1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The claim that "Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally." is often made in the context of 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories.
    20150523-143000-l3str.

    And indeed multi-ton sections of the towers were found both on the ground and embedded in buildings hundreds of feed away. For example here's two large sections of the exterior wall found in other buildings:

    Metabunk 2018-11-03 10-52-01.

    How did it get there? There's several ways this might have happened

    1. Bouncing. Not off the ground, but off the uncollapsed lower portion of the building. The falling vertical speed was partly translated to horizontal speed.
    2. Tilting. As the floors were stripped away from the exterior walls they leaned outwards, when large sections leaned, they were essentially pivoting about a fixed base, allowing the tops to get some speed.
    3. Elastic rebound. When you snap something by compressing it, it's put under stress, and then that stress is released, causing sections of the object to fly off.
    4. Blast effects. Highly compressed gasses can make things move, even throw them considerable distance. However it would have much more of an effect on lighter material. There's two sources of compressed gasses.
    4a. Piston effects. Thousands of tons falling onto a concrete slab will rapidly push it down, making the space below it smaller, and massively compressing the air in that space. This is likely the source of the blasts of debris seen coming from windows, but would not move large sections much.
    4b. Explosion effects. Chemical explosives like C4 work by converting a solid into a very high pressure gas in an incredibly rapid chemical reaction. The rapid expansion of this gas creates damage.​


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The above is a SUMMARY POST, and contains material from the following thread.
    Original first post follows
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    From a 100 point list of "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy, Let's focus on #17
    Why couldn't a girder just have fallen and bounced?

    How much explosives would be needed to throw a girder sideways, and how would you place them?

    An illustration of the principle (not to scale!):

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Not sure what you mean? Bounced off what?
    Why would anyone want / need to throw a girder sideways..?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The uncollapse portion of the building. Since the collapse wave was a bit slower than free-fall, any free-falling debris inside the perimeter of the building would impact it at some point.

    Drop a pen angled at 45 degrees on the edge of your desk from three feet up.
     
  5. Tommy1234

    Tommy1234 New Member

    Let's start by focusing on what's important about claim #17:

    You respond to this by asking a couple of questions -- one being utterly ridiculous, the other being completely irrelevant to our discussion:

    Steel girders were 'bouncing' hundreds of feet laterally? Should we expect this? Let's have a close look at your illustration:

    rubbersteel1.

    I suppose I should ask: how many feet would a girder need to fall before gaining enough energy to 'bounce' itself to the outer limits of a 1,200 foot debris field? How much of this energy could be absorbed by the 'bounce-off' platform while still permitting such extreme 'bounces'? Which shape of structural steel would be most likely to 'bounce' the farthest? Can you present any visual evidence, whatsoever, that 'bouncing' is how these sections were ejected?

    Does this look like 'bouncing'?:

    wtc1westpeel111.

    What about this?:

    oneafteranother1.

    Really... 'Bouncing'?:



    Your next question was:
    This implies I'm suggesting each girder was thrown out by its own set of pre-planted explosives. However, if you are reviewing the material I've provided, you should already know that "total explosive demolition" isn't remotely what I'm advocating. Your perceivably blatant disregard for my most relevant argument is worthy of a screenshot:

    micky1.

    Let's have a look at that "bunch of other stuff":

    Why are you ignoring this, Mick?

    I'm referring to the entire layout of steel sections within the debris field. Analysis of the visual record is there for all to see and cuts through a much broader spectrum of potential human error, being verifiably superior to the flawed works of NIST, Bazant, other propagators of the official narrative, as well as AE911Truth.

    Here is a photograph of the debris layout on the west side of WTC1:

    wtc1 debris layout.

    The peeled perimeter characteristics typical of ROOSD [Runaway Open Office Space Destruction - basically the floors being stripped from the columns] are quite obvious in this photograph -- the upper portion having fallen out and over beyond the lower portion.

    If you assert these sections have 'bounced' into their final position, you've got a long way to go to prove your theory.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I asked

    #17 is
    You reply
    So not only did you not focus, you avoided the questions entirely. Just saying, essentially, "that's what it looks like".

    Let's FOCUS.

    If you claim " the angle and velocity of these ejections suggests an explosive force far greater than what is permitted by the official collapse narrative." then what ejection are you referring to (and please stick the original point here, with specific examples of "multi-ton steel sections", what is being ejected (identify it in the image/video), how big is it, what does it weigh, what is the angle, what is the velocity, how are you measuring it, and what explosive force would be required?
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You ask, but you don't answer.

    What I'm try to do is to get you to go past the argument from personal incredulity ("I can't imagine how .....") and to actually put some numbers to your argument.

    And I'm trying to get you to focus. Even in this this one point you have already conflated two issues - the flying debris and the outward collapse of the walls.

    Let's get to the nitty gritty, how many feet would a girder need to fall before gaining enough energy to 'bounce' itself to the outer limits of a 1,200 foot debris field?

    There are a number of variables and constants, let's give them names:

    h = initial height of the girder
    e = efficiency of the collision
    x = how many feet would a girder need to fall before gaining enough energy to 'bounce' itself to the outer limits of a 1,200 foot debris field (600 feet)
    g = acceleration due to gravity = 32 f/s/s
    d = distance travelled sideways = 600


    Intermediate variables

    v = velocity after falling x feet

    So in our (initially ideal) scenario, the girder falls x feet, and ends up with a velocity at bounce point of v

    1: v^2 = 2 * g * x
    2: v = sqrt (2 * 32 * x)
    3: v = sqrt(64 * x)
    or
    4: x = (v^2)/(2*g)
    5: x = (v^2)/64

    The girder bounces sideways at horizontal velocity v, and vertical velocity is back to zero. It falls an additional (h-x) feet, and when it lands it is 600 feet (d) away.

    So if it travels d feet at speed v, then it takes t = 600/v seconds to do it.
    so
    6: v = d/t

    t is also the time required to fall (h-x) feet.

    7: (h-x) = 0.5*32*t*t
    8: t = sqrt((h-x)/16)
    so
    9: v = d/sqrt((h-x)/16)

    combine 3 and 9

    sqrt(64*x) = d/sqrt((h-x)/16)
    solve for x
    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+sqrt(64*x)+=+d/sqrt((h-x)/16)+for+x

    x = 0.5*(h - sqrt(h^2 - d^2))

    for the extreme case of something at the top of the tower ending up 600 feet away, h=1368, d=600

    x = 69.3 feet.

    a more sensible case, something falling from 1000 feet, and ending up 600 feet away:

    x = 100 feet.

    i.e. it falls 100 feet, bounces to horizontal, falls another 900 feet and ends up 600 feet away.

    Working backwards to verify, after falling 100 feet, v = sqrt(2*32*100) = 80 feet/second (55 mph) (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+to+fall+100+feet)
    We then fall another 900 feet, taking sqrt (2*900/32) = 7.5 seconds (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+to+fall+900+feet)
    Since we have 80 feet/second lateral velocity, that's 7.5*80 = 600 feet horizontal.

    Now, obviously that's a simple model. But let's go one step at a time. Do you agree with the math so far. If not, then point out the error, if so then we can move on to more detailed analysis.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  8. Tommy1234

    Tommy1234 New Member

    Mick, your logic leaves me flabbergasted. Please allow me to help you.

    We use math to prove a theory or to test a hypothesis. In order to formulate a hypothesis, careful observation serves the leading role. It is completely pointless to begin calculating how ejected steel sections might have possibly 'bounced' hundreds of feet when the visual record shows, clearly -- particularly with the WTC1 west wall and the WTC2 east wall -- that this is not the way it happened. Still, you make the assertion that *all* of the WTC steel was ejected in this manner. Please provide a visual reference showing at least one multi-ton section being 'bounced'.

    Meanwhile, here is a video of the west wall of WTC1, clearly showing the perimeter wall sections being "peeled away" and ejected outward -- it being wholly apparent that no 'bouncing' had occurred:



    More images and analysis of the WTC1 west wall:
    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=97&MMN_position=490:490

    Even more for the WTC2 east wall:
    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...=63&MMN_position=148:148&MMN_position=278:278

    Since claims pertaining to observation of the visual record can be immediately verified by anyone and leave much less room for misunderstood variables, whatever hypothesis we conjure must fit the visual evidence. The only hypothesis that fits the record is a ROOSD collapse progression. We need not go any further than to simply *look* at the evidence.

    If you believe something is happening that does not meet the eye, again, you've got a long way to go to prove it. If you'd like me to entertain your inclination toward drawing out equations for imaginary collapse progressions, I'll continue to read. But if you want to get serious, start by referring me to one of the many collapse videos where I can see a multi-ton 'bouncing' in action. Point out which specific ejection you are referring to and where the 'bouncing' impact occurred.
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I thought we were discussing:

    You now want to change the subject to peeling/leaning sections? Or am I misunderstanding "ejected"?

    I did? Where did I say that? I'm simply providing proof that some pieces of steel would end up a considerable distance away from the tower.

    Are you saying that by "17. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally." you just mean the sections of the exterior wall that fell over after they lost their lateral support?

    Can you quote the bit of the sharpprinting article that matches #17?

    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=97&MMN_position=490:490
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    I see what tommy1234 is getting at...you just used math to prove your own theory on what could have happened (the bounce...where is there actual evidence of this taking place?). But the video evidence shows what really happened, and it's plain to see ejection of these pieces of steel.
    I think if you want to prove it happened contrary to what the video evidence suggets, your only option is to show video evidence supporting your claim, not proving mathematically how it COULD happen.
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Can you show me one beam in particular that you think looks like it has been "ejected". Link the video, and then identify the particular beam.
     
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    That's pretty much impossible, as there's a large cloud of debris that obscures the regions where the bounce might have started. But there are no unexplainable beams that Im aware of. The walls peel away, and the interior falls. Things also bounce.

    One can disprove the "ejected" notion simply by noting that no debris at all is observed to go up. It all goes down. If there were massive explosions tossing steel beams around then some things would go up.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Scroll up. I see a couple videos that I've watched and I'm pretty sure I see things flying outward. Is this normal for a building which has caught fire and is collapsing? I can't seem to find any other examples of this happening, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Is there some structural difference between this building and other buildings which have collapsed from fire damage?
    Also, what makes you come to the conclusion any of the debris would go upward?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    Explosions do not discriminate. Why don't you draw a diagram explain how an explosion can "eject" a beam?

    Things are not "flying outwards" (other than the puffs of dust from the air being compressed). Things are falling away from the building. This happens for two basic reasons:

    1) The outer walls "peel" away, and topple outwards
    2) Falling objects bounce, imparting some horizontal velocity.

    You can demonstrate these two things with a pen on the edge of your desk:

    1) Stand the pen vertically on the edge of the desk, let it topple over and fall to the floor. Do it a few times. How far does it go? Try from the top of a book case.
    2) Hold the pen two feet above the edge of the desk. Drop it so it hits the edge at a bit of an angle. Do it a few times. How far does it go?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's a much smaller example:
    [​IMG][​IMG]

    To scale:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  16. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Are you saying those buildings you've shown were on fire and collapsed due to that fire damage, and were not controlled demolitions?
    Also, I understand falling objects bounce. But the video/gif shown (of wtc7) doesn't show the ground or the bounce. So what does it have to do with anything? Why prove beams will bounce? Of course things bounce. Anything that fell from the building, irregardless of how the building went down, would bounce in some way.
    Also, if you look on the left side of the wtc7 building, just as it begins it's collapse, I can see something shoot out. I can't identify it,but according to the size of the building I would say it's pretty big. Why is that? Is that simply from the walls 'peeling' and toppling? I'm not sure what to make of it.
    And lastly, no, lol, I won't draw a diagram for you showing how beams would be ejected outward. I'm not making that claim; I'll leave that one to the thread starter. He made that claim pretty boldly.
     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They were controlled demolitions without the use of explosive. They just push out one floor, then the building collapsed like the WTC did.


    The bounces I'm referring to are off the high parts of the building, not off the ground. The un-destroyed part of the building is still solid. When the debris front hits it, some of the looser debris will bounce off. This will happen every floor.
     
  18. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Of course, none of these were steel-framed buildings; Verinage is not used on steel-framed buildings. Of course, Verinage is a controlled demolition technique involving precise hydraulic movements across parallel sections of the building -- a precision you are suggesting was achieved by impact and fire.
     
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    We are discussing the "ejection" of things here. Precision is not an issue. If you want to discuss precision, then start a new thread.

    The verinage clips show a very similar pattern (to WTC) of debris falling away from the building.
     
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Besides "multi-ton steel sections", another likely thing that would fly sideways would be the aluminum cladding, which was relatively light, and detached from many of the exterior columns as they buckled
    [​IMG]

    It's quite possible that some of the things are office furniture, partitions, conference room tables, etc, - if they were close to the exterior.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You can see the stripped cladding here:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  22. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    The aluminum cladding makes sense flying outward, or as you said anything that may have not been damaged by the fire.
    However, I'm confused here. You are trying to say that building 7's collapse wasn't controlled demolition, that it was caused simply from the extensive fire damage inside. But you show us a couple examples of controlled demolitions to illustrate your point. How does that work?
    Why not show a building collapsing the way wtc7 did that was caused by uncontrolled fire damage? I can't seem to find any examples that are remotely similar.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

    There is a lot of great information in that article from experts in imploding buildings.


     
  24. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    I use screws often (small bolts).
    When accidentally dropped in my studio, they often hit something on the way down....and end up sometimes several feet away from the point dropped. They bounce.
    Even if they hit nothing, their semi-forward motion continues on a path of inertia......outward.

    Beams and steel columns are heavy, though their weight does not excuse them from bouncing.....or excuse them from following a tipped inertia.
    What we see in simple videos is only the outermost building pieces falling. We cannot see inside the dust, where much (most) of the action is happening.
    There must be bouncing in amongst the dust....in the heaviest core of the collapse.......we just don't see it.
    Even "if" there were explosions....bouncing would still happen, in the relative chaos of any collapse.
     
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    Because I'm keeping the thread on topic.

    The building collapsed, that's quite obvious.

    Steel sections ended up some distance from the building, things fell away from the building. I was demonstrating with the Verinage collapses that that's simply what happens when a building collapsed.

    The HOW it collapsed is a different subject.
     
  26. Wedge

    Wedge New Member

    New here...and I have a question. Could the beams they claim were found "two football fields" from the WTC been the be the direct by product of the planes crashing into the towers?...By that I mean, the two jetliners impacted a number of beams and supports...couldn't that momentum have propelled those pieces to their far flung locations?

    With regard to "ejecting" I see absolutely no pieces "ejected". I see debris falling which seems to be consistent with other debris falling consistently with a collapse.
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There certainly were some steel beams ejected by the impacts, however there were also beams off to the sides, and behind the impact point. I think it's all explained above.
     
  28. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    There were no large quantities of steel "beams" projected from the twin towers. The facade came down with the towers by two mechanisms (seen in the pics and vids)... tip and peel, and slip and drop is how I describe them. The slip and drop fell quite close to the facade, the tip and peel fell up to 450' from the face, with the furthest steel seen are the facade panels from the west face from about the 84th floor or so. These came from over 1,100 feet high.

    The tip and peel debris was in multiple panel assemblies of the 10'x36' panels coming off the tower attached in sheets. Some of the were almost the full width of the building and up to 15 or more stories high. These large assemblies can be seen on West street post collapse arrayed in the pattern they were assembled in. The tip and peel assemblies are the result of the rapid runaway floor collapse leaving the facade with no lateral support and too slender to stand. The floor collapse provided sufficient impulse to the facade to tip it away from the tower. Multiple panel assemblies can be seen sailing through the air toward the World Financial Center. This massive one impaled one panel into the 20th floor of the AmEx tower and continued to reach as far as the barrel vault of the Winter Garden.

    It's certainly possible that as the frame came apart, some steel columns would be sprung free. There were no explosions causing any steel to be "ejected" hundreds of feet. AE911T is even wrong at the distance. They claim 600 feet and the furthest found steel was 450'.

    [...]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 30, 2015
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just made a slightly better illustrative video of something falling vertically and then bouncing horizontally, slowed down to be more to scale with the towers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Inspired by a Twitter discussion, I decided to do a bit more experiment with some actual numbers:


    The basic parameters were a drop from 52" above the ground (h), falling a distance of 19" to impact (x) and traveling sideways a distance d.

    Now the first thing that I discovered was that the maximum distance in this experiment was not from a simple bounce to horizontal, it also had a slight vertical component, which complicates the math a little. But that aside for now, given h and x, what value of d would we expect as a maximum? My math from post #6 says:

    x = 0.5*(h - sqrt(h^2 - d^2))

    Solving for d

    d = 2 * sqrt(x) * sqrt (h-x)

    so with h= 52, x = 19, we get d = 49"

    The actual longest distance was 28", which would give a very simple measure of efficiency (e) of 28/49, or 57%
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So what does this mean for d? If we are only traveling for 0.57 of x, then we need to calculate d for a value of x that's 1/0.57 the length, or about 1.75x as far. so for 600 feet, we would need x = 1052 feet, which we can't actually get with my math, as it requires h>d, so what about the 400 feet that Darfus was asking about? That would be 400*1.75 = 700 to account for the efficiency, so x = 142 feet.

    So a girder dropped from 1000 feet above the impact point would have to drop 142 feet before the bounce to end up at that point 400 feet away.

    But what is the actual maximum? Well if my math is correct, then the maximum is equal to the drop height, and the fall distance is exactly half that drop height. So if something were to drop (at freefall) from the very top of the tower, and impact something just right after dropping half the distance, then it could end up traveling sideways the full height of the tower. (again, assuming my math is correct)

    Accounting for efficiency, this means that to have travelled a distance d feet, it would have to start at least 1.75*d feet above that point
     
  32. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    I don't understand how various portions of the truther community use both the fact that the towers fell into their own footprints and the fact that debris was ejected too far as proofs of CD. How are both possible?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's video I took of the girder bounce experiment.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  34. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Great to see that concept put to experiment. It's déjà vu for me.

    Back in 2008 I was responding to one or more of the "beams ejected by explosives" claims and interacting with psikeyhackr over the maths of fall to ground parabolas of horizontally ejected pieces given various horizontal starting velocities.

    I postulated two mechanisms for psikey:
    1) The "skittering" resulting from bouncing off OR deflection from impact with a firm surface - all same as your experiments Mick; AND
    2) A "bowling" action as a falling sheet of columns falls over flinging a loose beam from the top part.

    ....and I never did the physical experiments fir either.

    Wasn't till years later that I became aware of Major_Tom's research into where the perimeter sheets broke - peeled - (some) rotated and fell.

    And that humungous 30(?) storey piece that fell as a single sheet and - by a "bowling" action - impaled that beam into the WFC.

    Still haven't any visual proof for the other 6 or so beams that were the outfliers into other buildings.
     
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, I was just watching the Damas video


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob4i5dpxrbU


    the WFC (aka the AMEX building) is the green pyramid roofed building on the right. You can clearly see the huge mass of the outer wall of WTC1 tilting towards it.
    [​IMG]

    Red is what is visible, green is my extrapolating backwards.

    It's clear this large mass movement isn't bouncing (and even more clearly not the result of an explosion).

    I guess you could illustrate the principle with a Jenga model, but I don't think it would be possible to get any useful numbers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  36. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    That is because by and large, they afford themselves the luxury of asking questions without having to provide any answers themselves

    And that is a pretty easy gig

    It gives them carte blanche to examine seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence in minute detail

    They only have to "get lucky" once
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2015
  37. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    They weren't ejected in the first place... the steel found far from the towers was from high high floors and it toppled over and fell as part of huge assemblies of multiple panels. Ejected is a code word for "exploded".... pure nonsense.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  38. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    On the face of it this could explain what was seen - except that these 'huge assemblies of multiple panels' have been measured as leaving their stationary position and accelerating to achieve speeds around 60mph inside the first couple of yards.

    When questioned, proponants of the 'toppling' theory go on to explain that these sections are made to break away at the top and both sides - but not at the base. The fixed base is then seen as a hinge around which the section topples sideways to produce the lateral movement.

    But the question remains. What force caused the massive sections to break free on three sides only and then 'topple' sideways with huge acceleration and at a measured velocity far in excess of that possible by a gravitational 'topple' about a fixed point.

    If it is claimed to be falling steel from above that provides the motive force then that must be shown to be travelling at least at the same lateral velocity of the 'toppling' section. That would be essential to produce an equal and opposite force to avoid contravening Newtonian laws. But that isn't seen or measured. So what other massive force can cause multiple tons of steel to break free and accelerate sideways so rapidly over a yard or so? If gravity can't do that then what other cause can be considered ? The acceleration over such a short distance is the part that I find hard to reconcile with the 'topple' theory.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  39. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    That's rubbish.... Show me your so called proof or evidence... love the use of these words... that they accelerated to a speed of 60 mph in the first couple of yards.

    The mechanisms to understand the toppling is settled science. The observed motion demonstrates established mechanics. The facade was held plumb.... laterally braced by the floor system. The ROOSD process of floor collapse (call it any name you want) left the facade without lateral bracing... and increasing unstable as the slenderness ration grew. It's more than likely.... that the descending floor mass... growing in volume and the air below it between each slab ... forced out of the way of the falling ROOSD mass.... exerting outward lateral forces which caused the facade to bulge and break free and topple in panel assemblies of varying sizes. Of course the top moves laterally (in an arc) as it descends. What is the speed of the top of a flag pole which falls over? It accelerates from rest to???? But it sure as hell doesn't accelerate to 88 feet per second in 2 meters and neither did the top of the the toppling assemblies of panels.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
  40. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Its some years since I looked at this and spoke from memory. But it seems that it was Chandler who first did the calcs on the speed of ejections. It was fully discussed at the time in this forum thread. His observations and measurements of video evidence show ejection speeds as I remembered.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t19948.html

    Note that although some dispute arises in there about angular distortions causing false measurements, the basic results are not overturned. In fact if the material is moving other than at 90 degrees to the camera then a higher real speed would be more accurate if the assumption he used was that it was at 90 degrees to the camera. Simple vector calcs would show that. He was therefore showing the minimum speed to avoid such challenges.

    I assume that if such velocities can be proven then you would accept that the 'settled science of toppling' cannot explain that.