clearly your the one that cannot find these "holes" you desperately talk about.

Peace

CR



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
This is a place to talk evidence


Ok. So what do you have?

◘ A suitcase Atta conveniently left behind, supposedly. List of all the hijackers' names and "Allah Allah Allah" and everything else just conveniently waiting there for the feds to read on TV.

◘ A hijacker's passport, of all things, delivered by an anonymous person, and supposedly surviving a plane impact and building collapse unscathed.

◘ Two fraudulent-looking tape releases (the first even found under very suspect circumstances, pretty much asserted to be an OBL home video US soldiers found in the basement of a bombed-out building) that the FBI doesn't even consider as solid evidence against OBL for 9/11. And after OBL repeatedly denied involvement in Mid-Eastern newspaper interviews.


Anything else? Because I'm not impressed yet.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Finally another thread that is attempting rational, realistic discussion of the 9/11 events.
Unfortunately the "truther" vultures will decent and attempt to pick clean any rational conversation.

I'm afraid we'll end up talking about nuclear bombs, anti-matter bombs, holographic planes, etc..



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

What actually caused the tilt to stop is irrelevant to the fact that it is not considered by "pancake collapse" or any other global collapse theory that doesn't involve devices being placed.



It's not that hard to explain at all.

The force of gravity acting upon the top portion was stronger than the rotaional energy. So it went down, rather than slide off.

And the top part didn't stop rotating. It just becomes hard to track in the dust cloud. Video analysis proves this with a little bit of effort.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
This is a place to talk evidence


Ok. So what do you have?

◘ A suitcase Atta conveniently left behind, supposedly. List of all the hijackers' names and "Allah Allah Allah" and everything else just conveniently waiting there for the feds to read on TV.

◘ A hijacker's passport, of all things, delivered by an anonymous person, and supposedly surviving a plane impact and building collapse unscathed.

◘ Two fraudulent-looking tape releases (the first even found under very suspect circumstances, pretty much asserted to be an OBL home video US soldiers found in the basement of a bombed-out building) that the FBI doesn't even consider as solid evidence against OBL for 9/11. And after OBL repeatedly denied involvement in Mid-Eastern newspaper interviews.


Anything else? Because I'm not impressed yet.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by bsbray11]


Your preaching to the choir my friend


This is a good one, they found one of the lead hijacker's paper passport within the rubble of the world trade centers, YET INSIST THERE WAS A RAGING INFERNO. They want you to believe that his passport jumped out his coat, morphed through the impact fireball, put on a magical shield, then slipped and slid its way through the collapse, then teleported into mid-air and lofted itself gently to be found by the authorities to "prove" once and for all that one of the hijackers did it. Im sorry buddy, Scarecrow knows BS and he doesnt have a brain, do you??



Peace

CR



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I am creating this thread as a place for those that think that the planes did in fact hit the buildings, did in fact think the buildings fell down minus any sort of DC and more or less see those that soo enthusiastically run off the deep end with the "truther" movement as ultimately pointless escapades in overboard paranoia. With some "truth" seeking authors that are really only looking for the $$$.
This is a place to talk evidence and hopefully the above mentioned will just let it be, rather than sink it or drag it off into silliness as so often happens with any dissenting voice.

But do think that there was something fishy about how 9/11 went down.
Kinda like here: Simple and Elegant Plan (9/11) Thread

1) The fact that there just so happened to be a "training exercise" that day so no fighters were scrambled in what is supposed to be one of the more secure air corridors in the US.

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states.
Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. All the planes were too far away to intercept before impact.


2) The fact that Bin Laden is an old asset left over from the cold war and the Bush/Bin Laden family connections.

Allies change all the time. Interesting connection but I'm personally not sure there is really much to look at here.


3) The fact that the NIST seems to be trying to hide piss poor construction and materials on the Twin Towers.

This is interesting. The company that built the twin towers built how many other buildings? Could releasing this information cause a panic regarding structural safety in other buildings?


4) Why at WTC you got pictures leaked of ground zero when it was supposedly on "lock down" but with Shanksville you get none that I know of.

Another interesting question. Maybe because it was a bodypart graveyard?


My personal hypothesis is as follows:
The official story timeline is correct. The governments only role was covering up their incompetence.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


yes they needed the passport to confirm the terrorists did it because they didn't have all that CCTV video of them getting on the planes. So I guess a passport is better evidence then all that CCTV video???


[edit on 30-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
… seems to me that Anok’s points have been directly answered, addressed & corrected repeatedly, a few times in this thread alone. Anok is a bigboy, people know his mind set, he can defend himself. All that is being asked is that this thread stays more grounded in reality then most other threads are able.

Not understanding how certain objects survive (ie. Passport) disasters is just that, not understanding. Items come through disasters like car crashes, building fire and explosions ever day with nobody crying conspiracy.

Making an extraordinary like most on this site claim requires extraordinary evidence. Misunderstood high school physics & pithy remarks about passport paper are hardly evidence, let alone extraordinary. If a man who is barely literate & barely made it out of school can mastermind such a conspiracy as 9/11, surely somebody on this site can come up with some evidence a conspiracy other then someone in his family sat in a few meetings with someone who committed a crime.

My family’s grocery store sold food to Jeffrey Dahmer’s family, doesn’t mean I eat people.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClashWho

I don't understand this question. Are you a physicist? Does the collapse violate the laws of physics?


Bsbray did a nice job of explaining it but I'll add my 2c...

You don't have to be a physicist to understand basic physics and engineering. This is high school stuff.

'Angular Momentum'...


The angular momentum of a rigid object is defined as the product of the moment of inertia and the angular velocity. It is analogous to linear momentum and is subject to the fundamental constraints of the conservation of angular momentum principle if there is no external torque on the object. Angular momentum is a vector quantity. It is derivable from the expression for the angular momentum of a particle...

Source


What this means is if an object is moving at an angle pivoted at a point it will continue in its path unless something else acts on it causing it to change its momentum.

So to put that in context with WTC2 ask yourself, what was it that acted on that top section to make it stop in mid air and then fall straight down? The hypothesis most debunkers believe is that the top crushed the undamaged lower building after the steel was softened by office fires. I'll prove this is impossible according to this physics law (let alone a couple of others, but it only takes one).
Why is it impossible? Because nothing, if you go by the 'official story', was acting on that top section to make it change its momentum. Or was it?
Well actually yes. Something had to have acted on it to make it change its angular momentum. Agree so far?

So what was it? Well the only thing that could have acted on the top and change its momentum was the undamaged building that it was pivoting on. So how did it do that? Well according to most debunkers the top crushed the building because it couldn't hold the weight.
Now remember the top is sitting at an angle pivoted on one side of the building. If the pivot point couldn't hold the top any longer the
tops angular momentum would have increased as it fell to path of least resistance. But it doesn't do that, it goes through the building in the path of most resistance (actually it just follows the bottom as it collapses from under it). Which is completely backwards to all known physics. So now its tilting and then suddenly, as the building starts to collapse, stops for a brief moment and then follows the rest of the building down.

So what caused it to stop in mid air? The only logical way this could happen is if the bottom building and the pivot point of the top fell
faster than the top was tilting. If the building fell slower, or at the same speed, the top would still be sitting on the pivot point and would continue its angular momentum, or tilt.

So how did the top crush the bottom if the bottom fell independently of the top?

The central core structure, composed of 47 massive box columns welded in 2 places to make the columns continuous and cross braced with I, or H beams depending on where you come from, would have to have been completely severed to allow the top to start tilting. No aluminum aircraft, that didn't even hit straight on, did that. Sorry but that's a no brainer. Office fires also didn't do that, another no brainer I won't even argue.

Now you tell me how those massive box columns were severed completely? If you can do that successfully then we move on to the 'angular momentum', already covered. Explain that successfully and then we get to start on the lack of friction/resistance. Explain that and we move on to blah blah....See my point?

I won't even guess at what was used to severe the columns because I have no idea, and don't really care what was used. It's a waste arguing stuff we have no idea about when there is so much more relevant points that need addressing. But unfortunately for the last 4 years of posting here and trying to get discussion about these problems from debunkers I've got nowhere. You all want to discuss 'no planes' and 'holograms' because you can snicker at your keyboard as you debunk another tin hat twoofer. But when hit with the real questions you all get NASTY. You lose your sense of humour pretty damned fast. Very telling...















But maybe it was 'bad welds' lol too funny...


[edit on 30/4/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The force of gravity acting upon the top portion was stronger than the rotaional energy. So it went down, rather than slide off.


That's is the funniest thing I've heard for ages. Are you joking or do you really believe that?


Each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Source

You probably won't understand that but others might.

Gravity?


Edit; thought I'd add this as maybe it is relevant for some...

Lesson 3: Newton's Second Law of Motion The Big Misconception

[edit on 30/4/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


So you started this thread to attack people who question the government's story of 911?


I am creating this thread as a place for those that think that the planes did in fact hit the buildings, did in fact think the buildings fell down minus any sort of DC and more or less see those that soo enthusiastically run off the deep end with the "truther" movement as ultimately pointless escapades in overboard paranoia.


Have you lost your mind? Apparently seeking the truth and denying ignorance, this board's motto, is not on your list of priorities.

What is your motive?

Maybe you can start be debunking this thread. Good luck, you'll need it.

[edit on 4/30/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

What actually caused the tilt to stop is irrelevant to the fact that it is not considered by "pancake collapse" or any other global collapse theory that doesn't involve devices being placed.


It's not that hard to explain at all.

The force of gravity acting upon the top portion was stronger than the rotaional energy.


Actually, the rotational energy was provided by gravity. What other force would be acting? Have you ever done a free body diagram?


So it went down, rather than slide off.


Rotating about a fulcrum does not sound like "sliding" to me.


And the top part didn't stop rotating.


It paused when the vertical collapse began. Watch the videos again, because I've already seen it.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


So you started this thread to attack people who question the government's story of 911?



Actually, No, he has started this thread in spite of said people. All that has been asked is that it doesn't slide into a mass of fairy tales & cut n pasted web tripe.

Within the guidelines of the site, that is his right. Just move on if you don't agree, you are impressing nobody here.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Actually, No, he has started this thread in spite of said people.


So in spite of the "crazy conspiracy theorists" this thread was created, correct? Why then do you need to discuss the government's story as that is clearly what happened? Its a fact that is not to be disputed, so why are you even talking about it?

Terrorists hijacked the planes, hit the WTC, and the buildings fell. End of story.

Spite is a terrible word to throw around willy nilly by the way.


All that has been asked is that it doesn't slide into a mass of fairy tales & cut n pasted web tripe.


Ah yes fairy tales. Kind of like how a plane hit a 1/2 million ton building ending in collapse. I'd call that a delusional fairy tale. Sounds like goldilocks and the 3 bears.

WTC weight

Oh and that islamic terrorism myth perpetrated by western governments.

Cut/paste is all I know how to do. I can't think for myself and I believe everything I read in the newspaper and especially what I see on TV. I'm an American, and a government shill like all the rest.


Within the guidelines of the site, that is his right.


It is his right to speak freely, as long as it does not infringe on someone's else's 'freedoms' (if you would call them that at this point). Last time I checked attacking someone else's viewpoint is not covered in freedom of speech, nor allowed under the T&Cs.


Just move on if you don't agree, you are impressing nobody here.


Who am I trying to impress? All I seek is the truth and clearly that is being stifled in this thread. Therefore, I will spread it regardless.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I don’t know where you got the quote “crazy conspiracy theorists”, I never said such a thing on this thread.

“Last time I checked attacking someone else's viewpoint is not covered in freedom of speech”
… then you are using a different copy as everyone else. That is the very essence of everyone else's.

This thread has not “stifled” anyone, but it has pointed out the fact & proven the fact that most on this site can not bring themselves to not respond to every thread just to see their name in print. It was asked at the beginning & through out to stay on topic and discuss the points supporting the official story. Your ego has out weighed your understanding the OP point.

Your responses seem to support that CTers have an ax to grind & have trouble telling fact from fiction... the agree with me or get out mentality.

I doubt you will come up with anything worthy of further response.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join