1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What do you think is happening to the section I circled in red, above?
     
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The thread is about the claim that sections were "elected laterally". That means they had an initial horizontal velocity away from the building, as if they were shot out of a cannon.

    The general agreement here is that there are no examples known that cannot be explained by a gravity driven collapse. If you'd like to point to one then please try to produce a frame by frame analysis showing the trajectory.
     
  3. 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.
    wtc1-all-clipped-enhanced-25pct-section.
    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:

  4. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I am German, too.
    You askked for evidence of exterior columns "peeling out" - which is the same, in my understanding as "tipping over/away", but different from "falling off" or "being ejected".

    This thread is about "Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally", and discussion of wall segments tipping/toppling/peeling outwards in large, connected sheets is on-topic only insofar as this rules out that these same segments were "ejected laterally".

    The video I posted shows, among other things, a fairly rigid wall section, many stories high, on the right side of the tower rotating about a pivot that's hidden behind the dust cloud but can be estimated to be near the original perimeter, and thus falling over/tipping/toppling like a tree. Do you see what I mean?

    Here, let me help you with screenshots and red circles around the wall segment I am talking about:

    slomo1.
    slomo2.
    slomo3.
    slomo4.
     
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

  6. toutdoubt

    toutdoubt New Member

    Anyway I can get those small images bigger? the equations etc. Thanks!!
     
  7. Manooper

    Manooper New Member

    I've come to the same conclusion, that is the pieces are clearly peeling away from the towers, rather than being ejected out. Given the enormous height of the towers, it should be expected that pieces end up hundreds of feet away as the sides fall away.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    google free fall... the graphics was from the WWW and I don't seem to have the file anymore.
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It does not seem to exist anywhere. Perhaps it was clipped from a pdf, or from a private forum.

    The diagram in the middle seems to just be a derivation of range (R) from height (h) and eject velocity (Ve) (along with time to fall (t) and impact vertical velocity (Vi). I've roughly recreated it here:
    Metabunk 2018-11-15 06-29-44.
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Did you ever write this paper? I was thinking this topic might make a good explainer video.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I never completely finished it, but the model and calculations are pretty much done. I just created the attached PDF file from a LibreOffice Writer (.odt) file I had last saved on 2016/Oct/16 [Edited to add: 2017, not 2016].
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Todd Cee

    Todd Cee New Member

    very impressive ... this should be finalized and submitted for peer review ...
     
  13. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Do Oy's calc take into consideration that the explosions would also have break the connections of the panels to the adjacent ones and the slabs.... or does it assume the steel panels, members were simply free standing?
     
  14. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    No. I merely compute how much of an explosive would be required to propel a piece of steel of mass m to a velocity v. No losses / additional explosives to deform, break, spin or heat material considered.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Breaking the connections would require a lot of forces as well... no?
    Where would the explosive(s) be placed to propel a relatively intact steel beam, column or facade panel out of or off the building?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    That would of course very much depend on your CD scheme - and I am not aware that any Truther has advanced a proposal or theory detailing placement and size of explosive charges. I am not going to do their work for them and come up with speculation to calculate the effect on panel expulsion.

    Just some musings:

    1. We know that taking out the floors would be an efficient way to start collapse: Say, attack all the truss seats of 3 consecutive floors at once, or perhaps timed that all three floors hit the one below at about the same time, that should guarantee pancaking goes all the way down, total collapse ensues. But that would require only relatively small charges. Though I would not dare to speculate on a number we are very certainly talking about far less than 1 pound per charge. How many truss seats are there per wall panel? 9? Or double that, 18? Eitherway, as even the lightest panels weighed multiple tons, and my white paper shows that more than 9 pounds of explosives are needed per ton of hurled mass just to hurl, rigging the floor trusses would not include enough to do such hurling. Oh and anyway, rigging just the floor trusses would not cut panels loose from the next panel, they would not be pushed out by the explosions at all
    2. If you rig the columns - whether at their slices (which would be the most efficient, if you can get to the bolts) or anywhere in between - to cut them apart, then ipso facto the explosions will occur at the extreme ends of the columns/panels, and so unless you have equal sized charged on both ends explosing at the exact same time, any kinetic energy imparted on the wall panel will have a large rotational (angular) component, which will subtract substantially from the lateral velocity, which is the only velocity of interest here. My white paper assumes that the explosives are placed evenly around the Center of Mass of the panel AND does not destroy the panel there. Of course such a placement maximizes the lateral velocity while making no sense, at all, even negative sense, as cutting charges. Besides, Truther, as best as I can determine, would theorize that charges were fired in a timed sequence that mimicks the "nearly freefall" descent of the top, in other words, they'd not fire charges on either end of 3-floor panel at the exact same moment, but as much as 300 milliseconds apart. For a panel that's supposed to travel 48 mph laterally (to take one of the lowest numbers consistent with Truther claims), which is 21.4 m/s, the top of the panel would already have travelled laterally more than 20 feet by the time its bottom gets cut from the panel below. Which makes zero sense of course.
    3. So the "best" idea that I think Truthers could come up with would be a reference to "kicker charges". They may have heard of this demolition technique where you have two separate charges per location: One cutting charge that severs the column apart, followed in close succession by a kicker charge that laterally moves the end of one or both parts of the column laterally such that the top end no longer stands on the bottom end and instead falls through thin air. A Truther might hypothesize that they used kicker charges to move entire panels laterally - but shooting them out at 48 mph would be overkill.
    Hope that helps :D
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    They look like torn spandrels from the North Tower perimeter wall.
     
  18. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    "They" are the "gash makers". Actually, one large piece of wall made the gash. That particular spire is distinct. It appears out of the dust higher and later than all the other pieces, travelling near horizontal. It's easy to identify that spire from north views, and it is clear it lined up with column 20.

    If you look close, you see large panels falling, with only the leading edge showing due to the dust. If you watch the dust around them, you can make out the larger shape falling as one unit.
    Equally as important as studying video of collapse in identifying the falling structural members, is studying other evidence, after which you will find:
    1. The entry hole at the top of Building 7 at column 20 is about 40 feet wide, and about as deep into Building 7 footprint. How would a core column(s) make such a hole?
    2. Video shows the large standing core section falling east and west. The core was split north/south, and the east half fell east while the west half fell west. None can be seen falling north.
    3. Aerial photos of the site show core columns spread out south, east, and west of the NT footprint. There are no signs of core columns north of the footprint. North of the footprint, debris is predominately NT perimeter wall panels. There are a few single columns north, but they are not the same length as NT core columns observed elsewhere. They more likely are columns from Building 6.
    There simply is no evidence that the NT core fell north, and the entry hole damage in Building 7 does not match potential damage from core columns; it does match potential damage from perimeter wall panels.

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Joe Hill

    Joe Hill Member

    For the record, upon closer inspection, they are too large to be torn ends of spandrel plates. It is more likely they are the ends of 3 to 4 still joined perimeter panels, which comports with the size of the hole created at the top of Building 7.
     
  20. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    cptn_fantastic - your discussion with johnnyH is way off topic as I noted in my previous post.

    And you are repeating many questions which I have already offered to respond to or explain....in an appropriate thread.

    However I see that you ignore my post and my offer to assist. So I will cease commenting on the off topic material.
     
  21. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    If the height is sufficient for both balls to run out of horizontal momentum prior to colliding with the ground, both balls travel equidistant from the building.
    A thrown ball, whether made of rubber or steel, will land the same distance from the building whether thrown from the 110th floor or the 100th.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 1