Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives

Marc Powell

Active Member
Conspiracy theorists make the claim that photographic and video records of the collapse of the twin towers show debris being projected upward and outward in a manner that can only be explained by explosive ejection. In the 2014 David Hooper film, The Anatomy of a Great Deception (viewable in its entirety at youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc ), this subject is covered starting at the 54:16 mark where a brief video clip of high-rise architect Les Young is presented in which he simulates an explosion with his fingers and says:

Window mullions and things went up and out. That kind of stuff can't happen with just pure air pressure of floors being sandwiched together.

Les Young.jpg

Then, at the 55:15 mark, David Hooper presents a brief slow-motion video from the collapse of the North Tower and freeze frames it where it appears that a section of debris is shooting upward and outward trailing a streamer of white dust. Hooper tells the audience:

In some of these clips you can see projectiles actually propelled upward forming an arc. If this were a gravitational collapse pieces could not be shot upward, and consider the pieces we see. The small pieces weigh a few pounds and the biggest pieces weigh several tons.

Below is a screen capture from that part of Hooper’s film.

Ejected Debris.jpg

In the frozen frame Hooper presents, it does indeed appear as if the building rubble is being propelled upward leaving an arc of dust in its wake. However, that is merely an illusion resulting from freezing of the frame at an opportune moment. In reality, heavy building rubble only moved outward and downward as it leaned away and broke off from the tower. As the building collapsed, it created a low-pressure zone that sucked dust streamers down with it making it appear, especially in still photos, as if the dust trails from falling rubble were describing an upward arc. Oddly enough, Hooper himself presents video of the collapse at the 54:01 mark that clearly shows the dust trails being sucked down into the collapsing building exposing the lie he tells about them at the 55:15 mark. Below is a clip from Hooper's film between 54:01 and 54:04.



Certainly, seekers of a scientific understanding of the evidence like David Hooper and his Technical Director, Richard Gage could be expected to avoid panning, scanning and freeze framing of photographic evidence in ways that conceal important features and cause the audience to misunderstand what they are seeing.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Most people are confused or rather fooled by these sequences. Because the tower is dropping and pulling air all around it down with it an optical illusion of an explosion is created where material is blown upward and outward.

Once again some critical thinking is called for when viewing these sequences... and way too many people choose to "believe their eyes" (the optical illusion) rather than reason.

It should be noted that many laymen don't possess the observational acumen nor have the knowledge to inform their thinking. The collapses "mechanisms" are things that physicists, and engineers work with almost daily.... and NOT something the public has to deal with.
 
Last edited:

Edward Current

Active Member
If someone wishes there to be yellow in this image, they aren't going to zoom in to check. They'll just believe their eyes.
 

Attachments

  • no yellow illusion.jpeg
    no yellow illusion.jpeg
    472.9 KB · Views: 220

Marc Powell

Active Member
Most people are confused or rather fooled by these sequences. Because the tower is dropping and pulling air all around it down with it an optical illusion of an explosion is created where material is blown upward and outward.

Once again some critical thinking is called for when viewing these sequences... and way too many people choose to "believe their eyes" (the optical illusion) rather than reason.

It should be noted that many laymen don't possess the observational acumen nor have the knowledge to inform their thinking. The collapses "mechanisms" are things that physicists, and engineers work with almost daily.... and NOT something the public has to deal with.
It's an optical illusion, alright. But the question that needs to be asked is, how could bald-faced deceptions such as this and the others I have revealed be presented in a supposedly serious documentary about a tragedy that took the lives of thousands? Here is the movie poster for the premiere of The Anatomy of a Great Deception:

Anatomy Premiere Poster.jpg

This film was not produced by high school kids in their mom's basement. It took the efforts of a production company and dozens of editors, producers, production assistants, crew members and financial backers. David Hooper and Richard Gage were not the only ones who knew how truly dishonest and despicable the film was. On the one hand, I am filled with outrage that charlatans could dishonor their country and the memory of the 9/11 victims by producing such rubbish, while on the other hand, I am mystified about how it could be possible to get so many seemingly upstanding individuals to participate in the scam. It has been theorized that there may be more to the 9/11 "truth" movement than meets the eye. Hooper's film may be proof of that.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
If someone wishes there to be yellow in this image, they aren't going to zoom in to check. They'll just believe their eyes.
There is never any "yellow" on our computer screens. Nothing in a screen emits "yellow" light, i.e. wavelengths ca. 570–590 nm in the visible light spectrum. Any "yellow" on a computer (RGB - red-green-blue) screen is actually a combination of red and green.
 

Edward Current

Active Member
There is never any "yellow" on our computer screens. Nothing in a screen emits "yellow" light, i.e. wavelengths ca. 570–590 nm in the visible light spectrum. Any "yellow" on a computer (RGB - red-green-blue) screen is actually a combination of red and green.
:rolleyes: My point stands regardless.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Upstanding has nothing to do with critical thinking and technical competence. Hooper lacks both. Gage is disingenuous and should know better as he should have by now examined the arguments of people who oppose his fantasies. But he doesn't care.

It's an optical illusion, alright. But the question that needs to be asked is, how could bald-faced deceptions such as this and the others I have revealed be presented in a supposedly serious documentary about a tragedy that took the lives of thousands? Here is the movie poster for the premiere of The Anatomy of a Great Deception:

Anatomy Premiere Poster.jpg

This film was not produced by high school kids in their mom's basement. It took the efforts of a production company and dozens of editors, producers, production assistants, crew members and financial backers. David Hooper and Richard Gage were not the only ones who knew how truly dishonest and despicable the film was. On the one hand, I am filled with outrage that charlatans could dishonor their country and the memory of the 9/11 victims by producing such rubbish, while on the other hand, I am mystified about how it could be possible to get so many seemingly upstanding individuals to participate in the scam. It has been theorized that there may be more to the 9/11 "truth" movement than meets the eye. Hooper's film may be proof of that.standing and technically proficient and knowledgeable about the time line and the events are two different things
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The topic is debris not other videos or colors on computer screens. Please stay on topic.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The topic is debris not other videos or colors on computer screens. Please stay on topic.
for the most part what is claimed to be "debris" exploded upward is mostly concrete dust and some steel members likely from the hat truss at the top of the tower.
 

Marc Powell

Active Member
for the most part what is claimed to be "debris" exploded upward is mostly concrete dust and some steel members likely from the hat truss at the top of the tower.
I am with you on that. In some videos, sections of light aluminum cladding and complete window panes can also be seen fluttering in the breezes among the clouds of dust and smoke. Those are probably the "window mullions and things" whose trajectory Les Young found to be puzzling.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
It's not clear exactly what happened to 1wtc's top. But as the antenna did drop/fall/descend into the roof one can surmise that the roof collapsed along with the hat truss structure which supported it. This would tend to cause an over pressure blowing out windows and alum cladding on those floors.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
The topic is debris not other videos or colors on computer screens. Please stay on topic.
@Marc Powell can correct me if I'm wrong, but my sense of this series of critiques of The Anatomy of a Great Deception is that the topic is always two-fold: There's some claim about 9/11 that the film makes and which needs to be debunked. (In this thread, that's the debris issue.) But there is also a larger thesis about the dishonesty of the film. As Marc puts it above:
It has been theorized that there may be more to the 9/11 "truth" movement than meets the eye. Hooper's film may be proof of that.
So I think @Landru's moderation here is a bit too narrow. I think the broader implications of the misrepresentations of fact in the film are worth discussing too. Just my opinion, of course.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
@Marc Powell can correct me if I'm wrong, but my sense of this series of critiques of The Anatomy of a Great Deception is that the topic is always two-fold: There's some claim about 9/11 that the film makes and which needs to be debunked. (In this thread, that's the debris issue.) But there is also a larger thesis about the dishonesty of the film. As Marc puts it above:

So I think @Landru's moderation here is a bit too narrow. I think the broader implications of the misrepresentations of fact in the film are worth discussing too. Just my opinion, of course.
They can be discussed. In another thread. This is in keeping with the Posting Guidelines. Discussing a point with evidence to remove bunk. Broad brush topics are not what this site is about.
 
Last edited:

Marc Powell

Active Member
@Marc Powell can correct me if I'm wrong, but my sense of this series of critiques of The Anatomy of a Great Deception is that the topic is always two-fold: There's some claim about 9/11 that the film makes and which needs to be debunked. (In this thread, that's the debris issue.) But there is also a larger thesis about the dishonesty of the film. As Marc puts it above:

So I think @Landru's moderation here is a bit too narrow. I think the broader implications of the misrepresentations of fact in the film are worth discussing too. Just my opinion, of course.
You are right. Each of my threads addresses a claim made by the filmmakers that is wrong and not just honestly mistaken. They are deliberate distortions of fact, science and evidence involving cherry-picking of statements by public officials and witnesses, fraudulent doctoring of evidence and concealment of evidence that would cast doubt on the 9/11 “truth” version of events. Others have made similar films misrepresenting science and evidence in an attempt to refute the historic 9/11 narrative. What set’s Hooper’s film apart is the close affiliation of David Hooper with Richard Gage and his organization. As I have stated previously, The Anatomy of a Great Deception was a joint production between Hooper’s independent film production company and Gage’s Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It features many of the same film clips and interviews with “experts” as are presented in films produced by AE911Truth. Since its release in 2014, Richard Gage has whole-heartedly endorsed Hooper’s film and promoted it on his website. David Hooper has even been invited to be a guest speaker at Gage’s 9/11 truth symposiums. If the CEO of the most respected 9/11 truth organization can endorse a film as deceitful and despicable as Hooper’s, it is a true reflection on the bankruptcy of the entire 9/11 truth movement.

I will continue to open new threads exposing David Hooper’s tricks (there are dozens more that need to be aired). I will also open a thread for general discussion of the film and will welcome other Metabunk members to offer their observations. AOAGD is only about an hour and a half long and well worth watching… if only for laughs. I am sure that other clear-thinking individuals will share my outrage once they have fully experienced David Hooper’s supposed trip “down the 9/11 rabbit hole” and realize it is all just a ruse.
 
Last edited:
Top