1. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    There is no evidence that the so called "expulsions" traveled at 80 mph. All the columns which fell away followed the basic law of trajectories. The furthest measured steel from 1wtc was at the Winter Garden across West Street. It's max horizontal velocity... toppling from the 80th floor or so was about 35 mph.

    What appears to be material flying upwards is mostly material left behind as the "bottom fell out" and the building collapsed down.

    In order to explain what happened you need accurate observations and knowledge of mechanics. Otherwise you are dealing with garbage in garbage out.

    Attached Files:

  2. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    The short of what I tackeled there is this:
    Basic considerations of Conversation of Energy and of Momentum - physical laws that cannot be broken - show that for each 1000 kg of steel (or any other material) to get propelled to 60 mph, you need on the order of 10 kg og high exposives (and more of low explosives), if charge and projectile are not confined to a sort of gun barrel (a very massive vessel open only to one direction, with focus).
    Since the wall panels weighed upwards of 6 tons, many more than 10 tons, you'd need upwards of, order of magnitude, 100 kg of high eplosives. Such explosions did not go off - they would have a HUGE imprint on everything: Bend the stee totally out of shape, shatter windows in a large area around GZ, and totally dominate all sound tracks of all sound recordings of the collapes.
    For reference: In actual explosive CD, most charges are measures in ounces, few in single digit pounds - and you know how awesomely loud there were.

    Conclusion: The wall panels were not propeed by explosive charges - that's an impossibility.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    There is absolutely such evidence.

    From 2:40 - 3:10 he shows the measurement data, one piece achieves ~78 mph.

    No the columns did not fall away, they turned into dust mostly while some flew out at high speeds, up to 600 feet away. Those last two lines apply much better to thyself.
    • Funny Funny x 4
  4. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Argument from ignorance fallacy, the exact type, location and number of explosives is unknown. However that explosives were used is undeniable. Gravity cannot explain a multi ton section hitting the winter garden 600 feet away, please explain how that is possible?
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  5. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Winter garden was hit by a multi ton section, it was 600 feet away, I already explained this to you. Sounds of explosives were absolutely heard.

    No Chandler's work is not silly or bogus, you are just hitting a wall of cognitive bias. The acceleration was constant, you are confusing that with velocity. Not collapsing at g doesn't mean the floors failed, it means that's the rate the set the explosions off. Please take the time to read the peer reviewed published papers, and see that gravity is not even at work.

    ⦁ Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2018
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
  6. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  7. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    You're confusing the burden of proof, which falls to you to provide evidence of what you are saying against the already established facts are. Simply saying that explosives being used is "undeniable" because "how else" is not evidence (and an argument from incredulity, if you must).

    Can you show proof, hard evidence, that explosives were used?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    you're wrong. at most it was 450 feet away

    the 584 foot measurement is to this whole in the middle of the atrium

    and if that got hit with a 4 ton or more piece [@80mph] the lattice work would have been annihilated. So you're guy is measuring wrong.
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    The piece at Wintergarden is not 600 feet away.
    Steel turning to dust is magic, not physis.

    Dustifing steel is fantasy, aka evidence free.

    The energy release due to mgh, responsible for all the damage and ejections. The energy due to gravity in the buildings was bigger than 5 nuclear weapons the smallest nuclear weapons. That is more than enough energy to do the ejections and damage seen.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    No, I only have to show that explosives were used, not how many and what kind. The burden of proof of the official story lies on you lot, and you have failed that burden. If a crime scene detective sees a body riddled with bullets he concludes the man was shot, he need know exactly how, when, and by whom to know this.

    Kinematic analysis proves explosives were used to remove the resistance, case closed.
    • Disagree Disagree x 7
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    those are not peer reviewed papers, just fyi.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    Yes, that's right. Which you've tried:
    ...and it's been pointed out to you in @Oystein s post how the physics don't add up for this to occur.

    Can you show how oystein was incorrect? I haven't seen this kinematic analysis.
  13. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    I guess I meant to type that it hit the winter garden, 600 feet away.
    Oh yes they are, and all work is shown.
    • Funny Funny x 3
  14. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    The energy release is not due to mgh, this has been refuted via kinematic analysis. The top's of the towers do not impact the bottoms, there is a missing jolt.

    Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis, The http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis/
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    In line with the no click policy, can you explain how its been shown and where you've succeeded? All I've seen thus far is "this is true because you're wrong" which is not evidence of anything.
    Perhaps explanation of the physics involved in throwing a multi ton section of steel with explosives would be helpful?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  16. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    There WERE explosions... but they were not bombs or CD devices. All sorts of "things" exploded in a burning building. Explosions are not disputed... CD and bombs are.
  17. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    Uh...actually that's kind of what it means. Exactly. It means you provide the evidence that YOU are referencing because you are trying to utilise that to refute the facts. If you don't know how to do this on the forum, there's a "how to" guide which shows how to link and reference etc.

    I'm not about to read through an entire report on your say so, you need to highlight the section which makes your case.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. Inti

    Inti Active Member

    I admit to not being a physicist, but I think this statement is either wrong or meaningless.

    Did you mean that an object falling throught air experiences a decellerating force that may partially counter the accelating force of gravity? The amount of deceleration will vary depending on the cross-sectional density of the object, which is determined by its mass and the area exposed to the air's resistance. IsntI that right?

    And in the case of the falling upper section of the tower, that density will be high, given the very large mass. So the rate of fall will be little affected by air resistance.
  19. Inti

    Inti Active Member

    Im puzzled. How would you possibly prevent such lateral forces developing in a collapse? With some fragments striking other elements and decelerating, while others above them are still falling, you must have a 'squeezing' effect that will push fragments sideways. So it would be very surprising if nothing was thrown out laterally.

    On the other hand, to detonate charges to create that much force would have produced deafening and unmistakable explosions. You may have seen the examples of videos posted early of much smaller charges used in controlled demo of large building. I've seen them myself several times and you get a rapid and characteristic loud sequence of sharp intense bangs. And that never sent any fragments remotely as large outwards. You expanation simple doesnt fit the observable (and audible) facts.
  20. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    I'm pretty sure that's not how gravity works.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Inti

    Inti Active Member

    Hmm... So now you are positing hitherto unknown magically inaudible (and flashless) nukes? This looks like one of the greatest ad hoc explanations ever.
  22. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Let's not forget that with the collapse of the top 15 or so floors in 1wtc for example... the material which largely fell straight down was confined by the facade more or less.... and the air on each floor was about 20,000 cubic feet (208x208x12) and it was displaced by the collapse. Say the floor collapse was about 100' per second (2/3 of FF) velocity, Thus means that 20,000cu ft of air was forced OUTWARD and some down through shafts in about .1 of a second.

    That's a lot of air to move out of the way. The air which was say at the core... traveled out through the facade in .1 second more or less. say... about 50'. That volume of air was 50' in .1 seconds... that's 500' in 1 second...

    The air that blasted out of those windows was in the range of 450 MPS... way stronger than a tornado... That's a lot of impulse. NO?
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sectional density is mass divided by sectional area . m/S

    Force due to gravity is mass * g = mg

    Force due to air resistance = a constant * area * velocity squared = kAv^2

    Net force = mg - kAv^2

    Here the square-cube law comes into effect. Mass is proportional to the cube of linear size, area is proportional to the square. So a falling girder has much less air resistance than a penny.

    If the net force is still downwards, then the object will continue to accelerate downwards, just with a reduced acceleration.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The topic here is "Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally." Let's try to stay on topic.
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    @DD-Dude has been banned for multiple extreme violations of the politeness policy.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  26. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    In this video, the steel sections that are highlighted, clearly look like they are just toppling over; at lease they do to me. The problem is that you can't see what is going on. My question to those that suggest explosives ejecting these pieces is:
    If the explosives are powerful enough to eject a 4 ton piece of steel, how are the same explosives NOT ejecting the lighter and smaller materials out farther?

    There is so much dust a debris that I would imagine something powerful enough to blast these heavy sections out so far, with such force, would easily shoot smaller chunks of concrete, drywall, office furniture, and other debris farther and faster than the large sections. The fact that we can see these large pieces through the dust and debris means that they are getting ejected farther that a small chunk of drywall.

    Does that make sense to anybody?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  27. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    How exactly are relatively intact "beams" ejected without being damaged and bent by the explosive force that is alleged to move them several hundred feet laterally?
    • Agree Agree x 4
  28. To me the first question that has to be asked is "If we accept the lateral ejections are exactly as you say, how is this proof of a controlled demolition? No other CD in history (of which Im aware, and Ive watched hundreds on the net) ever once showed lateral ejections."

    In essence, to say the lateral ejections prove a controlled demolition is to imply the logic "a characteristic that never happens in controlled demolitions happened at the WTC, which proves they are controlled demolitions."
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 3
  29. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    True but there is another aspect usually overlooked - if demolition was needed there was no need for it to be "controlled" demolition....i.e. minimising co-lateral damage. Most of us have taken to loose usage of the terminology and have lost sight of the distinction that "controlled" is not necessary. Mea also culpa very often because "everyone" expects "CD" or "controlled demolition" as the label.
  30. Then there has been evolution over the use of the term.

    The 911 CT was a great amusement of mine since 2005. Back then, the CT were all very clear. They would point to Peter Jennings saying "looks just like a controlled demolition" and demand "Nothing looks like a controlled demolition like a controlled demolition."

    As each point in the CT gets debunked, they simply change what they mean to mean something else.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Seymour

    Seymour New Member

    Actually, I’ve never seen convincing evidence of “lateral ejections” in the first place.

    Admittedly, ext columns peeled out and fell up to several hundred feet outside the “footprint”.

    But the [...] claim is not about tipping columns, but that the columns or other heavy debris were explosively “blown”. The only evidence of this “blowing” is incredulity by truthers that tipping could account for this.

    You’d think that if they were so sure in their belief, that someone by now would of done a study of falling debris and presented evidence in a motion trace proving this. Seems simple enough to do for someone so passionate about it.

    I’ve never seen it though, cuz the claim is wrong.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Karl Eriksen

    Karl Eriksen New Member

    Yeah, it is hard enough to get the piece to "Bounce" when you are carefully directing it down to the perfect deflection surface. The chances of this happening organically is near 0. Your most realistic example was the one where you aimed your "girder" slightly wrong, and it fell straight to the ground. Your demonstration shows if you could carefully aim your girders onto a perfect deflection surface (that didn't exist on the WTC towers) 30 or 40 stories below where they started falling, you get could massive deflections. The WTC buildings were perfect squares- no 45 degree angled surfaces to nicely deflect a girder. Girders could only fall a short distance before any possible deflection surface was also destroyed. I guess we would have to concede deflection is theoretically possible, but if it were the cause of the many massive girders ending up hundreds of feet away, we would see at least one deflection happening in the extant video.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  33. Karl Eriksen

    Karl Eriksen New Member

    This is not what is happening. We can see many of the large girders from the moment they detach till they are way out in the air- there are no deflections. Between all the extant video angles, we can see virtually all the potential "bouncing" locations.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Would you agree that the lower part of the building is a solid structure before the collapse wave hits it?

    Would you also agree what the leading edge of the collapse wave is made up of the beams and girders than are travelling the fastest, as they have fallen the furthest?

    Would you also agree that the strongest part of the building was the core. Much of which remained standing after the main collapse wave hit the ground?

    Can you point to one of these, and show why you would have seen the deflection.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    What do you mean by "girder"?

    Can you please present a specific example of one specific "girder" that "[w]e can see ... from the moment they detach till they are way out in the air"? Embed a video, specify the min:sec at which that "girder" is seen, along with a description where to look for it in the video. Ideally, make a screenshot or two, draw an arrow pointing out the "girder" that you see, and post that screenshot here.
    Then tell us what you think this "girder" is, specifically - a wall panel, a piece of wall column, a core column, a bit of floor truss, or whatever. So we can assess its mass, or at least a rounded estimate. And of course that "girder" would have to fall with a significant lateral velocity and/or land significally far away from the footprint; it should be possible to measure or estimate lateral velocity or lateral distance fallen from the image material you post.

    I doubt there exists even only one video (or photos) of a multi-ton steel section falling ballistically (i.e. completely detached) with a significant lateral velocity. I am perfectly certain that no such images exist for any such detached steel section moving laterally from the perimeter of the tower to a location more than, say, 200 feet away from the tower footprint (200 feet being the width of the towers).
    • Agree Agree x 2
  36. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I see that Karl Eriksen has made a false response to one of my comments. He said:
    That assertion is false for the example I posted. I referred specifically to two plausible mechanisms that I speculated about in 2008. I called them "skittering" and "bowling".

    We have had proof for some years - post my 2008 speculations - for one example of "bowling". By "bowling" I mean a "beam" (strictly a section of column) carried at the top of a toppling sheet of perimeter columns. That example is the beam that embedded in the WFC. It came from the top of one sheet of perimeter. I described it in my earlier post as "that humungous 30(?) storey piece that fell as a single sheet and - by a "bowling" action - impaled that beam into the WFC." I am conscious of this forum's "No Click" policy - the proof of where that "humongous sheet" came from and how it swiped WFC as it fell is no longer easy to access but if anyone wants it I can try to locate the evidence which is many years old.

    The main issue here however is that Karl's responses seem to focus on rebutting one mechanism when reality had several. And the sections of perimeter column "sheets" he is probably referring to were not displaced by either impact skittering or long range bowling.
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If someone wants to claim there's a specific piece of the WTC that exhibits behavior that is not explained by a gravity driven collapse then please present actual evidence of that, with images and math. Let's not descend into a semantic discussion.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  38. Zett eL

    Zett eL Member

    This implies that you have seen convincing evidence of ext columns peeling out...
    Please show it.
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The attached video is made from a sequence of photos, so the timing is not perfect. Howeve,r it does quite clearly show a large section lean out to the side. It's the one on the upper right that momentarily brightens as it falls into the sunlight.
    Metabunk 2018-08-12 16-19-10.
    I've attached the file so you can analyze it better. Also on YouTube

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

    Attached Files:

  40. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Some of that evidence is shown on page 1 of this thread - I suggest you read the thread before asking things that are already answered.


    1. Here is a slo-mo video of one of the collapses, showing several sheets of wall peeling outward:

    Please let me know if you need help spotting what I am talking about, I think it's fairly obvious.

    2. And here is an aerial photo of the result - several huge sheets of connected wall segments flat on the ground after having peeled and toppled outwards.