Laser guided/remote controled plane hit WTC? See the video!

Im not snipping at anyone. I was asked a question over and over....and over. It was not ignored. I gave as honest of an answer as I could. If I had all the answers, what good would this website be?

I came hear to learn from others...and possibly give some information to others that are interested.

To address the video that I said that I had. I did indeed find it this afternoon...unfortunatly it wasn't as informative as I once thought...I was caught up in it....but IMO it showed nothing new and supported the pancake collapse.

Anok...when the first tower fell, it was leaning as you pointed out. Several videos show the core was still standing for several seconds after the exterior collapsed...could the core some how "guided" the collapse at the beggining? Keep it from falling over....?? ( i realize this is way above my head here...)

As far as your opinion to my credibility...show me once where I deliberatly mislead anyone in here with lies or disinfo. Because I favor the offical report over for the most part "Google Junkies" does not make me the bad guy. I am a skeptic on BOTH sides. Few in here have the back groud to dispute what NIST FEMA and the 911 Commission have offered. The ones that appear to, I read what they post...and I do my best to confirm what they say.

I have been here only a couple months...very quickly I became a troll, shill, and that I was just another ANTI- Truther using another name.

Please let me know WHERE and WHEN I mislead or lied in here. If I did... show me. I can assure you it wasnt intentional.

So was there a laser guided remote?? Per this post and video..... 100% NO WAY! That so called light was a piece of debris!!

-error-

[edit on 18-12-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Possibly a reflection.

Very possible indeed.

Afterall, it was a bright sunny day.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Anok...when the first tower fell, it was leaning as you pointed out. Several videos show the core was still standing for several seconds after the exterior collapsed...could the core some how "guided" the collapse at the beggining? Keep it from falling over....?? ( i realize this is way above my head here...)

When the SOUTH TOWER toppled the whole section, including the core was toppling, or tilting if you prefer. No the core could not do that, common sense should tell you how that's not possible.

When the tower started to collapse it was moving faster than the top tilting section, notice how the top straightens up as the building bellow it collapses.

The top should have continued in it's path, there was NOTHING to cause it to change it's mind other than the building being blown from under it. There was no damage from bellow the impact point to the ground, so how did it fall? NIST claims gravity, well you can see because the top was tilting it didn't have the energy to crush the undamaged floors, thus the official story is a lie. Prove me wrong!!!!! Or join the side of the truth, if you do neither then all the accusation aimed at you must be true.

BTW You've got to understand the whole official story is a lie and a sham, so when people do nothing but spout the official story with no research of their own, then you have to take what comes...

Originally posted by ANOK

When the SOUTH TOWER toppled the whole section, including the core was toppling, or tilting if you prefer. No the core could not do that, common sense should tell you how that's not possible.

When the tower started to collapse it was moving faster than the top tilting section, notice how the top straightens up as the building bellow it collapses.

The top should have continued in it's path, there was NOTHING to cause it to change it's mind other than the building being blown from under it. There was no damage from bellow the impact point to the ground, so how did it fall? NIST claims gravity, well you can see because the top was tilting it didn't have the energy to crush the undamaged floors, thus the official story is a lie. Prove me wrong!!!!! Or join the side of the truth, if you do neither then all the accusation aimed at you must be true.

BTW You've got to understand the whole official story is a lie and a sham, so when people do nothing but spout the official story with no research of their own, then you have to take what comes...

My limited logic in engineering... i was thinking that the core was stronger than the outer perimeter.

What I have read since I posted that is after the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. it no longer could hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and the "hat" truss's on the roof. The core was somewhat weakened by fire and impact and couldn't hold the incredible weight from the tilting that you talk about on pretty much every thred. Like the perimeter column, the incredible load on the damaged core columns gave out.
You mention that it should have continued that way, or tipped over? I believe in order for the top section to "change it's mind" would require a change in the angle of the fulcrum. The pivot point would have to have to change. I believe it did. The videos I have watched shows that as the global collapse starts..it reduces the angle of the fulcrum.
I have attached a couple pictures I found that may help me explaining this. I do understand how this happened...and to ME it makes sence. I don't think this will change anyones minds, nor do I care. What I do want is that you asked me for an explination.. what i THINK ... well here it is.... do what you want with it. If you can find me a peer reviewed paper that shows explains the collapse I would love to see it.

To suggest that if I dont agree with you, I am not looking at the truth just shows how closed minded YOU are. I gather ALL evidence and draw my own conclusions.












Also, here is a different angle that shows the collapse. You can see at between 5 and 6 seconds the bowing.

video.google.com...

^The point isn't that you disagree with me, it's that a very important part of the whole collapse mechanism is basically ignored by the official story.
And when the question comes up, you all run and dance around trying to avoid answering it.

Sry but your explanation doesn't cut it. And asking for a peer reviewed paper just shows me you either have no clue about physics, so how can you be so sure the official story is true? If you do know about physics then you're just playing ignorant, which my friend we have seen many times here at ATS.

You are NOT looking for the truth because again you are just trying to find excuses to appease me, if you really wanted the truth then the fact that you can't explain what happened should make you go hmmmmm. You cannot explain the toppling turning into a vertical collapse using the theory of the official version, even though you are trying to do that NOT find what really happened. Your dismissive attitude gives you away dude.

You say you've done your research, what does that mean? You've looked at the NIST report and pro 9-11 sites to get the stock answers to our queries?
Cause that's all I've heard so far...

[edit on 29/12/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
^The point isn't that you disagree with me, it's that a very important part of the whole collapse mechanism is basically ignored by the official story.
And when the question comes up, you all run and dance around trying to avoid answering it.

Sry but your explanation doesn't cut it. And asking for a peer reviewed paper just shows me you either have no clue about physics, so how can you be so sure the official story is true? If you do know about physics then you're just playing ignorant, which my friend we have seen many times here at ATS.

You are NOT looking for the truth because again you are just trying to find excuses to appease me, if you really wanted the truth then the fact that you can't explain what happened should make you go hmmmmm. You cannot explain the toppling turning into a vertical collapse using the theory of the official version, even though you are trying to do that NOT find what really happened. Your dismissive attitude gives you away dude.

You say you've done your research, what does that mean? You've looked at the NIST report and pro 9-11 sites to get the stock answers to our queries?
Cause that's all I've heard so far...

[edit on 29/12/2006 by ANOK]

ANOK... i am not trying to "appease" you. I have made it ABUNDANDTLY clear that I do not have knowledge in Building Structures....Physics...Engineering...etc...

My research has consisted of ALL types of websites, news agencies, government, anti-government, CT, and CT "debunkers". Yes I have "skimmed through" the 911 report, NIST, and FEMA.

From all the research I have read, I questioned BOTH sides of this. As I have stated, I once believed in the NO plane at the Pentagon, Controlled Demolition of all three towers, along with flight 93 being shot down.

As I gathered my info, I used it along with my common sence to come to the conclusions that I feel are the truth. Remember this is what I feel not anyone else.

I was going HHmmmmmm when you asked your question...so I did some research. I asked questions.....

I'm sorry that my attempt at an explination is not to your liking.

I question everything my goverment does...thats why I'm here. Thats why I'm an anti-war advocate.


Lets look again at your tilting tower issue. I have watched countless videos of the towers collapse...
Say...just say you are correct with your assumption of the explosives...please explain to me how this would work.... step by step from the moment of the exterior column buckleing.......

The "laser-guide" the OP refers to is actually what is known as a bird. While it is rare for these strange organisms to be caught on video, an exhaustive photogrammetric study has revealed the bird is positioned well in the fore-ground, as it continues to fly in front of the building to the right.



[edit on 5-1-2007 by vor75]

Looks just like a reflection of the approaching plane to me. I don't see it after the explosion, only debris.