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

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
This is splitting straws and ultimately irrelevant, there is lateral force when there should be none. How do you explain multi ton pieces flying upwards of 80 mph, and ending up 600 feet away?



Because you can't understand how something works, doesn't mean it didn't happen, you are basically making an argument from ignorance fallacy. It need not be explained how, to show that it did. Are you suggesting explosive force cannot be directed? These lateral high speed ejections prove a force other than gravity is at work.

How do you explain multi ton pieces flying upwards of 80 mph, and ending up 600 feet away? Kinematic analysis proves the NIST-Bazant theory to be invalid, there was no gravitational collapse, case closed.

This thread title is spurious, there were most definitely ejected multi ton pieces.
There is no evidence that the so called "expulsions" traveled at 80 mph. All the columns which fell away followed the basic law of trajectories. The furthest measured steel from 1wtc was at the Winter Garden across West Street. It's max horizontal velocity... toppling from the 80th floor or so was about 35 mph.

What appears to be material flying upwards is mostly material left behind as the "bottom fell out" and the building collapsed down.

In order to explain what happened you need accurate observations and knowledge of mechanics. Otherwise you are dealing with garbage in garbage out.
upload_2018-2-3_10-46-20.png
 

Attachments

Oystein

Senior Member
...
Edit: Sorry - Oy and others already tackled this subject here
The short of what I tackeled there is this:
Basic considerations of Conversation of Energy and of Momentum - physical laws that cannot be broken - show that for each 1000 kg of steel (or any other material) to get propelled to 60 mph, you need on the order of 10 kg og high exposives (and more of low explosives), if charge and projectile are not confined to a sort of gun barrel (a very massive vessel open only to one direction, with focus).
Since the wall panels weighed upwards of 6 tons, many more than 10 tons, you'd need upwards of, order of magnitude, 100 kg of high eplosives. Such explosions did not go off - they would have a HUGE imprint on everything: Bend the stee totally out of shape, shatter windows in a large area around GZ, and totally dominate all sound tracks of all sound recordings of the collapes.
For reference: In actual explosive CD, most charges are measures in ounces, few in single digit pounds - and you know how awesomely loud there were.

Conclusion: The wall panels were not propeed by explosive charges - that's an impossibility.
 

DD-Dude

Banned
Banned
There is no evidence that the so called "expulsions" traveled at 80 mph. All the columns which fell away followed the basic law of trajectories. The furthest measured steel from 1wtc was at the Winter Garden across West Street. It's max horizontal velocity... toppling from the 80th floor or so was about 35 mph.

What appears to be material flying upwards is mostly material left behind as the "bottom fell out" and the building collapsed down.

In order to explain what happened you need accurate observations and knowledge of mechanics. Otherwise you are dealing with garbage in garbage out.
View attachment 31585
There is absolutely such evidence.


From 2:40 - 3:10 he shows the measurement data, one piece achieves ~78 mph.

No the columns did not fall away, they turned into dust mostly while some flew out at high speeds, up to 600 feet away. Those last two lines apply much better to thyself.
 

DD-Dude

Banned
Banned
I have read your posts. Hence why I posted.



...only if you ignore the physics behind using explosives. There have been several very technical explanations as to why this is not the case, but in summary, seeing how you don't want to acknowledge the previous posts, it's not possible to have enough explosives present to impart the force required to move steel beams like that without it being very obvious and leaving behind some very telling evidence.
Argument from ignorance fallacy, the exact type, location and number of explosives is unknown. However that explosives were used is undeniable. Gravity cannot explain a multi ton section hitting the winter garden 600 feet away, please explain how that is possible?
 

DD-Dude

Banned
Banned
No one has shown a multi-ton piece of the WTC 600 feet away. Please show the piece, and distance, and show the charge required to blast it 600 feet, and why no sounds of explosives were heard on 9/11, and nobody saw an explosive going off with the associated super sonic blast wave.

View attachment 31582
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Szamboti/figure5honest.jpg



Thus Chandlers constant acceleration is bogus. And no jolt is silly, the velocity graph shows reality. The jolt Tony is looking for is a model, academic. Did you plot the data? The initial velocity of impact in a model hitting the next lower floor at initiation would be 8.52 m/s, and the new velocity when the floor fails due to momentum transfer for that instant would be 7.86 m/s - and the new mass would fall at g. In a CD model, the next floor has been blown up, it would fall before the upper mass hit, or is it after it hits? It makes no sense for CD, since the dynamics of the collapse are exactly what a gravity collapse would be. Are you and 9/11 truth saying the explosives were timed to go off exactly the time the upper mass hits, to fake a gravity collapse? it is silly... the fact is the mass is crushing the lower section, and this kinetic energy is what ejects parts of the WTC. Thus the ejections are a function of gravity, mass, and height. It is physics.

The velocity graph from a math expert, posted above, is proof Chandler is wrong. The acceleration averages out, but as you can see if you graphed the velocity, it is not constant as graphed by Chandler.

The velocity of collapse was not constant. The fact the WTC didn't collapse at g, means the floors failed due to mass falling, falling due to gravity. The massive energy of the collapse is responsible for all ejections, and all damage. E=mgh. In addition, it is a fact, a floor fails above 29,000,000 pounds.

Please take time to calculate the energy of collapse, it is massive due to the height, mass, and gravity. (omg, how big was the nuke... )
Winter garden was hit by a multi ton section, it was 600 feet away, I already explained this to you. Sounds of explosives were absolutely heard.


No Chandler's work is not silly or bogus, you are just hitting a wall of cognitive bias. The acceleration was constant, you are confusing that with velocity. Not collapsing at g doesn't mean the floors failed, it means that's the rate the set the explosions off. Please take the time to read the peer reviewed published papers, and see that gravity is not even at work.

⦁ Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
 
Last edited:

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member
Argument from ignorance fallacy, the exact type, location and number of explosives is unknown.
You're confusing the burden of proof, which falls to you to provide evidence of what you are saying against the already established facts are. Simply saying that explosives being used is "undeniable" because "how else" is not evidence (and an argument from incredulity, if you must).

Can you show proof, hard evidence, that explosives were used?
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Gravity cannot explain a multi ton section hitting the winter garden 600 feet away,
you're wrong. at most it was 450 feet away
kk.JPG

the 584 foot measurement is to this whole in the middle of the atrium
winter-garden=3damage540.jpg

and if that got hit with a 4 ton or more piece [@80mph] the lattice work would have been annihilated. So you're guy is measuring wrong.
 
Last edited:

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
...
No the columns did not fall away, they turned into dust mostly while some flew out at high speeds, up to 600 feet away. ...
The piece at Wintergarden is not 600 feet away.
Steel turning to dust is magic, not physis.

Dustifing steel is fantasy, aka evidence free.

The energy release due to mgh, responsible for all the damage and ejections. The energy due to gravity in the buildings was bigger than 5 nuclear weapons the smallest nuclear weapons. That is more than enough energy to do the ejections and damage seen.
 

DD-Dude

Banned
Banned
You're confusing the burden of proof, which falls to you to provide evidence of what you are saying against the already established facts are. Simply saying that explosives being used is "undeniable" because "how else" is not evidence (and an argument from incredulity, if you must).

Can you show proof, hard evidence, that explosives were used?
No, I only have to show that explosives were used, not how many and what kind. The burden of proof of the official story lies on you lot, and you have failed that burden. If a crime scene detective sees a body riddled with bullets he concludes the man was shot, he need know exactly how, when, and by whom to know this.

Kinematic analysis proves explosives were used to remove the resistance, case closed.
 

DD-Dude

Banned
Banned
you're wrong. at most it was 450 feet away
View attachment 31605

the 584 foot measurement is to this whole in the middle of the atrium
View attachment 31606

and if that got hit with a 4 ton or more piece the lattice work would have been annihilated. So you're guy is measuring wrong.
I guess I meant to type that it hit the winter garden, 600 feet away.
those are not peer reviewed papers, just fyi.
Oh yes they are, and all work is shown.
 

DD-Dude

Banned
Banned
The piece at Wintergarden is not 600 feet away.
Steel turning to dust is magic, not physis.

Dustifing steel is fantasy, aka evidence free.

The energy release due to mgh, responsible for all the damage and ejections. The energy due to gravity in the buildings was bigger than 5 nuclear weapons the smallest nuclear weapons. That is more than enough energy to do the ejections and damage seen.
The energy release is not due to mgh, this has been refuted via kinematic analysis. The top's of the towers do not impact the bottoms, there is a missing jolt.

Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis, The http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis/
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member
Tried? I succeeded. No it hasn't been shown, Oystein is royally confused and mixes up velocity with acceleration.
In line with the no click policy, can you explain how its been shown and where you've succeeded? All I've seen thus far is "this is true because you're wrong" which is not evidence of anything.
Perhaps explanation of the physics involved in throwing a multi ton section of steel with explosives would be helpful?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
No, I only have to show that explosives were used, not how many and what kind. The burden of proof of the official story lies on you lot, and you have failed that burden. If a crime scene detective sees a body riddled with bullets he concludes the man was shot, he need know exactly how, when, and by whom to know this.

Kinematic analysis proves explosives were used to remove the resistance, case closed.
There WERE explosions... but they were not bombs or CD devices. All sorts of "things" exploded in a burning building. Explosions are not disputed... CD and bombs are.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member
No click policy doesn't mean you can't click and read them....
Uh...actually that's kind of what it means. Exactly. It means you provide the evidence that YOU are referencing because you are trying to utilise that to refute the facts. If you don't know how to do this on the forum, there's a "how to" guide which shows how to link and reference etc.

I'm not about to read through an entire report on your say so, you need to highlight the section which makes your case.
 

Inti

Active Member
An object falling though air decelerates, let alone one supposedly crushing a skyscraper. Where is deceleration?
I admit to not being a physicist, but I think this statement is either wrong or meaningless.

Did you mean that an object falling throught air experiences a decellerating force that may partially counter the accelating force of gravity? The amount of deceleration will vary depending on the cross-sectional density of the object, which is determined by its mass and the area exposed to the air's resistance. IsntI that right?


And in the case of the falling upper section of the tower, that density will be high, given the very large mass. So the rate of fall will be little affected by air resistance.
 

Inti

Active Member
This is splitting straws and ultimately irrelevant, there is lateral force when there should be none. How do you explain multi ton pieces flying upwards of 80 mph, and ending up 600 feet away
Im puzzled. How would you possibly prevent such lateral forces developing in a collapse? With some fragments striking other elements and decelerating, while others above them are still falling, you must have a 'squeezing' effect that will push fragments sideways. So it would be very surprising if nothing was thrown out laterally.

On the other hand, to detonate charges to create that much force would have produced deafening and unmistakable explosions. You may have seen the examples of videos posted early of much smaller charges used in controlled demo of large building. I've seen them myself several times and you get a rapid and characteristic loud sequence of sharp intense bangs. And that never sent any fragments remotely as large outwards. You expanation simple doesnt fit the observable (and audible) facts.
 

Inti

Active Member
Quite a lot of bang, but only explainable with explosives. It's a far bigger issue for a gravity driven collapse, no viable explanation for how such an event would propel these pieces. Remember it's probably not just conventional bombs we are dealing with, the USGS report 01-0429 documents radioactive elements in significant quantities and correlations.
Hmm... So now you are positing hitherto unknown magically inaudible (and flashless) nukes? This looks like one of the greatest ad hoc explanations ever.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Im puzzled. How would you possibly prevent such lateral forces developing in a collapse? With some fragments striking other elements and decelerating, while others above them are still falling, you must have a 'squeezing' effect that will push fragments sideways. So it would be very surprising if nothing was thrown out laterally.

On the other hand, to detonate charges to create that much force would have produced deafening and unmistakable explosions. You may have seen the examples of videos posted early of much smaller charges used in controlled demo of large building. I've seen them myself several times and you get a rapid and characteristic loud sequence of sharp intense bangs. And that never sent any fragments remotely as large outwards. You expanation simple doesnt fit the observable (and audible) facts.

Let's not forget that with the collapse of the top 15 or so floors in 1wtc for example... the material which largely fell straight down was confined by the facade more or less.... and the air on each floor was about 20,000 cubic feet (208x208x12) and it was displaced by the collapse. Say the floor collapse was about 100' per second (2/3 of FF) velocity, Thus means that 20,000cu ft of air was forced OUTWARD and some down through shafts in about .1 of a second.

That's a lot of air to move out of the way. The air which was say at the core... traveled out through the facade in .1 second more or less. say... about 50'. That volume of air was 50' in .1 seconds... that's 500' in 1 second...

The air that blasted out of those windows was in the range of 450 MPS... way stronger than a tornado... That's a lot of impulse. NO?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The amount of deceleration will vary depending on the cross-sectional density of the object, which is determined by its mass and the area exposed to the air's resistance. IsntI that right?

And in the case of the falling upper section of the tower, that density will be high, given the very large mass. So the rate of fall will be little affected by air resistance.
Sectional density is mass divided by sectional area . m/S

Force due to gravity is mass * g = mg

Force due to air resistance = a constant * area * velocity squared = kAv^2

Net force = mg - kAv^2

Here the square-cube law comes into effect. Mass is proportional to the cube of linear size, area is proportional to the square. So a falling girder has much less air resistance than a penny.

An object falling though air decelerates, let alone one supposedly crushing a skyscraper. Where is deceleration?
If the net force is still downwards, then the object will continue to accelerate downwards, just with a reduced acceleration.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The topic here is "Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally." Let's try to stay on topic.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
There is absolutely such evidence.


From 2:40 - 3:10 he shows the measurement data, one piece achieves ~78 mph.

No the columns did not fall away, they turned into dust mostly while some flew out at high speeds, up to 600 feet away. Those last two lines apply much better to thyself.
In this video, the steel sections that are highlighted, clearly look like they are just toppling over; at lease they do to me. The problem is that you can't see what is going on. My question to those that suggest explosives ejecting these pieces is:
If the explosives are powerful enough to eject a 4 ton piece of steel, how are the same explosives NOT ejecting the lighter and smaller materials out farther?

There is so much dust a debris that I would imagine something powerful enough to blast these heavy sections out so far, with such force, would easily shoot smaller chunks of concrete, drywall, office furniture, and other debris farther and faster than the large sections. The fact that we can see these large pieces through the dust and debris means that they are getting ejected farther that a small chunk of drywall.

Does that make sense to anybody?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
How exactly are relatively intact "beams" ejected without being damaged and bent by the explosive force that is alleged to move them several hundred feet laterally?
 
I didn't get a chance to post this reply in the last thread, so I'm introducing it here for those who would like the chance to read it (Mick, feel free to move this to the Locked thread, if possible. I just recently made time for this response and have been feeling a need to put it "out there" on this forum and couldn't think of another way):


Every available account of the visual record shows, clearly, that the upper portions fall over and out beyond the lower portions during each collapse -- not on top of them. More importantly, the angle and velocity of these ejections suggests an explosive force far greater than what is permitted by the official collapse narrative. This isn't to suggest that ejected steel sections necessarily had explosives attached but, rather, that there was an explosive force that is not accounted for by Bazant, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. As I've stated previously, this force is most greatly accounted for by the ROOSD collapse progression, explained in-detail and accompanied by the most extensive collection of the visual record online, available here:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php

[Mick: long list removed]
To me the first question that has to be asked is "If we accept the lateral ejections are exactly as you say, how is this proof of a controlled demolition? No other CD in history (of which Im aware, and Ive watched hundreds on the net) ever once showed lateral ejections."

In essence, to say the lateral ejections prove a controlled demolition is to imply the logic "a characteristic that never happens in controlled demolitions happened at the WTC, which proves they are controlled demolitions."
 

econ41

Senior Member
...In essence, to say the lateral ejections prove a controlled demolition is to imply the logic "a characteristic that never happens in controlled demolitions happened at the WTC, which proves they are controlled demolitions."
True but there is another aspect usually overlooked - if demolition was needed there was no need for it to be "controlled" demolition....i.e. minimising co-lateral damage. Most of us have taken to loose usage of the terminology and have lost sight of the distinction that "controlled" is not necessary. Mea also culpa very often because "everyone" expects "CD" or "controlled demolition" as the label.
 
True but there is another aspect usually overlooked - if demolition was needed there was no need for it to be "controlled" demolition....i.e. minimising co-lateral damage. Most of us have taken to loose usage of the terminology and have lost sight of the distinction that "controlled" is not necessary. Mea also culpa very often because "everyone" expects "CD" or "controlled demolition" as the label.
Then there has been evolution over the use of the term.

The 911 CT was a great amusement of mine since 2005. Back then, the CT were all very clear. They would point to Peter Jennings saying "looks just like a controlled demolition" and demand "Nothing looks like a controlled demolition like a controlled demolition."

As each point in the CT gets debunked, they simply change what they mean to mean something else.
 

Seymour

New Member
Actually, I’ve never seen convincing evidence of “lateral ejections” in the first place.

Admittedly, ext columns peeled out and fell up to several hundred feet outside the “footprint”.

But the [...] claim is not about tipping columns, but that the columns or other heavy debris were explosively “blown”. The only evidence of this “blowing” is incredulity by truthers that tipping could account for this.

You’d think that if they were so sure in their belief, that someone by now would of done a study of falling debris and presented evidence in a motion trace proving this. Seems simple enough to do for someone so passionate about it.

I’ve never seen it though, cuz the claim is wrong.
 

Karl Eriksen

New Member
Here's video I took of the girder bounce experiment.
Yeah, it is hard enough to get the piece to "Bounce" when you are carefully directing it down to the perfect deflection surface. The chances of this happening organically is near 0. Your most realistic example was the one where you aimed your "girder" slightly wrong, and it fell straight to the ground. Your demonstration shows if you could carefully aim your girders onto a perfect deflection surface (that didn't exist on the WTC towers) 30 or 40 stories below where they started falling, you get could massive deflections. The WTC buildings were perfect squares- no 45 degree angled surfaces to nicely deflect a girder. Girders could only fall a short distance before any possible deflection surface was also destroyed. I guess we would have to concede deflection is theoretically possible, but if it were the cause of the many massive girders ending up hundreds of feet away, we would see at least one deflection happening in the extant video.
 

Karl Eriksen

New Member
Great to see that concept put to experiment. It's déjà vu for me.

Back in 2008 I was responding to one or more of the "beams ejected by explosives" claims and interacting with psikeyhackr over the maths of fall to ground parabolas of horizontally ejected pieces given various horizontal starting velocities.

I postulated two mechanisms for psikey:
1) The "skittering" resulting from bouncing off OR deflection from impact with a firm surface - all same as your experiments Mick; AND
2) A "bowling" action as a falling sheet of columns falls over flinging a loose beam from the top part.

....and I never did the physical experiments fir either.

Wasn't till years later that I became aware of Major_Tom's research into where the perimeter sheets broke - peeled - (some) rotated and fell.

And that humungous 30(?) storey piece that fell as a single sheet and - by a "bowling" action - impaled that beam into the WFC.
Still haven't any visual proof for the other 6 or so beams that were the outfliers into other buildings.
This is not what is happening. We can see many of the large girders from the moment they detach till they are way out in the air- there are no deflections. Between all the extant video angles, we can see virtually all the potential "bouncing" locations.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is not what is happening. We can see many of the large girders from the moment they detach till they are way out in the air- there are no deflections. Between all the extant video angles, we can see virtually all the potential "bouncing" locations.
Would you agree that the lower part of the building is a solid structure before the collapse wave hits it?

Would you also agree what the leading edge of the collapse wave is made up of the beams and girders than are travelling the fastest, as they have fallen the furthest?

Would you also agree that the strongest part of the building was the core. Much of which remained standing after the main collapse wave hit the ground?

I guess we would have to concede deflection is theoretically possible, but if it were the cause of the many massive girders ending up hundreds of feet away, we would see at least one deflection happening in the extant video.
Can you point to one of these, and show why you would have seen the deflection.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
... We can see many of the large girders from the moment they detach till they are way out in the air- there are no deflections. Between all the extant video angles, we can see virtually all the potential "bouncing" locations.
What do you mean by "girder"?

Can you please present a specific example of one specific "girder" that "[w]e can see ... from the moment they detach till they are way out in the air"? Embed a video, specify the min:sec at which that "girder" is seen, along with a description where to look for it in the video. Ideally, make a screenshot or two, draw an arrow pointing out the "girder" that you see, and post that screenshot here.
Then tell us what you think this "girder" is, specifically - a wall panel, a piece of wall column, a core column, a bit of floor truss, or whatever. So we can assess its mass, or at least a rounded estimate. And of course that "girder" would have to fall with a significant lateral velocity and/or land significally far away from the footprint; it should be possible to measure or estimate lateral velocity or lateral distance fallen from the image material you post.

I doubt there exists even only one video (or photos) of a multi-ton steel section falling ballistically (i.e. completely detached) with a significant lateral velocity. I am perfectly certain that no such images exist for any such detached steel section moving laterally from the perimeter of the tower to a location more than, say, 200 feet away from the tower footprint (200 feet being the width of the towers).
 

econ41

Senior Member
I see that Karl Eriksen has made a false response to one of my comments. He said:
This is not what is happening.
That assertion is false for the example I posted. I referred specifically to two plausible mechanisms that I speculated about in 2008. I called them "skittering" and "bowling".

We have had proof for some years - post my 2008 speculations - for one example of "bowling". By "bowling" I mean a "beam" (strictly a section of column) carried at the top of a toppling sheet of perimeter columns. That example is the beam that embedded in the WFC. It came from the top of one sheet of perimeter. I described it in my earlier post as "that humungous 30(?) storey piece that fell as a single sheet and - by a "bowling" action - impaled that beam into the WFC." I am conscious of this forum's "No Click" policy - the proof of where that "humongous sheet" came from and how it swiped WFC as it fell is no longer easy to access but if anyone wants it I can try to locate the evidence which is many years old.

The main issue here however is that Karl's responses seem to focus on rebutting one mechanism when reality had several. And the sections of perimeter column "sheets" he is probably referring to were not displaced by either impact skittering or long range bowling.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If someone wants to claim there's a specific piece of the WTC that exhibits behavior that is not explained by a gravity driven collapse then please present actual evidence of that, with images and math. Let's not descend into a semantic discussion.
 

Zett eL

Member
Actually, I’ve never seen convincing evidence of “lateral ejections” in the first place.

Admittedly, ext columns peeled out and fell up to several hundred feet outside the “footprint”.
This implies that you have seen convincing evidence of ext columns peeling out...
Please show it.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
This implies that you have seen convincing evidence of ext columns peeling out...
Please show it.
Some of that evidence is shown on page 1 of this thread - I suggest you read the thread before asking things that are already answered.

Examples:

1. Here is a slo-mo video of one of the collapses, showing several sheets of wall peeling outward:
Please let me know if you need help spotting what I am talking about, I think it's fairly obvious.


2. And here is an aerial photo of the result - several huge sheets of connected wall segments flat on the ground after having peeled and toppled outwards.
 

Zett eL

Member
Maybe its a matter of translation... Again: I´m german.
In my understanding, there is a difference between "falling off", "being ejected", "tipping over/away" and "peeling out".
To me it seems impossible to determinate which of those happened to the facade.
 
Top