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 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.
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?
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.
So, tell me, why do you think the "tilting top of WTC" didn't "continue its 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.
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.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
This is a place to talk evidence
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.
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]
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.
2) The fact that Bin Laden is an old asset left over from the cold war and the Bush/Bin Laden family connections.
3) The fact that the NIST seems to be trying to hide piss poor construction and materials on the Twin Towers.
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.
Originally posted by ClashWho
I don't understand this question. Are you a physicist? Does the collapse violate the laws of physics?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
So it went down, rather than slide off.
And the top part didn't stop rotating.
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?
Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
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.