Debunked: WTC: Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally.

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
No one can see and therefore know what happened to the interior of the top block before and as it was descending, But the dropping of the antenna into the roof and down further is a tell that the core was being or had been structurally ripped apart.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
... NIST did not dismiss Bazant’s analysis. They used Bazant’s analysis to explain the total collapse because NIST did not. ...
I can't find Bazant in the NIST report. Bazant's work was to show a case where a building could collapse, based on the conditions in the paper.

What page, in the NIST reports, is Bazant on?

NIST explains the total collapse with the upper mass greater than each lower floor could hold, and this is based on the WTC tower design. The energy available during the collapse due to gravity, mass and the height is more than enough to eject steel sections as seen. What would be required to debunk this truth, physics showing it is impossible - which can't be done. No one has provided the proof the WTC tower collapse can't eject sections as seen on 9/11.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
View attachment 41676

Plenty of the panels ended up across West Street. The top of this section is probably what did the damage.
View attachment 41677
View attachment 41678
1601680787793.png
These framing sections in the Winter Garden and the corner of WTC 3 are separate from the large section on the ground. Had they been part of the large section on the ground the damage would have been continuous.

The ones in WFC 3 would have traveled a lot further had they not impaled themselves in the corner of WTC 3.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
No they wouldn't... the shape of their trajectory was parabolic and the path as they were nearing the ground was nearly vertical. There was very little lateral component of the sections impaled in WFC.
 

econ41

Senior Member
You can't find a better photo? Really?
There was a much clearer hi-res photo available when this topic was first rebutted and resolved circa 2009. I never kept a copy and I have been unable to locate the hi-res one for several years. The frustration of returning to recycled claims a decade after they were first addressed.

That hi res video clearly showed one very large sheet of perimeter which had toppled and twisted over to land external face upwards. And remained laying in line towards the WFC. Also clearly having "swiped" its top end down the corner and face of WFC leaving those isolated beams behind embedded.

The embedded beams came from the top of the large perimeter sheet.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
What page, in the NIST reports, is Bazant on?
NCSTAR 1-6 p. 323 [PDF p. 405]
NIST explains the total collapse with the upper mass greater than each lower floor could hold, and this is based on the WTC tower design. The energy available during the collapse due to gravity, mass and the height is more than enough to eject steel sections as seen.
NIST admits that they cannot explain the total collapses of the Twin Towers.
No one has shown how a vertical force (gravity) can eject framing sections laterally at 45, 56 and 70 mph.
 

econ41

Senior Member
It would show the space better.
I cannot remember. My interest at that time (2009-10) was in finding genuine explanations for the handful of about 6 or 7 "outlier" beams that traveled further than most of the debris and embedded in buildings. And from a legitimate argument with proper attribution of Burden of Proof. The WTC corner beams were the first (and only) example of proof I have seen.

I never had much interest in claims for explosive projection given that is well nigh impossible to achieve in the WTC collapse scenario. If claimants cannot prove "explosive projection" possible it is not my BoP to DISprove it.

It may have, but it was not the projectile in question.
Understood.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There was a much clearer hi-res photo available when this topic was first rebutted and resolved circa 2009. I never kept a copy and I have been unable to locate the hi-res one for several years. The frustration of returning to recycled claims a decade after they were first addressed.

Maybe this?

Metabunk 2020-10-03 08-31-04.jpg

Metabunk 2020-10-03 08-32-10.jpg
 

Edward Current

New Member
In a gravity collapse, the top part of the building would be destroyed at the same rate as the building below.
The upper part would have been destroyed by the time it reached the 78th floor, or sooner
If the object left the building a few stories lower than you depict, it would be where a rapidly expanding debris cloud is, indicating explosive force.
Had they been part of the large section on the ground the damage would have been continuous.
The ones in WFC 3 would have traveled a lot further
It would show the space better.
(Emphases mine)
These are an awful lot of personal thought experiments hinging on what "would" have happened. The details of 110-story steel skyscrapers collapsing are not something that one can intuit via naive thought experiments.

For example, claiming "the top part of the building would be destroyed at the same rate as the building below," and citing Newton's 3rd law, neglects that the bottom section was pinned to the Earth whereas the upper section was free to decelerate and absorb force. As noted, the entire upper section does not have to be intact in order for destruction to occur: a debris shield comprising ten floors' worth of concrete from the floor slabs will do just fine. The high-res photo debunks the claim that in a high-res photo, "it would show the space better." There was no space; there only appeared to be space, because of the very low resolution.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I feel like this one might be worth a more in-depth, conclusive, and visible debunking. Like with the angle-cut column.
That is the main frustration for me. It was done about 10 years ago but I have no record. The hi-res graphic clearly showed how one very large sheet from WTC1 West Face had fallen and toppled in two axes. And was complemented by some Major_Tom research reported on The911Forum which identified the specific sheet of perimeter.

Together with associated hi-res pics of the Wintergarden side (South??) face of WFC it was defintive proof that those beams embedded in the corner of WFC had NOT been "explosively projected". This graphic is the same view but sadly much lower resolution. And a day or two later photo so not so explicitly clear that the outlined section of perimeter was one single sheet.
HTFPLowResRED.png

Then the focus of my logic was slightly different to the current debate. I have always relied on the technical reality that explosive projection of heavy beams was - lay person language - "impossible" in the WTC collapse scenario. And insisted on proper attribution of Burden of Proof. Claimant's BoP to prove - not me to DISprove. In supporting argument I would speculate as to the type of mechanism that would be needed if the deliberate goal was to project heavy beams. So - as a minimum - a black powder or similar "low" explosive as propellant PLUS some constraining guide tube to focus and direct the blast. It would be plausible in a deliberate experiment but not as an incidental side effect of CD at WTC.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
(Emphases mine)
These are an awful lot of personal thought experiments hinging on what "would" have happened. The details of 110-story steel skyscrapers collapsing are not something that one can intuit via naive thought experiments.
Greetings and welcome 'Edward Current'. I agree much of your reasoned comments.

However be aware that I would assert that these two claims by Christopher 7
CurrentQotesC7.png
... are correct in the two cases of the WTC 'Twin Towers'... whether or not Christopher 7 knows why they are correct. They relate to one of the fatal errors with the Bazant & Verdure "crush down/crush up" hypothesis which I suggest is wrong for WTC Twin Towers. It could not and did not happen. Discussion and 'proof' can move to a separate thread if there is any interest and no existing thread.
 
Last edited:

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
NCSTAR 1-6 p. 323 [PDF p. 405]

NIST admits that they cannot explain the total collapses of the Twin Towers.
No one has shown how a vertical force (gravity) can eject framing sections laterally at 45, 56 and 70 mph.
Out of context "cannot explain the total collapse", was respect to computer models. And the fact is the lower floors can not hold the upper mass after initiation, which is clearly explained by NIST.

Where is the Bazant stuff, 1-6... but NIST did not say what you said about Bazant. NIST talked about Bazant, the same as I did, a simplified model, but they did not use Bazant's work to explain the total collapse. Found in the section 9.4.4 "Comparison with Other Collapse Hypotheses", ironic cherry picking after the posted "NIST ... cannot explain the total collapses".

Physics proves gravity, mass and height can eject building parts due to thousands of deflections and thousands of failures (and the WTC tower collapse confirms it). Anyone can do physical models to demonstrate ejections - physics backs this fact. There is a lack of supersonic explosions, there is no visual explosions from explosives. There was no evidence terrorists planted explosives to murder thousands on 9/11.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Like Bazant, you have athe top part destroying the building below but not being destroyed itself. That is a violation of Newtons third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In a gravity collapse, the top part of the building would be destroyed at the same rate as the building below.
...
This has been hinted at before, but not been explicitly denied:

No! Wrong! Most emphatically: FALSE!
Newton's Third Law does NOT say, nor imply, nor predict, nor anything, that colliding structures will be destroyed at the same rates!
"Destruction" or "Rate of Destruction" is neither the "action" nor the "reaction" that any of Newton's Laws speak of.
This is a total perversion of Newton's Laws.
Unmitigated nonsense.

I know it is a favorite "argument" that has been made by Truthers for many years - but each time a Truther made it, they made an HUGE error. The popularity of the argument, and the fact it has not been exposed as stupid, perhaps even fraudulent from within the Truth Movement, is testament to how the TM stubbornly insists in being wrong and is incapable of correcting their countless errors.

I strongly advise you to purge this crap from your brain and never use it again.




(The "falling" and the "standing" structures that collided at the WTC collapses were not equal to begin with: One was more massive and coupled to planet earth, the other smaller and free at the other end. Also, one was tilted with respect to both the force vector of gravity and the direction of motion, the other was not, making the tilted part more vulnerable and thus prone to a higher "rate of destruction".
But as soon as collapse had begun to destroy stuff, things really developed apart: A layer of compacted debris accumulated, and it traveled with the falling part: The differential velocity between falling top and accumulating debris layer was next to zero, while the differential velocity between standing top and accumulating debris layer was substantial and greatly accelerated. Thus, the bottom part was immediately hit by a massive, growing, ever faster compacted debris layer - and the top was not. THAT is why the bottom surely disintegrated faster than than the top - and why the "equal and opposite" lore becomes a layman's fantasy fractions into the collapse at the latest)
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
the bottom section was pinned to the Earth whereas the upper section was free to decelerate and absorb force.
So what? It doesn't matter which object is moving, Newton's law applies to any collision.
the entire upper section does not have to be intact in order for destruction to occur: a debris shield comprising ten floors' worth of concrete from the floor slabs will do just fine.
All of the exterior framing was pushed outward. The concrete (and everything else except the framework) was reduced to powder and ejected outward. It is impossible to say exactly how much was left inside the exterior walls but it was just a portion of the upper part of the building.
The high-res photo debunks the claim that in a high-res photo, "it would show the space better." There was no space; there only appeared to be space, because of the very low resolution.
On the contrary. The hi-res photo shows a framing section but we don't know if it is the framing section in question. That will have to be established for the photo to be of any value in this discussion.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
So what? It doesn't matter which object is moving, Newton's law applies to any collision.
...
There goes this terrible nonsense again.

There is not one single "collision" where you have one force opposing one other force. You have a huge mess with hundreds of bits of structure meeting hundreds of other bits at all sorts of directions and forces, with load capacities varying greatly and millions of different reactions at the local, detail level.

No Truther EVER has actually applied any of Newton's Laws correctly to describe validly the WTC collapses at the macro level. Why not? Because it practically impossible. All you ever do is fantasize.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
Together with associated hi-res pics of the Wintergarden side (South??) face of WFC it was defintive proof that those beams embedded in the corner of WFC had NOT been "explosively projected".
Not so. The framing sections in the corner of WFC 3 were not part of the massive exterior frame section on the ground or the damage would have been continuous from the ground floor to the 24th floor.

I found this photo showing the damage to the side of WFC 3. There is damage to floors 8, 9 and 10, then no damage until the 17th floor. The framing sections in the 17th and 20th-24th floors were separate pieces.

1601766749168.png
 

Attachments

  • 1601766752920.png
    1601766752920.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 69
Last edited:

Christopher 7

Active Member
There is not one single "collision" where you have one force opposing one other force. You have a huge mess with hundreds of bits of structure meeting hundreds of other bits at all sorts of directions and forces, with load capacities varying greatly and millions of different reactions at the local, detail level.
That does not change the fact that the upper part would be destroyed at the same rate as the building below. In fact, the upper portion would probably be destroyed faster because it was coming apart. In the first 2.5 seconds, 5 stories had been destroyed.
No Truther EVER has actually applied any of Newton's Laws correctly to describe validly the WTC collapses at the macro level. Why not? Because it practically impossible.
You are right. It would be impossible to go into the detail but that is not necessary. Since the upper part is the same as the part below, Newton's law applies, your incredulity notwithstanding.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
Out of context "cannot explain the total collapse", was respect to computer models. And the fact is the lower floors can not hold the upper mass after initiation, which is clearly explained by NIST.
An "explanation" is not science, it's just an opinion.
Where is the Bazant stuff, 1-6...
Mick and I both gave the chapter and page number. And I gave it to you a second time. Here it is again: NCSTAR 1-6 p. 323 [PDF p. 405]
NIST did not say what you said about Bazant.
Yes NIST did. I quoted them.
Physics proves gravity, mass and height can eject building parts due to thousands of deflections and thousands of failures (and the WTC tower collapse confirms it). Anyone can do physical models to demonstrate ejections - physics backs this fact.
Really? Please post your model showing how a downward force can eject multi-ton framing sections laterally at speeds up to 70 mph.
 

econ41

Senior Member
So what? It doesn't matter which object is moving, Newton's law applies to any collision.
Only true if you know how to apply Newton's Law. You are misapplying it. You are applying it as if the impacting bodies were single integral masses of homogeneous uniform elasticity. The WTC collapse did not impact that way. As Oystein has already explained "There is not one single "collision". Your ignorance of that reality will prevent progress of reasoned discussion.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I've been reading this and don't understand what Christopher means by "destruction" and why it is important. Surely, a ton of gravel hitting something is as bad as a ton of concrete slab? It won't be any lighter, take up any less space, have less inertia, or fall any slower (as Galileo demonstrated).

What is being destroyed is the attachment of the floor slabs to the load-bearing columns, isn't it? And in the falling slabs, these attachments are already gone, so Newton's "equal and opposite force" does not have an equal and opposite effect.

I do have a question about Mick's animation in post 348: the "moving block" starts at a certain size and stays that size. I would expect that size to be changing. Why does the block start big, and why doesn't it get bigger?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I've been reading this and don't understand what Christopher means by "destruction" and why it is important. Surely, a ton of gravel hitting something is as bad as a ton of concrete slab? It won't be any lighter, take up any less space, have less inertia, or fall any slower (as Galileo demonstrated).

What is being destroyed is the attachment of the floor slabs to the load-bearing columns, isn't it? And in the falling slabs, these attachments are already gone, so Newton's "equal and opposite force" does not have an equal and opposite effect.

I do have a question about Mick's animation in post 348: the "moving block" starts at a certain size and stays that size. I would expect that size to be changing. Why does the block start big, and why doesn't it get bigger?
It seems to me that what likely happened is that the upper block of wtc1 was disintegrating beginning with the massive damage and subsequent fires the plane caused. The bracing was warping, expanding and pushing the columns, bracing was coming free of the columns and the core structure was slowly being "undone". And the beams, slabs and whatever was on them would collapse and impact slabs and bracing below leading to it being destroyed. We saw the antenna begin to descend into the roof before the "block" moves downward. It descended because the hat truss and its axial support was compromised and unable to support the antenna load. The antenna drip is a tell that the interior was coming apart... and collapse down inside unseen. The chaos led to a slight lateral displacement of the entire facade cage of the upper block. The small lateral displacement meant lost of axial alignment and the cage (facade) then without axial support descended. In so doing there was a mutual destruction of slab connections to the facade in addition to the fracturing and destruction of the slabs themselves. This material including all the massive MEP equipment dropped and impacted intact slabs below overwhelming then causing a runaway collapse and shattering of each floor in succession progression down inside the lower block leaving the facade cage with no lateral support and "outward" lateral forces from a growing mass of debris from the collapsed floors from above. The facade panel connections broke and the panels in massive assemblies tipped over. This explains why they were found arrayed from the tower to the WFC. No facade panels were exploded off and landed at the WFC. They toppled away.
 

Attachments

  • north tower facade peel_2-001.jpg
    north tower facade peel_2-001.jpg
    314 KB · Views: 71

econ41

Senior Member
@Mendel - responding to your three paragraphs in reverse order for clearer explanation:
I do have a question about Mick's animation in post 348: the "moving block" starts at a certain size and stays that size. I would expect that size to be changing. Why does the block start big, and why doesn't it get bigger?
Mick's animation was intended to illustrate the timing and location of examples of ejection. It is not rigorously accurate in the "block size" detail. Actually the block should be reducing in size... here's why:
The collapses of both "Twin Towers" involved three distinct tho somewhat overlapping stages which were:
(a) An "initiation stage" which commenced with the aircraft impact and saw accumulating damage from fires until the "Top Block" started to descend bodily; THEN
(b) A "transition stage" - the main feature being the concurrent break up of the Top Block and top of Lower Tower THEN
(c) A rapid global collapse to near ground level.

The ejections shown in Micks animation are mostly if not all during the transition stage. And for rigorous accuracy the Top Block should have been breaking up from the bottom thereby getting smaller.
What is being destroyed is the attachment of the floor slabs to the load-bearing columns, isn't it? And in the falling slabs, these attachments are already gone, so Newton's "equal and opposite force" does not have an equal and opposite effect.
The destruction of "...the attachment of the floor slabs to the load-bearing columns.." by a mass of accumulating and increasing amount of debris was the dominant feature of the later - progression - stage. The transition stage was more complex. Details if needed. The application of Newton's "equal and opposite force" is also more complex for reasons that both Oystein and I have given to Christopher 7.

I've been reading this and don't understand what Christopher means by "destruction" and why it is important. Surely, a ton of gravel hitting something is as bad as a ton of concrete slab? It won't be any lighter, take up any less space, have less inertia, or fall any slower (as Galileo demonstrated).
I cannot see any reference by Christopher 7 to "destruction". But you are correct on the principle.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Not so. The framing sections in the corner of WFC 3 were not part of the massive exterior frame section on the ground....
I made two claims in the post you selectively quote mine. They were:
(a) Higher resolution graphics assisted resolving of this specific issue about 10 years ago. I can no longer locate those graphics. The source location and extent of the large single sheet of columns was determined by independent researchers. Those assertions - all three parts - are true.
(b) The weight of evidence resulting from the combination of those facts confirmed the origin of the beams embedded in the corner of WFC thereby confirming that the beams were not projected by explosives.

....or the damage would have been continuous from the ground floor to the 24th floor.

I found this photo showing the damage to the side of WFC 3. There is damage to floors 8, 9 and 10, then no damage until the 17th floor. The framing sections in the 17th and 20th-24th floors were separate pieces.
That is your claim by bare assertion. Your Burden of Proof which also applies to your underlying claim for "explosive projection". The reality that I can no longer produce the supporting evidence in its original hi-res form does not prove your claim. You need affirmative proof.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
That does not change the fact that the upper part would be destroyed at the same rate as the building below. In fact, the upper portion would probably be destroyed faster because it was coming apart. In the first 2.5 seconds, 5 stories had been destroyed.

You are right. It would be impossible to go into the detail but that is not necessary. Since the upper part is the same as the part below, Newton's law applies, your incredulity notwithstanding.
You insist stubbornly on being entirely WRONG! This is complete nonsense!

Again: Newton's Law does NOT apply to "destruction" nor to "rate of destruction" - you are totally, irredeemably misrepresenting what Newton's Laws are about.
Again: The falling top (not attachched to anything) and the standing bottom (attached to a planet) are not the same
Again: After fractions of a second, there exists a compacted layer of debris between the top and the bottom, and that is what interacts immediately with either and causes much of the further destruction - and it moves at totally different velocities relative to the top and the bottom, respectively
Again: No Truther EVER has validly applied Newton's Laws correctly and validly to show that "rate of destruction" would be the same

Your claim is a just-so story, a made up fantasy, a bare assertion devoid of any justification.

You are 100% WRONG; and insist on being wrong.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Thank you for your reply!
The application of Newton's "equal and opposite force" is also more complex for reasons that both Oystein and I have given to Christopher 7.

I cannot see any reference by Christopher 7 to "destruction. But you are correct on the principle.
My point was that Newton's law does not extend to observing an equal and opposite effect -- which is understandable from a look at the actual law, and high-school physics. Commingling "force" and "effect" leads to wrong conclusions.

"Destruction" refers to the use of "destroyed" in posts #383 and #355 and "reduced to powder" in #380. In some video games, destroyed objects are taken out of the simulation, but real physics do not allow this. It's also unclear what this assertion of destruction does to distinguish the NIST version of the collapse from the AE911 version: what would the difference be, and where is the evidence for it? A seemingly dense cloud of powder can contain a surprisingly small amount of material, so the amount of "powder" seemingly present in the debris plume is probably easy to overestimate if going by intuition

I was trying to point out two instances where intuition can mislead us into believing things that the physics will not support.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Thank you for your reply!
.....

"Destruction" refers to the use of "destroyed" in posts #383 and #355 and "reduced to powder" in #380.
No problem. AND - I did a word search on "destruction" which missed all three of your examples.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
This point may already have been mentioned, but it is a principle of classical mechanics that if a force is applied at right angles to one end of a rigid rod, that end of the rod will move in the direction of the force, but the other end will move in the opposite direction, unless constrained or counter-balanced in some way. The whole rod will rotate about a point known as the centre of oscillation, which in the case of a uniform rod will be two-thirds along the rod from the end at which the force is applied. The action is like that of a lever, but there is no need for a physical fulcrum: the inertia of the rod itself is sufficient. (This is consistent with Newton's Laws, but the theory of the motion of rigid bodies was mainly developed by later scientists, and especially by Euler.) I don't know if it is relevant in practice to the collapse of the WTC Towers, but it is worth bearing in mind that an outward movement of rigid(ish) structures is not necessarily due to an outward force at the point of movement (such as pressure of compressed air or impacts from debris), nor to the downward force of gravity pulling the structure around a pivot. It could also be due to an inward force at another point of the structure (such as the inward pull of collapsing floors), tending to rotate the structure around its centre of oscillation. I repeat, I am not claiming that this is important or even relevant to the WTC collapse, just that it might be.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not so. The framing sections in the corner of WFC 3 were not part of the massive exterior frame section on the ground or the damage would have been continuous from the ground floor to the 24th floor.

I found this photo showing the damage to the side of WFC 3. There is damage to floors 8, 9 and 10, then no damage until the 17th floor. The framing sections in the 17th and 20th-24th floors were separate pieces.

View attachment 41716
Your objection seems obviously false, because there IS damage all the way to the ground.
Metabunk 2020-10-04 09-54-32.jpg
 

econ41

Senior Member
Your objection seems obviously false, because there IS damage all the way to the ground.
Some graphics available in those earlier years were even clearer but that one does show the effect of the top of the falling sheet "swiping" down the face of WFC. Leaving a progressively wider path of damage - structural damage, broken windows and surface scouring.

Granted the currently acceptable evidence is of lesser strength - witness memory of seeing the original evidence rather than the actual original evidence. But it still outweighs the implied argument by bare assertion "we cannot produce the original stronger evidence therefore the alleged rebuttal by unsupported bare assertion is correct".

Not overlooking the implied overlay of False Dichotomy... "Because we can no longer prove the beams got there by toppling it proves it must have been thru explosive projection".

And risking re-stating the obvious. It is not our Burden of Proof to DISprove explosive projection. Those claiming explosive have the burden to prove their claims. PLUS AFAIK this is the only such "outlier" embedded beam example for which we have (had??) proof that the distance of projection was the result of toppling. Other examples should be considered on their own specific merits ... which is why the base fact comes into play. No one has shown how explosive projection could be achieved and it would be effectively impossible in the WTC 9/11 scenario.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Two images from "Above Hallowed Ground" By the NYC PD.

The first one shows the state of West Street on 9/11, possibly even before the collapse of WTC7
IMG_0151 AHG 38-39.JPG
IMG_0150 AHG 123.JPG

In the second image, a part of the WTC1 outer wall can be seen on the Winter Garden atrium
Metabunk 2020-10-04 16-05-09.jpg

Closeup on that area, also from AHG
IMG_0157.JPG

IMG_0158.JPG
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here is the side of the AMEX building perspective corrected, showing the quite steep trajectory of the debris.

MeyeroWitz WFC Amex spear Perspective.png
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
Only true if you know how to apply Newton's Law. You are misapplying it. You are applying it as if the impacting bodies were single integral masses of homogeneous uniform elasticity. The WTC collapse did not impact that way. As Oystein has already explained "There is not one single "collision".
Newton's law applies in all cases. The fact that there were many collisions is irrelevant. The lower part is providing resistance. That resistance applies force to the upper part. The claim that Newton's law does not apply to the Trade Towers is ludicrous.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
What is being destroyed is the attachment of the floor slabs to the load-bearing columns, isn't it?
It takes the force of the upper portion to break the slab to column connections. The floor connections resist that force, applying force to the upper portion. The columns also resist the downward force of the upper portion, applying more force to the upper portion.
 

Christopher 7

Active Member
Your objection seems obviously false, because there IS damage all the way to the ground.
View attachment 41723
If the section imbedded in floor 17 was part of the framing section on the ground, there would have been as much damage to the floors between 10 and 17 as there was to floor 17.

There is no significant damage between the 17th floor and the framing section in floor 20. They are clearly separate from the massive framing section on the ground.
1601926273164.png
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Related Articles


















































Election 2020

Related Articles

Top