Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Because in ALL violent events, debris can travel WELL outside the radius of what you'd normally expect.
Oops.
Because in ALL violent events, debris can travel WELL outside the radius of what you'd normally expect.
Oops.
The debris in that video was all accelerated by gravity. The explosions were not powerful enough, and ended several seconds before debris began to be ejected.
All the things that are supposed to be evidence of explosions are things that, in an actual controlled demolition, are NOT caused by explosions, but by the gravitational collapse following them.
Actually, I think you should go back and watch the video again. Go to the settings button and slow the video down to .25. Watch the rock come through the opening in the trees and hit the ground several meters in front of the guy wearing the red shirt. Then it bounces off the ground and gets deflected upward. Its hard to see at regular speed. So after reviewing this, we don't see the rock until after the building starts to collapse, so what @Hevach said is totally possible and honestly the best "assumption". The rock is moving an a downward angle through the trees that is consistent with the building's height. And how do you know the rock is moving at 60mph.then turn through 100 degrees to fly upwards in an arc, again strike the ground, not lose any momentum, but be observed still traveling at least 60mph as it leaves the frame ?
Note the timing, the rock did not leave the building at the time of the explosions, but at the time of collapse. Unless it was suddenly accelerated by an outside force just behind the tree line.
And there's videos IN THIS THREAD of objects being ejected sideways out of systems with vertical forces. Or does it have to be a rock now?
Agreed. Explosives CAN eject material sideways at high velocity.
Thanks for proving that point very clearly.
The question is - Can gravity do that ?
Actually there is a really simple 1 minute video that shows how gravity alone without an explosion could cause lateral ejections;Because that was put forward as an example to show that gravity alone can cause high speed ejections. I don't doubt that a downwards impact can result in a lateral move.
Note the timing, the rock did not leave the building at the time of the explosions, but at the time of collapse. Unless it was suddenly accelerated by an outside force just behind the tree line.
And there's videos IN THIS THREAD of objects being ejected sideways out of systems with vertical forces. Or does it have to be a rock now?
Yes it has to be a rock in this particular discussion. Because that was put forward as an example to show that gravity alone can cause high speed ejections. I don't doubt that a downwards impact can result in a lateral move. I just doubt that the particular rock put forward as evidence does indeed show that. It seems much more likely that it was a result of violent explosions. Occam's razor at work.
Actually, I think you should go back and watch the video again. Go to the settings button and slow the video down to .25. Watch the rock come through the opening in the trees and hit the ground several meters in front of the guy wearing the red shirt. Then it bounces off the ground and gets deflected upward. Its hard to see at regular speed. So after reviewing this, we don't see the rock until after the building starts to collapse, so what @Hevach said is totally possible and honestly the best "assumption". The rock is moving an a downward angle through the trees that is consistent with the building's height. And how do you know the rock is moving at 60mph.
And have a look at this again, a vastly lower energy collapse. No explosives. Skip to 1:30
So you're guestimating your velocities and distances. How is that an inaccurate observation is going to give you an accurate measurement? How do you know the rock was moving at 60mph, and that the building fell at that speed. The downward velocity isn't constant, there's acceleration and deceleration.So, to go along with your theory that rock simply had to have a maximum velocity of 60mph when it left. At 60mph that means the distance travelled per second is 29 yards. How far is it from the site to where the people are stood? Guestimate of 150 yards? Thats over 5 seconds at 29 yards per second. So the rock at 60mph would have had to have left BEFORE the explosion to travel that far. Conclusion :- the rock left the site faster than 60 mph. Not possible under your theory. Lets look for another explanation.
How is gravity different in a CD vs a verinage collapse? Gravity acts the same way in both demo's. In a verinage we have the absence of explosives that yield lateral ejections. So lateral ejections are expected in all types of collapses demonstrated in this thread which means you don't need explosives to have lateral ejections, hence gravity and dynamic loads result in lateral ejections.Thanks but I know about Verinage. That material can be ejected from such a gravity event is well understood. My post was purely about a standard explosive CD event that was shown to us as some kind of evidence that lateral ejections can occur.
Thanks but I know about Verinage. That material can be ejected from such a gravity event is well understood. My post was purely about a standard explosive CD event that was shown to us as some kind of evidence that lateral ejections can occur. Of course it can - even more so when explosives are involved. I just looked at the claim that the rock seen nearly killing a spectator was a result of gravity and not the explosions. My calcs seemed to indicate otherwise - thats all. To continue scratching at this particular nit would be off topic though.
No object can strike another identical object, and impart a greater velocity on it, than it is itself travelling. Ergo - any struck object can only move at a max of 60mph in this situation.
I don't think anyone suggests a demolition charge would be unable to throw a small rock some distance. The point of the thread is more that they would be unable to throw a girder a few hundred feet without throwing much smaller items all the way to the Bronx. (and especially without making any bangs)
So you're guestimating your velocities and distances. How is that an inaccurate observation is going to give you an accurate measurement? How do you know the rock was moving at 60mph, and that the building fell at that speed. The downward velocity isn't constant, there's acceleration and deceleration.
Would you mind providing the math for your calculations?
. Or think about squeezing an orange pip between your fingers until it shoots out. Your fingers had zero velocity, just lots of force
You contend that the collapsing building and the rock are "identical" object
I think he meant identical in mass and size. Not that it wasn't part of the building.Yes. Do you have a different theory ?
I never said that, what I said was buildings don't collapse at a constant speed, there is a period of acceleration, and a period of deceleration. Whether or not a building reaches free fall velocities depends on the circumstances in it's collapse.I also agree that the rate of fall over time differs, and that it cannot possibly be entirely at the rate of freefall acceleration, as some resistance is being met
But that is a thing that can happen is it not?I wondered when someone would suggest that the rock was in fact a large orange pip. And that two large pieces of stationary debris squeezed together with enormous force and caused that 'pip' to fly away.
I didn't expect it to be you Mick.
I think he meant identical in mass and size. Not that it was part of the building.
But that is a thing that can happen is it not?
A huge chunk of masonary striking a small chunk of masonary at 60 mph would still only impart a max speed of 60 mph on the smaller piece.
The fact of the matter is no one is contending explosives couldn't propel a rock laterally or in any direction for that matter. You've acknowledged in a prior post that verinage demolitions could produce lateral ejections due to the force of gravity, here;That will then be the maximum speed that an impacted piece of the same building can depart. My guestimate is around 60 mph
So we all agree that the force of gravity could cause lateral ejections of material from a collapsing building. Similar to what happened in the WTC.Thanks but I know about Verinage. That material can be ejected from such a gravity event is well understood.
There is countless evidence of demo's where we see the charges go off one by one with flashes (for exterior columns) followed by the blatantly loud explosive blast(s). The structure is usually standing with no exterior damage until the main shape charges go off, and then the building begins to collapse. When the building collapses we start to see debri and dust get pushed out and away from the collapse. This happens regardless of how the building comes down. So one would agree that regardless of whats used to bring a building down, we should expect lateral ejections from it. Hence you don't need explosives to propel beams, bone fragments, and office furniture laterally from a collapsing building, all you need is gravity and dynamic loads.How is gravity different in a CD vs a verinage collapse? Gravity acts the same way in both demo's. In a verinage we have the absence of explosives that yield lateral ejections. So lateral ejections are expected in all types of collapses demonstrated in this thread which means you don't need explosives to have lateral ejections, hence gravity and dynamic loads result in lateral ejections
I never said that, what I said was buildings don't collapse at a constant speed, there is a period of acceleration, and a period of deceleration. Whether or not a building reaches free fall velocities depends on the circumstances in it's collapse.
Yes.Was that a serious comment ?
More like statistically very likely other wise buildings would fall straight down within their own footprint on every collapse. Instead we see dust and debris being forced out as the floors above collapse onto the floors below.It doesn't seem impossible.
Perhaps statistically unlikely, but so is a piece of ejecta almost hitting bystanders at a planned demolition.
But imagine an irregular piece of concrete on a flat surface, and you hit it with a hammer. The fragments of the shattered piece of concrete can go MUCH faster than the hammer.
Or, take a long slab of concrete, and bend it until it breaks (which you can do by having one end fixed, and dropping something on the other end). How fast do the fragments go?
#1 Agreed.
#2 Agreed
But a chunk of masonary travelling at 60 mph ( hammer ) would struggle to cause just one fragment to fly 150 yards and then bounce onwards for another long distance. Just my opinion by the way.
Similarly, in my opinion, I find it hard to envisage a bending event to do the same thing.
Experimentation would be interesting. But I suspect that asking a serious labororatory to attempt to prove me wrong would be difficult. Even Myth Busters might apply Occam's razor and not pass the expence request.
Just my opinion.
@Hitstirrer, we seem to be drifting a bit off topic here. Do you have an example of some piece of ejecta from 9/11 that you think can only have been propelled out by explosives?
What if the chunk traveling at 60 mph weighted 20 tons, and slammed into a vertical concrete wall, causing the wall to fail by bending?
I said it was drifting a bit off topic. The general concepts are still relevant, just laboring the point a bit.I thought that you said it was off topic.