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 object (apparently a perimeter wall unit) raced ahead of its neighboring debris, but its acceleration was about 1/3 of gravity. This is an indication that it was kicked downward initially by an explosion, after which the air resistance partially canceled the effect of gravity as it approached terminal velocity. As it fell, however, there was an outburst of white smoke, at which point the projectile changed directions, slightly, and accelerated downward for about a half second at 1.5 times gravity. It then fell back to continued acceleration a little under 1 g. The acceleration of the projectile is unambiguous proof that very energetic material was applied to the wall unit. Wh
Originally posted by butcherguy
Rocket projectile?
Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?
That I can swallow.
Originally posted by Biigs
Originally posted by butcherguy
Rocket projectile?
Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?
Couldnt it have just been a fire extingusher (very hot) that popped as the building came down?
Thats filled with white powered flame retardent material as well a sthe gas propellant.
Just throwing this into the debate.
Originally posted by Biigs
Originally posted by butcherguy
Rocket projectile?
Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?
Couldnt it have just been a fire extingusher (very hot) that popped as the building came down?
Thats filled with white powered flame retardent material as well a sthe gas propellant.
Just throwing this into the debate.
Originally posted by Alpha20mega
The term rocket is being used loosely, not truly a rocket but a perimeter wall section still with energetic incendiary or explosives attached and still reacting as the unit was falling causing the unit to accelerate and change direction.
Originally posted by Biigs
Originally posted by butcherguy
Rocket projectile?
Projectile maybe. But 'rocket'?
Couldnt it have just been a fire extingusher (very hot) that popped as the building came down?
Thats filled with white powered flame retardent material as well a sthe gas propellant.
Just throwing this into the debate.
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Asktheanimals
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Dave wrote that. Just because you're a 'mod', it doesn't make you immune to skepticism. If you're still looking for 'evidence' of an explosion, then you can't be for real.
They prefer that you add the prefix- nano-thermite, I think that's what they like to call it.
thermnight propellant
Like I said, the title says..... "Analysis of Rocket Projectiles from WTC2".
Originally posted by Alpha20mega
reply to post by butcherguy
The term rocket is being used loosely, not truly a rocket but a perimeter wall section still with energetic incendiary or explosives attached and still reacting as the unit was falling causing the unit to accelerate and change direction.
This "rocket" effect is very evident in the demolition of both towers, but most appear as "rocket" style ejections upwards and outwards.
This one is unique in that the "ejection" continues whilst travelling downwards, the changes in acceleration and direction is easier to detect and measure.edit on 27/9/2011-09-27T13:44:13-05:002011-09-27T13:44:13-05:0011 by Alpha20mega because: (no reason given)