Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

Originally posted by DaTerminator

So who are these people on the video ? If they are so certain these are the hijackers, why don't they tell us their names ? I'll tell you why, because everytime they have it turned out that the person was still alive .

The BBC said that only four of the 19 hijacker's identities are in doubt, not that all 19 hijackers are still alive, thats absurd. Now you referenced BBC earlier when you talked about the "live hijackers." The video came from the BBC as well. Are you going to claim that your webpage article is credible but not the video which I presented?

Absolutely right, it amazes me that so many people will accept the evidence of some fringe lunatic and his ideas on one website, but automatically refuse to believe the information on an 'official' website. God forbid the idea that the lunatics may actually be lunatics and seek to cause disruption.
They also seem to fail to notice that a lot of people have the same names a quick check on the electoral role or the phone book is enough to show that simple fact. It's easy to make mistakes when investigating anything - especially under a lot of pressure.
They don't have that magical computer with everyone in the world on it just yet you know! LOL

YOU are now the minority believing boxcutters caused three towers to collapse, not us. The majority already accepted that those events on 9/11 did not happen the way they like us to believe.

That is a delusion. If you were the majority then why haven't I heard more about your ludacris idea on the news? Or from other people prior to my visiting of this website. Why haven't there been actions taken to impeach the president and dissolve the cabinet if your conspiracy is taken seriously?

Again well said, the thing is that the 'majority' are a minority of people on the internet and maybe their close friends. I don't know anyone in real life that believes some of the mad stories and a lot of people online don't.
If you measure the statistic of the opinons of people on a conspiracy board then they are bound to be higher than normal.
Though wasn't the result of a poll on here that only about 72% so far? Not that impressive for a board you would think to be biased in 'favour' of a conspiracy. Almost as embarrasing as Labour's 'win'.

I'm tired of your mindless anti-american crap.

^^^ Well said - even though I'm not really American (just a teeny bit).

And I'd like to point out that that reference was to the concrete slabs between each floor, as part of the above-ground structure of the Twin Towers. I wasn't talking about the concrete that was underground in the basement floors, which is of what Howard elected to show us such invaluable pics.

The point is, all the concrete slabs between floors were turned to fine powder. Any pics of these slabs in anything more than powder? I could care less about the concrete in the basement. That stuff is totally irrelevant to the case.

I notice you don't even make an attempt on the squibs. Either one of you. Compressed air my foot.

I'd just like to make it clear that it wasn't me that said that - it was Ray and there is obviously some formatting error there.

Here's a nice opportunity for me to explain my username.

It's basically my name. Brian S. Bray, or B. S. Bray. 'BS' are rather unfortunate initials, I know, but keep in mind it's just the name I received at birth and of course doesn't necessary reflect my posts.

They also seem to fail to notice that a lot of people have the same names a quick check on the electoral role or the phone book is enough to show that simple fact. It's easy to make mistakes when investigating anything - especially under a lot of pressure.

Oh, yeah, just the same names.

Why don't we just downplay the fact that the guys that came forward often also had the same birth dates, matching photographs, and had attended the claimed flight schools, as well as having the same names and being Arabic.

Yeah, feel free to chalk that up to names being so common.

The only things you guys have going for you in your posts are the rants against conspiracy theorists, "anti-americans," etc., etc. All that's kind of silly when you don't have your facts straight. And believe me: any one of us here can rant about what we don't like about those we don't agree with. The difference is, we've sort of grown beyond that and like to discuss more of the facts, etc., rather than rant.

Originally posted by bsbray11

They also seem to fail to notice that a lot of people have the same names a quick check on the electoral role or the phone book is enough to show that simple fact. It's easy to make mistakes when investigating anything - especially under a lot of pressure.

Oh, yeah, just the same names.

Why don't we just downplay the fact that the guys that came forward often also had the same birth dates, matching photographs, and had attended the claimed flight schools, as well as having the same names and being Arabic.

Yeah, feel free to chalk that up to names being so common.

The only things you guys have going for you in your posts are the rants against conspiracy theorists, "anti-americans," etc., etc. All that's kind of silly when you don't have your facts straight. And believe me: any one of us here can rant about what we don't like about those we don't agree with. The difference is, we've sort of grown beyond that and like to discuss more of the facts, etc., rather than rant.

Can you link me to the sites which show that these people are still alive? I vaguely remember something but not much.
It was more than likely a partial truth like the 7/7 bomber of the same name as the kid. The indian government released the passport photo in error (not us) of the kid with the same name. But the bomber still had the same name none the less.
I suspect it's chinese whispers and some exaggeration by someone (or some people) trying to 'prove' their point more than anything else.

And I know this isn't directly related but this is as good a place as any, a few people go on about how the towers went straight down, well at least one didn't quite. It was never going to fall over in a straight line no matter what because it was specifically designed not to. But this photo shows that the top did indeed tilt quite sharply in the direction of the damage as it collapsed.

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Of course it does. If you watch someone get on the plane..

It's not THE plane, it's A plane.

The BBC said that only four of the 19 hijacker's identities are in doubt, not that all 19 hijackers are still alive, thats absurd. Now you referenced BBC earlier when you talked about the "live hijackers." The video came from the BBC as well. Are you going to claim that your webpage article is credible but not the video which I presented?

You tell me, I don't need the BBC to prove anything there are lots of reliable sources. You're the one that came up with the shoddy videotape that says close to nothing.
And yeah I do believe they can go by double standards because that's what they've been doing all along. Just look at their docu "why the towers fell".

Absolutely right, it amazes me that so many people will accept the evidence of some fringe lunatic and his ideas on one website, but automatically refuse to believe the information on an 'official' website.

Again with the name calling eh, wanna estimate how many people around the world believe Bush to be a warmongering fringe lunatic. But you still believe him don't you ? And you know why this is ? Because the world outside the US has a far better view on your president then you do, your media is silenced to tell anything bad about him so anyone who does speak up will come off as a lone ranger, and in your society that is automatically the same as a fringe lunatic, instead of the patriot you think you are.

And ofcourse we're weary of 'official' websites, we're questioning the official story, get it ?

Originally posted by AgentSmith

And I know this isn't directly related but this is as good a place as any, a few people go on about how the towers went straight down, well at least one didn't quite. It was never going to fall over in a straight line no matter what because it was specifically designed not to. But this photo shows that the top did indeed tilt quite sharply in the direction of the damage as it collapsed.

Brilliant!

This is even more staggering then just the vertical downfall of the other tower, because if the tower is tilted, there's less downward force on the remaining building.
If there were no demolitions in that building, the top would've tilted (if that wasn't caused by an explosion itself) and fallen of the rest of the tower.
But here it stops tilting and somehow starts moving straight down again. Why ? Because there's no support.. and why is there no support ? It can't be because of the upper part crashing onto it ? That would mean a slowdown, further tipping over.
It is been shown that the top of the tower fell without resistance, this could never be the case if the floors had to crush eachother.

Originally posted by Shroomery
Again with the name calling eh, wanna estimate how many people around the world believe Bush to be a warmongering fringe lunatic. But you still believe him don't you ? And you know why this is ? Because the world outside the US has a far better view on your president then you do, your media is silenced to tell anything bad about him so anyone who does speak up will come off as a lone ranger, and in your society that is automatically the same as a fringe lunatic, instead of the patriot you think you are.

And ofcourse we're weary of 'official' websites, we're questioning the official story, get it ?

Actually mate, as it says in my Avatar panel, I'm English - so he's not 'my president'. And I don't trust everything he says anyway.
Sme of those websites out there that so many people worship are run by loonies, and they source a lot of their information from mainstream media anyway and add their own spin on it. They are not better than anyone else - they are still a form of media pumping out the information they want you to hear with their own take on it.
Just becasue some anonymous guy calls into Bell's show or whatever his called and claims to be someone (for instance) does not mean he is.
A lot of us have probably made prank calls when we were kids and some people never grow out of it and take it to extremes.

The problem is that NO sources are ANY more trustworthy than any other because they ALL have their own agenda and you can GUARANTEE they will only tell you what THEY want you to hear.

A lot of information is available in the form of reports if you can be bothered to get them and read them and a lot of info is released on FOI. You kind of just have to trust that it's true because as long as humans are alive there is always a possibility that something is corrupt and somthing is not quite right and has lies embedded it it. It doesn't matter who is in charge it will also be a problem because it's human nature.
But on the whole a lot of info is out there when you look at it's safer (if you have time) to read it and come to your own conclusions, otherwise you are merely a parrot.

Some people call anyone that generally believes official lines 'sheeple' (though most people inclduing 'sheeple' always have a sense of distrust, which is sadly normal).
But those people are also 'sheeple' but for Alex Jones or David Icke or whoever's ideas they are promoting.
The follow the idea that everything the government is a lie and everything is a conspiracy. Huh, they think the government can mastermind and carry out such an impressive plan yet they are safe in their little house.. hehe...

Problem is, while everyone is trying to prove the fantastic, they are not concentrating on the more mundane but still relevent truths - like Atta being watched but not brought in for a couple of years.
More realistic possibilities like the blunders that allowed it to happen when it could have been prevented, for 'more intelligence' or maybe 1 or 2 corrupt people in the line with a personal interest, etc.

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by AgentSmith

And I know this isn't directly related but this is as good a place as any, a few people go on about how the towers went straight down, well at least one didn't quite. It was never going to fall over in a straight line no matter what because it was specifically designed not to. But this photo shows that the top did indeed tilt quite sharply in the direction of the damage as it collapsed.

Brilliant!

This is even more staggering then just the vertical downfall of the other tower, because if the tower is tilted, there's less downward force on the remaining building.
If there were no demolitions in that building, the top would've tilted (if that wasn't caused by an explosion itself) and fallen of the rest of the tower.
But here it stops tilting and somehow starts moving straight down again. Why ? Because there's no support.. and why is there no support ? It can't be because of the upper part crashing onto it ? That would mean a slowdown, further tipping over.
It is been shown that the top of the tower fell without resistance, this could never be the case if the floors had to crush eachother.

WOW!
You should have been a structural engineer.
You obviously never got to play the game where you build blocks up and poke them out one by one with a stick when you were a kid. If you had you might be able to picture it better.

Maybe you should read the report and take A-Level physics or something too while your at it:

www.fema.gov...

Huh, the arrogance of some people, to think they have more knowledge by reading a couple of articles written by unqualified and unexperienced people than people who have spent years of countless training.

Even the experts had to examine everything in detail to fully understand what happened.


[edit on 19-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Can you link me to the sites which show that these people are still alive? I vaguely remember something but not much.

Check this out:

www.worldmessenger.20m.com...

It lists additional sources for you from major media sources (ie, CBS, BBC, ABC, LA Times, etc.).

These guys matched names, photos on IDs, birth dates, occupations as pilots, attended schools in the US, etc. It wasn't just a mere name mix-up.

I suspect it's chinese whispers and some exaggeration by someone (or some people) trying to 'prove' their point more than anything else.

Nope. Sorry.

Maybe you should read the report and take A-Level physics or something too while your at it

A-level physics for you:

An object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force.

The building should have continued falling in that direction, but did not, suggesting more than one force at work in the collapse. That means, more than simply a falling action from the top half of the building.

Check these out:

911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...

The deceleration of the top's rotation is even more discrediting to the idea of a gravity-driven collapse, which cannot explain the documented changes in angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum is the tendency of a rotating solid object to continue rotating at the same rate in the absence of torque. Initially the block consisting of the top 30 stories of the tower acted as a solid object, and rotated about a fulcrum near the impact zone. Although the fulcrum was the axis of rotation, the block had two types of momentum: the angular momentum of the block around its center of gravity, and the linear momentum of its center of gravity tilting away from the tower's vertical axis. When the portion of the building below the collapse zone disintegrated, the block would preserve its angular momentum by continuing to rotate at the same rate (but the acceleration of the rotation would cease due to the removal of the torque that was being applied by intact columns at the fulcrum). But in reality, the rotation of the block rapidly decelerated as the downward plunge began. Once the fall started, any resistance it encountered from parts of the building would have imparted torque on the block in the same direction as the original fulcrum, and would have accelerated its rotation.

Given the apparent absence of any torque to counter the rotation of the block, the slowing of its rotation can only be explained by the breakup of most of the block, which would have destroyed its moment of inertia.

There's your "A-level physics." By bringing up the tilting, which mysteriously stopped after 2 or 3 seconds of collapse, you're just shooting yourself in the foot as far as physics go. Maybe somewhere along the line here, you'll learn to stop being so over-confident in your theories. Unfortunately, things are not so cut-and-dry, or "smart people vs. loonies" here, as you might like.


And for Pete's sake, man, stop ranting in your posts if you want to make a point. You can at least try to back your claims up without constantly, and inaccurately, referring to these facts as looney, etc. You're the one neglecting facts here buddy.

I've yet to see you even begin to explain the squibs. I don't expect you to counter the momentum problem in the disappearance of the tilt, either. Conveniently ignoring evidence? Expertise in physics suddenly dry up? What? Enlighten us, since you seem to be so sure of your position on this matter.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Can you link me to the sites which show that these people are still alive? I vaguely remember something but not much.

Once you've looked at those, try these.

The "Controversy" section at the bottom of en.wikipedia.org... points out that the BBC account refers to a different person altogether (not even with exactly the same name), and the parents of the al Shehri brothers accept they were involved in the hijackings, and are dead.

And Der Spiegel ( service.spiegel.de... ) investigated the Al Ghamdi "still alive" story and found nothing behind that, either.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by ashmok]

They have said, I've even heard it recently, that at least some of the hi-jackers used false details to enter the country and live their lives anyway.
They would have to 'steal' someone's indentity to do this so it is not remarkable for them to have the identities of 'real' people.
And as the authorities would only have known of them by their false details during their whole visit, even over years. It is hardly odd.

The site also argues that none of the hijackers are on the passenger lists. They use a link to a CNN page to prove this which in CNN's own words is:

While the official number of those missing and dead will inevitably rise over the next few weeks, authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists. They are linked below. edition.cnn.com...

They are not detailed passenger manifests, hardly material to be basing an argument like this on. Also the idea that the government could pull off hijacking the aircraft, or crashing them to sea and using remote control ones, (or whatever theory you follow) and yet not be able to alter passenger manifests is absurd.

Geez, even one of the links used as 'evidence' on the site says what I just said after having another look:

Revealed: the men with stolen identities
By David Harrison
(Filed: 23/09/2001)

THEIR names were flashed around the world as suicide hijackers who carried out the attacks on America. But yesterday four innocent men told how their identities had been stolen by Osama bin Laden's teams to cover their tracks.

The men - all from Saudi Arabia - spoke of their shock at being mistakenly named by the FBI as suicide terrorists. None of the four was in the United States on September 11 and all are alive in their home country.

The FBI had published his personal details but with a photograph of somebody else, presumably a hijacker who had "stolen" his identity. CNN, however, showed a picture of the real Mr Al-Ghamdi.

He said that CNN had probably got the picture from the Flight Safety flying school he attended in Florida. CNN has since broadcast a clarification saying that the photograph may not be that of the accused.

So as you see there - the media jumping the gun as usual and NOT the government.

Last night the FBI admitted that there was some doubt about the identities of some of the suspects. A spokesman said: "The identification process has been complicated by the fact that many Arabic family names are similar. It is also possible that the hijackers used false identities."

Cheers for helping me to find some evidence in support of my argument by the way! Saved me the hastle.

Here's some details that go with the picture I posted above taken from the FEMA report:

2.2.2.5 Initiation of Collapse

The same types of structural behaviors and failure mechanisms previously discussed are equally likely to have occurred in WTC 2, resulting in the initiation of progressive collapse, approximately 56 minutes after the aircraft impact. Review of video footage of the WTC 2 collapse suggests that it probably initiated with a partial collapse of the floor in the southeast corner of the building at approximately the 80th level. This appears to have been followed rapidly by collapse of the entire floor level along the east side, as evidenced by a line of dust blowing out of the side of the building. As this floor collapse occurred, columns along the east face of the building appear to buckle in the region of the collapsed floor, beginning at the south side and progressing to the north, causing the top of the building to rotate toward the east and south and to begin to collapse downward (Figure 2-32). It should be noted that failure of core columns in the southeast corner of the building could have preceded and triggered these events.

2.2.2.6 Progression of Collapse

As in WTC 1, a very large quantity of potential energy was stored in the building, during its construction. Once collapse initiated, much of this energy was rapidly released and converted into kinetic energy, in the form of the rapidly accelerating mass of the structure above the aircraft impact zone. The impact of this rapidly moving mass on the lower structure caused a wide range of structural failures in the floors directly at and below the aircraft impact zone, in turn causing failure of these floors. As additional floor plates failed, the mass associated with each of these floors joined that of the tower above the impact area, increasing the destructive energy on the floors immediately below. This initiated a chain of progressive failures that resulted in the total collapse of the building.

A review of aerial photographs of the site, following the collapse, as well as identification of pieces of structural steel from WTC 2, strongly suggests that while the top portion of the tower fell to the south and east, striking Liberty Street and the Bankers Trust building, the lower portion of the tower fell to the north and west, striking the Marriott Hotel (WTC 3). Again, the debris pattern spread laterally as far as approximately 400-500 feet from the base of the structure.

They have said, I've even heard it recently, that at least some of the hi-jackers used false details to enter the country and live their lives anyway.
They would have to 'steal' someone's indentity to do this so it is not remarkable for them to have the identities of 'real' people.
And as the authorities would only have known of them by their false details during their whole visit, even over years. It is hardly odd.

So, in true scientific fashion, you counter the facts that there were identity issues with the hijackers, on more of a basis than simply their names, with conjecture that the passports were stolen by al Qaeda.

Well, I'll give you this: someone obviously f'ed those guys over. I don't see what the point would be for one of the hijackers to try to pass himself off as an equally unsuspected Arab (especially when the guys they allegedly jipped were freaking pilots! doh!), but I could see a perfect point in a government framing Arabs for a crime it committed.

And yet your alleged stolen identities are still the same guys on the FBI suspect list. No surprise there.

Also the idea that the government could pull off hijacking the aircraft, or crashing them to sea and using remote control ones, (or whatever theory you follow) and yet not be able to alter passenger manifests is absurd.

Thanks for your opinion. I don't believe I asserted this at any point, though, did I? Ranting.

As far as the passenger lists: there is no evidence of any of the hijackers being on them. Those "partial lists" were never completely released as far as I know. From what I understand, all attempts for those lists to be released were turned down by the airliners. Interesting denial, is it not?

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Here's some details that go with the picture I posted above taken from the FEMA report:

2.2.2.5 Initiation of Collapse

The same types of structural behaviors and failure mechanisms previously discussed are equally likely to have occurred in WTC 2, resulting in the initiation of progressive collapse, approximately 56 minutes after the aircraft impact. Review of video footage of the WTC 2 collapse suggests that it probably initiated with a partial collapse of the floor in the southeast corner of the building at approximately the 80th level. This appears to have been followed rapidly by collapse of the entire floor level along the east side, as evidenced by a line of dust blowing out of the side of the building. As this floor collapse occurred, columns along the east face of the building appear to buckle in the region of the collapsed floor, beginning at the south side and progressing to the north, causing the top of the building to rotate toward the east and south and to begin to collapse downward (Figure 2-32). It should be noted that failure of core columns in the southeast corner of the building could have preceded and triggered these events.

2.2.2.6 Progression of Collapse

As in WTC 1, a very large quantity of potential energy was stored in the building, during its construction. Once collapse initiated, much of this energy was rapidly released and converted into kinetic energy, in the form of the rapidly accelerating mass of the structure above the aircraft impact zone. The impact of this rapidly moving mass on the lower structure caused a wide range of structural failures in the floors directly at and below the aircraft impact zone, in turn causing failure of these floors. As additional floor plates failed, the mass associated with each of these floors joined that of the tower above the impact area, increasing the destructive energy on the floors immediately below. This initiated a chain of progressive failures that resulted in the total collapse of the building.

A review of aerial photographs of the site, following the collapse, as well as identification of pieces of structural steel from WTC 2, strongly suggests that while the top portion of the tower fell to the south and east, striking Liberty Street and the Bankers Trust building, the lower portion of the tower fell to the north and west, striking the Marriott Hotel (WTC 3). Again, the debris pattern spread laterally as far as approximately 400-500 feet from the base of the structure.

Is this supposed to be a response to the disappearance of the building's momentum?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Is this supposed to be a response to the disappearance of the building's momentum?

I hardly think the collapsing building's momentum 'disappeared', the fact it was quickly reduced to rubble shows that. If you mean the rotational momentum of the top section then we also have to remember that those top floors were just as strong/weak as the floors below and made in the same way from the same materials. It wasn't like a big drill head spinning down through the building, it was destroyed on it's way down too.

It would have encountered resistance as it span into the rest of the building and the metal would have buckled and the concrete shattered and crumbled, on both the top section and bottom. This would have caused it to cushion the spinning motion because, as your article points out, there was no torque to cause it to continue.
The way the article you linked to is written, it seems to be assuming that the top section is somehow stronger than the bottom, which it isn't, otherwise it would make sense.

The top section disintegrated as to be expected and the chain reaction of the floors collapsing with the weight of the building above resulted in the collapse.



[edit on 19-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

I'll admit i'll pop in theories involving Cryptozoology on other forums. I have no facts to back them up at all. However, to get on a web site and present my imagination as if it were fact is insane. If i take a picture of Bigfoot and then say, "See! Proof positive, Bigfoot exists!" I MUST accept all the other theories that agree the photo is real, but the Bigfoot in the pic is actually a man in a monkey suit (like Michael Moore - for example), or it's actually a Gorilla. Or that the pic has been photoshoped,...etc.

To come up with a far fetched theory about our government wanting to implement the Patriot Act by CAUSING 9-11 and then spread lies out your mouth and expect people to believe is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!!!

There's a big difference about saying Bigfoot is actually an alien and saying something that purposely DIVIDES our country and destroys it from within. With one statement people just laugh at you and say get a life. The other statement could destroy peoples lives.

Liberals USED to make validated statements that showed concern for the American people. In the last 6 years though they've shown just how much they seem to hate the American people if they're conservative. They've shown how they could care less about the American soldier. Sure they say that just want them to come home and they don't want them to get hurt. That's understandable, we all do. However, the way they go about protesting hurts the American soldier on the majority. The American soldier doesn't feel the support, this makes it harder for them to concentrate on what they need to do to stay alive.

It's as if your favorite football team is playing, but hardly anyone shows up to watch them play. Instead you're outside the stadium with protest signs saying they'll just lose the game, don't even play because we CARE about you, we don't want you to get injured for a lost cause. Do you think your team is going to feel excited to play and do the best job they can for you? No, you don't even care enough to support them.

I hardly think the collapsing building's momentum 'disappeared'

Then I must ask if you have any vision problems, or if everything's sound in your skull.

You posted this pic:



This happened in the first 2 or 3 seconds of collapse. Afterwards, no more tilt!

How is that not a disappearance of momentum? Things don't just stop falling in a specific direction for no reason!

It's just that you can't explain it, so you refuse to accept that the problem even exists. Serious denial issues, man.

The rest of your post largely had absolutely nothing to do with the physics problem at hand. The problem is not the twisting, but the tilting outwards. There is an obvious tilt outward and away from the building. This happened by the building moving in that direction. It should have continued moving in that direction unless it was effected by a force from the opposite direction, or unless it no longer acted as a solid mass. That is the problem!

Again, and make sure you understand it thoroughly this time:

The deceleration of the top's rotation is even more discrediting to the idea of a gravity-driven collapse, which cannot explain the documented changes in angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum is the tendency of a rotating solid object to continue rotating at the same rate in the absence of torque. Initially the block consisting of the top 30 stories of the tower acted as a solid object, and rotated about a fulcrum near the impact zone. Although the fulcrum was the axis of rotation, the block had two types of momentum: the angular momentum of the block around its center of gravity, and the linear momentum of its center of gravity tilting away from the tower's vertical axis. When the portion of the building below the collapse zone disintegrated, the block would preserve its angular momentum by continuing to rotate at the same rate (but the acceleration of the rotation would cease due to the removal of the torque that was being applied by intact columns at the fulcrum). But in reality, the rotation of the block rapidly decelerated as the downward plunge began. Once the fall started, any resistance it encountered from parts of the building would have imparted torque on the block in the same direction as the original fulcrum, and would have accelerated its rotation.

Given the apparent absence of any torque to counter the rotation of the block, the slowing of its rotation can only be explained by the breakup of most of the block, which would have destroyed its moment of inertia.

The top section disintegrated as to be expected and the chain reaction of the floors collapsing with the weight of the building above resulted in the collapse.

At the time when the building stopped rotating, the top section was still perfectly intact, as photographic and video evidence of the collapses will attest. Are you suggesting the top was shattered before it even fell into the building below it? If so, you're agreeing with the very theories you keep asserting are looney.


Btw - Nice rant, Faust. Just goes to show how little evidence or even critical thinking a right-winger needs to form a strong opinion on something he knows little about.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Uh-huh, something i know little about eh? Well, for starters, i'm not a "right-winger". I'm a Conservative borderline Moderate. I don't stand behind everything my party does, which includes not supporting Trent Lott for being a racist or Ted Kennedy for being a hooker murderer. There is right and there is wrong. That's the way is SHOULD be, not right and left. I don't Watch Sean Hannity, i don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, i don't read the L.A. Times and i don't click to Move On dot Org. These all contribute to the far right or the far left. What i do though is decide for myself from the standard news.

You know what's weak? There wasn't this kind of uproar and anti-war protesting during the Bosnian War. Want to know why? Because there was a Liberal President in office. What to know something else? I supported Clinton because defending people the right to live is "RIGHT" Get it?!? Iraqis shouldn't have to fear Saddam from torturing and killing them. Iraqi women should not have the fear of being raped when Uday Hussein gets horny.

What is the matter with the few minority of you anyway?

I'm a libertarian. I don't like either party, but for me, the right takes the cake. Again, nice rant.