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

econ41

Senior Member
I agree that the collapse can be divided into those three stages, and that during "transition", there is significant "mutual destruction" of upper and lower structure - initially perhaps near enough to being "at the same rate" (and this is even a result of B&V for the first story!).

BUT the upper parts were initially something like 15 and nearly 30 floors - and as your "Transition" phase is "the very much chaotic process for the first few stories of dropping", I think you agree that by the time Transition has turned into "Progression", there is still a major portion of upper part left undismantled, simply because "the first few" stories is surely less than 15.
Thanks for the comments - we are closer to understanding each other.

Two points from this first part:
(a) We agree three stages - which is an important basis for this and related thread topics. Not distinguishing the stages causes much confusion. Not only for truthers. << THAT is the main reason I raise the issue in this thread - it is relevant to some of the arguments.
(b) My apology for "first few". I have always had in mind the 15 or near 30 stories and the mutual destruction of Top Block and upper levels of lower towers. (Which may not have been exactly equal numbers of floors of Top Block and lower tower) If you read my posts the destruction of all the Top Block is usually implicit but not stated explicitly - my apology for the confusion. The reason for that boundary - which I explained as "fuzzy" - is that before that point the Top Block remnants are still partially acting as integral whilst after that point the top block remnants still attached are acting as debris...not "structure".

During Progression, ROOSD is driven by the debris layer at least as much as by the weight of the remaining upper part - and the debris layer has a large velocity relative to the lower part, but a low velocity relative to the upper part; and that is why in the process, the Crush Down goes at a higher rate than Crush Up.

And that is why B & V were NOT entirely wrong, not even in the case of WTC. Reality sure is messier than their simple and idealized (essentially 1D and homogenous) model, but it points in the direction of something that surely played a role.
We should take a rain check on this. It has little if any direct relevance to the thread topic. BUT B&V's CD/CU is 1D and homogenous. Their goal was a generic "Bazant's Method" for progressive collapse that was NOT 1D homogenous. Stated alternatively - a model that would apply to WTC style tube frame constructions. And that is MY interpretation - I doubt that either B or V ever saw it or expressed it so simply. >> A derail for another tine/place.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The phases are useful because the generalize the dominant processes in play. But there was a continuous destruction and the transitions from one phase to another still involved all manner of destruction from collision of parts of the structure. By the time the ROOSD was dominant... the "destruction" was almost entirely the floor slabs, the trusses that supported them and the material on those slabs. It's hard to know how much of the interior of the upper block was structurally acting as a single mass.... and separated perhaps from the facade around it. WTC2's top block seems to have lost axial support asymmetrically which was enough such that the axial paths remaining could not support that top block. It then drops and there appears to be a mutual destruction where the bottom of the top and the top of the bottom engage in mutual destruction.

The drop of the antenna in WTC1 is a tell that there was extensive disintegration over multiple floor levels in the top block. The antenna was largely supported by the hat truss which interconnected almost all the core column distributing the 360 ton load to the 47 core columns. It is not unreasonable to posit that the upper block's core destruction preceded the collapse/destruction of the OOS floors of the top block... but it likely led to the those OOS floors losing core side support and dropping and pulling away from the facade cage which doesn't seem to be deformed as it plunges down. For the facade cage of the upper block to drop is had to have been displaced laterally breaking the axial path of the facade. Without support the upper block facade drops and it contributed to the destruction of slab connections of the lower block's slabs to the lower block's facade columns.

Not too long after this the mass of collapse interior material... both inside and outside the core was so massive that it raced downward destroying the slabs below with barely measurable resistance. The interior destruction wave appears to reach a "terminal" velocity (measured by the timing of the ejections through the facade) of about 100' per second. The facade of the lower block lost all lateral support from the slabs structure... the core lost all interior lateral bracing... and what was left were columns too slender to stand without bracing... and they finally topped under their own weight.
NB that even with no other applied forces... neither the facade nor any core column would / could remain standing. This is described by Euler's work on slender columns. Column toppling was the final phase.

++++

So how did material move away from the collapse when gravity is a force normal to the ground? For one toppling does impart a horizontal vector to the toppling element. That would explain why facade and core columns are found out to hundreds of feet from their plan position.

For sure the material of the interior would spread outward... the as for example gravel spreads outward .

And finally as has been mentioned there are many mechanisms to impart lateral resultants from collisions of structural elements in 3D space. How fast and how far depends on multiple factors hard to observe as they were obscured by the dust and debris.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Now, most of Transition and Progression played out veiled behind a dust cloud, and we can't very well support our respective claims with observables, or can we?
Provided we adequately define the stages we have enough observables to support reasoned explanations.
Back to Truther claims: I think many Truthers (and Debunkers alike) underestimate the acceleration of the top - how far down collapse has already progressed behind the dust clouds at moments when this or that sheet of perimeter or piece of "projectile" emerges on video.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
...
(b) My apology for "first few". I have always had in mind the 15 or near 30 stories and the mutual destruction of Top Block and upper levels of lower towers. (Which may not have been exactly equal numbers of floors of Top Block and lower tower) If you read my posts the destruction of all the Top Block is usually implicit but not stated explicitly - my apology for the confusion. The reason for that boundary - which I explained as "fuzzy" - is that before that point the Top Block remnants are still partially acting as integral whilst after that point the top block remnants still attached are acting as debris...not "structure".


We should take a rain check on this. ...
Rain check accepted after a last remark:

If you picture "transition" as the period until the destruction of the last of the 30 top floors (in the case of the South Tower), then by the end of Transition, about 60, perhaps more, floors have already been dismantled and added to the debris layer, with only 50 (or fewer) floors to go. Not sure this serves any purpose any longer then.

By the time that, say, 10 floors of either part are dismantled, assuming equal rates, the debris layer is 20 floors, the remaining top is 20 floors, and the remaining bottom is 70 floors. The top, as a recognizable structure, then has little to no contact nor influence on the bottom - the two parts are effectively insulated from each other by the accumulating debris layer.

And with each floor added to the debris layer, the situation gets more asymmetric, and the interaction between top and bottom becomes less.

(And also, short of disintegrating entirely, the integrity of the top gradually diminishes, as its strong axis is not aligned with the direction of the main forces, gravity and normal.)

That's why I feel we should consider "Transition" to be a much shorter phase. The remaining top structure simply ceases to be of interest to explain collapse Progression.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Rain check accepted after a last remark:
A pragmatic choice - otherwise we go off any relevance to topic and the strict Metabunk rule. We only need to agree "three stages" for THIS thread topic because failing to distinguish stages or conflating stages has caused some confusions.
If you picture "transition" as the period until the destruction of the last of the 30 top floors (in the case of the South Tower), then by the end of Transition, about 60, perhaps more, floors have already been dismantled and added to the debris layer, with only 50 (or fewer) floors to go. Not sure this serves any purpose any longer then.
We still have a fundamental difference of understanding of the process.... which can await another more appropriate time and place. I'll avoid the temptation to try to briefly outline what it is - I don't do "briefly" well. :(
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
In post # 351 you show these photos
1603518991711.png
and say:
The top of this section is probably what did the damage.
That is incorrect. If the framing sections imbedded in floors 17 and 20 were part of the large section on the ground, there would be continuous damage to the floors below floors 17 and 20 like the damage to floors 20 to 24 above the framing section in floor 20. The framing sections in floors 17 and 20 are separate pieces, as is the one in the roof of the Winter Garden that you show in post #396
1603519043206.png
 

Attachments

  • 1603517886773.png
    1603517886773.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 20

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
In post # 351 you show these photos
View attachment 41884
and say:

That is incorrect. If the framing sections imbedded in floors 17 and 20 were part of the large section on the ground, there would be continuous damage to the floors below floors 17 and 20 like the damage to floors 20 to 24 above the framing section in floor 20. The framing sections in floors 17 and 20 are separate pieces, as is the one in the roof of the Winter Garden that you show in post #396
View attachment 41885
You are assuming that the entire assembly of panels came off structurally integrated. Some of them yes... but for sure there was separation into sub assemblies of wall panels which would separate at their bolted connections. And why wouldn't it be possible/likely that a single "top most" panel snagged the wfc and separated from the others when it did?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is incorrect. If the framing sections imbedded in floors 17 and 20 were part of the large section on the ground, there would be continuous damage to the floors below floors 17 and 20 like the damage to floors 20 to 24 above the framing section in floor 20. The framing sections in floors 17 and 20 are separate pieces, as is the one in the roof of the Winter Garden that you show in post #396
Why couldn't a piece be ripped off after it hit another building?

As pointed out multiple times, there IS continuous damage. You can't keep denying the evidence of your own eyes.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
Why couldn't a piece be ripped off after it hit another building?

As pointed out multiple times, there IS continuous damage. You can't keep denying the evidence of your own eyes.
There were no other buildings for the exterior frame, peeling away from WTC 1, to hit on it's way to WFC 3.

You are playing with semantics when you say there was continuous damage. There is only minor damage to the south face of WFC 3 between floors 10 and 20. On floors 15 and 16 there is no damage to the wall at all, just a couple of windows broken.

And as I have pointed out, if the piece of framework sticking out of floor 20 of the WFC 3 was part of the large frame section on the ground, there would be continuous >major damage< between floor 10 and 20 on the south side of WFC 3.

The piece of framework sticking out of the 20th floor of WFC 3 is obviously a separate piece from the large frame section on the ground.

You did not challenge the fact that the piece of framework in the roof of the Winter Garden is a separate piece from the large frame section on the ground.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Why assume that the piece that lodged/struck flr 30 was still connected to a larger assembly?

Consider that these panels were 36' tall and the angle of flight when it struck was almost vertical... with the panels being close to horizontal and the "next one" would be 30+ feet away and those panels could easily miss the tower.
 

Attachments

  • north tower facade peel_2-001_renamed_8603.jpg
    north tower facade peel_2-001_renamed_8603.jpg
    26.3 KB · Views: 15

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
How can you not see this? If the frame piece in floor 20 was connected to the large frame section on the ground, there would be frame sections in between, all tied together. The frame sections between the large frame section on the ground and the one in floor 20 would have done as much damage to the south wall of WFC 3 as the damage above the frame section in floor 20.

The frame section in floor 20 is obviously a separate piece, as is the framing section in the roof of the Winter Garden that you don't dispute.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How can you not see this? If the frame piece in floor 20 was connected to the large frame section on the ground, there would be frame sections in between, all tied together. The frame sections between the large frame section on the ground and the one in floor 20 would have done as much damage to the south wall of WFC 3 as the damage above the frame section in floor 20.
What if the top embedded in the building, ripped off, and the rest scraped down the side.

Clearly, SOMETHING scraped down the side, along that exact same trajectory.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
What if the top embedded in the building, ripped off, and the rest scraped down the side.

Clearly, SOMETHING scraped down the side, along that exact same trajectory.
No, there is no evidence that the massive framing section on the ground struck WFC 3, broke off and scraped down the side. That is grasping at straws.

There is NO damage to the south face of WFC 3 on floors 15-19 under the piece of framing sticking out of the 20th floor. Nothing scraped down the side.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
Going back to this photo,
1603594413032.png
There are clearly two separate framing sections imbedded in WFC 3. One on the 17th floor and another on the 20th floor. It is not possible that either of them were connected to the large framing section on the ground and up the side of WFC 3 as far as the 10th floor. The minor damage to floors 11-14 on the south face of WFC 3 might have been from something attached to the large framing section on the ground but the framing sections sticking out of floors 17 and 20 were definitely not attached to the large framing section on the ground.

And again. You are not disputing that the framing section in the roof of the Winter Garden was a separate piece because it's obvious that it is. Will you acknowledge that please?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And again. You are not disputing that the framing section in the roof of the Winter Garden was a separate piece because it's obvious that it is. Will you acknowledge that please?
Well at the time of the photo it's obviously not attached to the larger sheet on the ground. But that says very little about the way it got there.
 

econ41

Senior Member
What if the top embedded in the building, ripped off, and the rest scraped down the side.

Clearly, SOMETHING scraped down the side, along that exact same trajectory.
That is EXACTLY what happened as I explained in earlier posts. The fact that:
I can no longer produce the very clear hi-resolution graphics proof; AND
Christopher 7 chooses to ignore my comments...

... Cannot change historic fact.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
This visual evidence is an example of why it is often difficult to sort of the cause of the observation. It can't be looked at "in isolation" but one should consider related visual evidence and use critical thinking and some math/physics if possible.

The main "debate" is whether there was steel explosively ejected from the towers. So looking at the huge connected assembles of the west face panels laid out on the ground with the lower floors closest to the tower and the high floor panels at the WFC. This looks very much like what a toppled / peeled facade would look like and is explained by the rapid runaway collapse of the floor system which braced the facade.

One might ask what would exploded facade look like? For sure it would not look like the organized debris of the west face. And there are similar arrays on the other faces of the towers strongly supporting the peeling of the facade by the floor runaway collapses.

Returning to the cited evidence of the OP. Does it make sense that only one panel... the impaled one was exploded off 1wtc? Or that... it was part of a peel... perhaps the upper most panel (was it identified?) of the peel which reached the WFC and impaled itself. I think so. What evidence would support it was exploded to that location? And the panels below peeled? How would an explosion not show any signs of damage to the array on the ground? We have strong evidence of a "peel" phenomena, not an explosive one.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
And again. You are not disputing that the framing section in the roof of the Winter Garden was a separate piece because it's obvious that it is. Will you acknowledge that please?
Well at the time of the photo it's obviously not attached to the larger sheet on the ground. But that says very little about the way it got there.
It is crystal clear how it got there. It got there because it was ejected from WTC 1 with enough force to hurl it nearly 600 feet.
1603653043183.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is crystal clear how it got there. It got there because it was ejected from WTC 1 with enough force to hurl it nearly 600 feet.
Please don't make speculative and extreme claims without evidence.

What is special about the winter garden piece? It seem like it's one of the pieces that travelled the longest distance, but not by much, there's essentially a trail of pieces all the way from there to the footprint of WTC1. Look at all these

Metabunk 2020-10-25 12-35-49.jpg


It strikes me that throwing up your hands and saying (paraphrasing) "oh it went so far it much have been propelled by some kind of really unusual explosion" is really a failure of imagination. Have you genuinely excluded other possibilities? Or do you simply not like them?
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
It is crystal clear how it got there. It got there because it was ejected from WTC 1 with enough force to hurl it nearly 600 feet.
View attachment 41889
Let's imagine that the entire side toppled as a unit... the impaled piece was from a below the plane strike zone. I believe it was identified as such. That would be 1100 feet above ground and assuming it fell as unit from the bottom it would reach 1100 feet. But the array on the ground is a tell. It was from the base... the peel was large assembles up to 21 stories... not 85' stories. There were smaller sections that broke free and were pushed outward but the collapsing floor debris.... which explains the peel.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
Please don't make speculative and extreme claims without evidence.

What is special about the winter garden piece? It seem like it's one of the pieces that travelled the longest distance, but not by much, there's essentially a trail of pieces all the way from there to the footprint of WTC1. Look at all these

View attachment 41891


It strikes me that throwing up your hands and saying (paraphrasing) "oh it went so far it much have been propelled by some kind of really unusual explosion" is really a failure of imagination. Have you genuinely excluded other possibilities? Or do you simply not like them?
It's not because it went too far. It's because, like the framing sections in WFC3, there is no major continuous damage between them and the large framing section on the ground. i.e. they are separate pieces.

There are no other possibilities. Perhaps it is you who is refusing to acknowledge something you don't want to believe.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
Then please calculate the minimum necessary force, show your work, and list all of the assumptions that went into the calculation. This is Metabunk, not Facebook.
Get serious. It is not necessary to calculate the forces. The fact that the framing sections in the 17th and 20th floors of WFC 3 and the framing section in the roof of the Winter Garden are separate pieces is enough to show that they were ejected from WTC 1 separately.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
Let's imagine that the entire side toppled as a unit... the impaled piece was from a below the plane strike zone. I believe it was identified as such. That would be 1100 feet above ground and assuming it fell as unit from the bottom it would reach 1100 feet. But the array on the ground is a tell. It was from the base... the peel was large assembles up to 21 stories... not 85' stories. There were smaller sections that broke free and were pushed outward but the collapsing floor debris.... which explains the peel.
The sections that peeled off account for the large framing section on the ground. But falling debris cannot "push" single framing sections 600 feet.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's not because it went too far. It's because, like the framing sections in WFC3, there is no major continuous damage between them and the large framing section on the ground. i.e. they are separate pieces.

There are no other possibilities. Perhaps it is you who is refusing to acknowledge something you don't want to believe.
What seems indicated by the evidence is that a piece hit the WFC, some of that was embedded in the corner, some caused the track of damage down the side of the building, and some ended up on the roof of the winter garden.

Your objection seems to require that a large section must remain all in one piece when it very obviously would not.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The sections that peeled off account for the large framing section on the ground. But falling debris cannot "push" single framing sections 600 feet.
Have you done the experiment, dropping a biro on the edge of a table? It gets "pushed" quite a bit.

If a 600 ft tall piece of wall falls over, the top will usually end up 600ft distant from the base of the wall.

A simple computation showed that the energy to reach the alleged speed of the section could easily be sourced from a fall.

Where do you get your certainty that gravity can't have caused this?
It does require a physics argument. Simple incredulity will not do.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Here's some math... As you can see since the distance of the WFC corner is about 430'... the speed from free fall are as follows.Panel Math_page1.jpg
 

Edward Current

New Member
Get serious.
In science, getting serious means doing quantitative analysis. What isn't serious is making bare assertion after bare assertion about what "would" happen based on your own personal thought experiments. Do you think you could build a rocket that gets to the Moon by imagining what would happen if you did this or that?

But falling debris cannot "push" single framing sections 600 feet.
I don't believe anyone claimed it did. But if you wish to debunk this (non) claim, you need to calculate the force necessary. Simply stating so isn't helpful, like, at all. It just shows you're unwilling to do the calculation because of what it might reveal about your assumptions, or that you're unable to do the calculation.

I bring your attention back to this picture, which you never addressed. What's your explanation for the "lateral ejections" of these Kapla blocks? Please answer the question.

Screen Shot 2020-10-08 at 10.42.25 AM.png
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The facade cannot stand without lateral bracing... just as a radio antenna cannot stand without guy wires.
The facade came off the building because it lost the lateral bracing from the floor system and it received a small lateral impulse from the collapsing debris which is not different when sand causing a carton to bulge... or milk cause the carton to bulge.
The small lateral force tipped it over from 1100 feet in the air and the panels were attached but connections did fail and it encountered wind resistance and some panels broke off perhaps.
I showed what speeds something falling would achieve... And the embedded bit reached about 35mph... just falling.
 

econ41

Senior Member
clip.pngGet serious. It is not necessary to calculate the forces.
It is certainly not sufficient to calculate the forces. The primary element of proof is a concept of the mechanism involved - a qualitative description. THEN any necessary supporting calculations. It is not feasible to calculate forces without first defining the mechanism. You haven't done either. If you are to prove your claim you need to do both. Explain how it is done and prove the sums.
The fact that the framing sections in the 17th and 20th floors of WFC 3 and the framing section in the roof of the Winter Garden are separate pieces is enough to show that they were ejected from WTC 1 separately.
No it is not. All it shows is that the pieces became separated at some stage. And it does nothing to distinguish "ejection" from any other mechanism of movement of the pieces - whether still attached or separated. Including any WTC examples of the analogous mechanisms illustrated by E Current's Kanga blocks OR M West's "blue bin".

BOTTOM LINE. To prove YOUR claim of explosive projection you have two options:
(a) Present affirmative proof of explosive projection including both a qualitative explanation of the mechanism and sufficient numerical supporting proof; OR
(b) Identify and falsify all the alternate non-explosive means of causing the motion.

Either of those should be sufficient prima facie as a starting point for debate.

The current status of your argument can be summarised "Because none of "us" can prove another mechnaism it means your explosive projection hypothesis is proved."
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The current status of your [C7's] argument can be summarised "Because none of "us" can prove another mechnaism it means your explosive projection hypothesis is proved."
I think Christopher is already one step further: He has already acknowledged that a simple "gravity alone" process (toppling) can move multi-ton steel panels hundreds of feet laterally and has in fact done so - the sheet of connected wall panels that reaches up to the WFC and the Winter Garden.
With this, he already disagrees with AE911Truth and many other Truthers, who categorically deny that heavy steel sections could move laterally this far as an effect of nothing but the mechanics of a gravity-driven progressive collapse.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I wish to direct @Christopher 7 's attention to this draft paper which derives the minimum amount of explosives, and at what gas velocities they would detonate, needed to give one ton of (e.g.) steel a given velocity, which depends on the specific energy of the explosive:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachment...steel-sections-from-the-wtc-towers-pdf.35292/

As mentioned several times in this thread, it would take, order of magnitude, 10 kg of "high" explosives (the kind that goes very much supersonic and create strong shockwaves) per ton of steel to hurl a piece e.g. to the WFC. This assumes no great losses, full efficiency, etc.
If panel is 10 tons, you need, order of magnitude, a charge size of 100 kg. Supersonic.
Several times as much if it's a "low" (subsonic) explosive.

Christopher 7 should thus be on notice that IF he hypothesizes that explosives hurled that panel into the WFC wall, a HUGE charge, FAR far larger and thus immensely louder than anything ever used in actual explosive demolitions would have SOUNDED all over lower Manhattan and not have failed to record super loud on every single recording.
And this JUST to hurl that panel that far - more explosive material needed for the charge to do something that also makes any sense at all.

Christopher at some point needs to address this problem to his hypothesis. He needs to get serious about his hypothesis and come to terms (and specific, calculated numbers) with the charge size and the resultant unavoidable LOUDNESS of the explosions he imagines must have gone off.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


Note I'm starting the topple with a gentle touch. Of course, there's actually some pressure behind the larger wall segments - both from the air pressure, but also the net force of all the collisions. So a simple topple/fling velocity probably underrepresents the maximum distance.
 

Attachments

  • Garage Topple - 02.mp4
    830.4 KB · Views: 167

econ41

Senior Member
clip2.pngI think Christopher is already one step further: He has already acknowledged that a simple "gravity alone" process (toppling) can move multi-ton steel panels hundreds of feet laterally and has in fact done so - the sheet of connected wall panels that reaches up to the WFC and the Winter Garden.
With this, he already disagrees with AE911Truth and many other Truthers, who categorically deny that heavy steel sections could move laterally this far as an effect of nothing but the mechanics of a gravity-driven progressive collapse.
Agreed both your assertions. The "one step further" complements rather than disagrees with my status summary.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...Of course, there's actually some pressure behind the larger wall segments - both from the air pressure, but also the net force of all the collisions...
This gives me the following thought:

There is (somewhat) chaotic movement of many pieces of mass on the inside of each wall, and next to no such movement (except wind) on the outside. "Chaotic movement" meaning pieces are going in any and all (lateral; vertical motion always under gravity, thus mostly down) directions, at a range of different velocities.

This is like Brownian motion.
It gives rise to a pressure.
Since the pressure is higher on the inside, this results in a net force outwards.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is like Brownian motion.
It gives rise to a pressure.
Since the pressure is higher on the inside, this results in a net force outwards.
Exactly. "Pressure" is just the net effect of a series of collisions. Normally we think of gas in a container, but there are other types.

With large things falling down a tube (like in WTC), there are collisions on the inside, but no collisions on the outside. The net force MUST be outwards. (Which partly explains the Kapla block tower, above). This net force will be uneven, sporadic, but powerful.
 

Christopher 7

Banned
Banned
What seems indicated by the evidence is that a piece hit the WFC, some of that was embedded in the corner, some caused the track of damage down the side of the building, and some ended up on the roof of the winter garden.

Your objection seems to require that a large section must remain all in one piece when it very obviously would not.
There is NO track of damage down the side of WFC 3. That is a demonstratively false statement. There is NO damage to the exterior wall on floors 11, 15 and 16 as there would have been if the piece of framework in floor 20 were part of the large section on the ground.
1603772650208.png

A large section, peeling away from WTC 1 would remain in tact because once it is falling over there are no forces acting upon it to break a smaller section away. The collapse zone was already past the large section as it peeled away so there was nothing to fall on it and break a single section away.

You reprimand me for excessive speculation and then speculate that the framing piece in the roof of the Winter Garden had 'bounced' of of WFC 3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
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 35
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
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 5
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top