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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff 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.
What do you think is happening to the section I circled in red, above?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In my understanding, there is a difference between "falling off", "being ejected", "tipping over/away" and "peeling out".
The thread is about the claim that sections were "elected laterally". That means they had an initial horizontal velocity away from the building, as if they were shot out of a cannon.

The general agreement here is that there are no examples known that cannot be explained by a gravity driven collapse. If you'd like to point to one then please try to produce a frame by frame analysis showing the trajectory.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The attached video is made from a sequence of photos, so the timing is not perfect. Howeve,r it does quite clearly show a large section lean out to the side. It's the one on the upper right that momentarily brightens as it falls into the sunlight.
wtc1-all-clipped-enhanced-25pct-section.gif
Metabunk 2018-08-12 16-19-10.jpg
I've attached the file so you can analyze it better. Also on YouTube

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqxveCGOGKQ
 

Attachments

Oystein

Senior 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.
I am German, too.
You askked for evidence of exterior columns "peeling out" - which is the same, in my understanding as "tipping over/away", but different from "falling off" or "being ejected".

This thread is about "Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally", and discussion of wall segments tipping/toppling/peeling outwards in large, connected sheets is on-topic only insofar as this rules out that these same segments were "ejected laterally".

The video I posted shows, among other things, a fairly rigid wall section, many stories high, on the right side of the tower rotating about a pivot that's hidden behind the dust cloud but can be estimated to be near the original perimeter, and thus falling over/tipping/toppling like a tree. Do you see what I mean?

Here, let me help you with screenshots and red circles around the wall segment I am talking about:

slomo1.jpg
slomo2.jpg
slomo3.jpg
slomo4.jpg
 

toutdoubt

New Member
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
Anyway I can get those small images bigger? the equations etc. Thanks!!
 

Manooper

New Member
I've come to the same conclusion, that is the pieces are clearly peeling away from the towers, rather than being ejected out. Given the enormous height of the towers, it should be expected that pieces end up hundreds of feet away as the sides fall away.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Anyway I can get those small images bigger? the equations etc. Thanks!!
google free fall... the graphics was from the WWW and I don't seem to have the file anymore.
It does not seem to exist anywhere. Perhaps it was clipped from a pdf, or from a private forum.

The diagram in the middle seems to just be a derivation of range (R) from height (h) and eject velocity (Ve) (along with time to fall (t) and impact vertical velocity (Vi). I've roughly recreated it here:
Metabunk 2018-11-15 06-29-44.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not only would it not need explosives - worse yet, explosives can't do it without totally obvious supersonic shockwaves from very substantial high explosives charges. I am currently writing up a paper that investigates how much explosives it would take to hurl a wall panel at rest from the nearest WTC wall to the adjacent walls of peripheral buildings (130 Liberty St, WTC 7, WFC3) - or 600 ft, as claimed by AE911T. I have developed math formulas to compute (1) the lateral velocity needed to cross a distance d from a height of h, and then (2) the mass ratio steel:explosives needed to attain that velocity, given the Specific energy of the explosive material. The latter is varied through a range from 1.5 MJ/kg (nano-thermite; or conventional explosives with 30-50% efficieny) to 6.0 MJ/kg (the most energetic high explosives at almost 100% efficiency).
The derivation uses the laws of Conversation of Momentum and of Energy.

The result is that you'd need at leat 3 kg of explosives per ton of steel (e.g. for the Bankers Trust building, only 80 m away, requiring a lateral velocity of just 22.5 mph), but easily exceeding 12 kg/ton (600 ft distance from WTC1 fire zone to the ground). This would result in average gas velocities of 1720 to 3000 m/s - many times the speed of sound in air, i.e. shockwaves. For wall panels weighing several tons, we'd soon approach realistic charge sizes of 50 to 100 kg, perhaps more - and they claim such huge blasts occurred multiple times. That's simply unreal.
Did you ever write this paper? I was thinking this topic might make a good explainer video.
 

Todd Cee

New Member
I never completely finished it, but the model and calculations are pretty much done. I just created the attached PDF file from a LibreOffice Writer (.odt) file I had last saved on 2016/Oct/16.
very impressive ... this should be finalized and submitted for peer review ...
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Do Oy's calc take into consideration that the explosions would also have break the connections of the panels to the adjacent ones and the slabs.... or does it assume the steel panels, members were simply free standing?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Do Oy's calc take into consideration that the explosions would also have break the connections of the panels to the adjacent ones and the slabs.... or does it assume the steel panels, members were simply free standing?
No. I merely compute how much of an explosive would be required to propel a piece of steel of mass m to a velocity v. No losses / additional explosives to deform, break, spin or heat material considered.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
No. I merely compute how much of an explosive would be required to propel a piece of steel of mass m to a velocity v. No losses / additional explosives to deform, break, spin or heat material considered.
Breaking the connections would require a lot of forces as well... no?
Where would the explosive(s) be placed to propel a relatively intact steel beam, column or facade panel out of or off the building?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Breaking the connections would require a lot of forces as well... no?
Where would the explosive(s) be placed to propel a relatively intact steel beam, column or facade panel out of or off the building?
That would of course very much depend on your CD scheme - and I am not aware that any Truther has advanced a proposal or theory detailing placement and size of explosive charges. I am not going to do their work for them and come up with speculation to calculate the effect on panel expulsion.

Just some musings:

  1. We know that taking out the floors would be an efficient way to start collapse: Say, attack all the truss seats of 3 consecutive floors at once, or perhaps timed that all three floors hit the one below at about the same time, that should guarantee pancaking goes all the way down, total collapse ensues. But that would require only relatively small charges. Though I would not dare to speculate on a number we are very certainly talking about far less than 1 pound per charge. How many truss seats are there per wall panel? 9? Or double that, 18? Eitherway, as even the lightest panels weighed multiple tons, and my white paper shows that more than 9 pounds of explosives are needed per ton of hurled mass just to hurl, rigging the floor trusses would not include enough to do such hurling. Oh and anyway, rigging just the floor trusses would not cut panels loose from the next panel, they would not be pushed out by the explosions at all
  2. If you rig the columns - whether at their slices (which would be the most efficient, if you can get to the bolts) or anywhere in between - to cut them apart, then ipso facto the explosions will occur at the extreme ends of the columns/panels, and so unless you have equal sized charged on both ends explosing at the exact same time, any kinetic energy imparted on the wall panel will have a large rotational (angular) component, which will subtract substantially from the lateral velocity, which is the only velocity of interest here. My white paper assumes that the explosives are placed evenly around the Center of Mass of the panel AND does not destroy the panel there. Of course such a placement maximizes the lateral velocity while making no sense, at all, even negative sense, as cutting charges. Besides, Truther, as best as I can determine, would theorize that charges were fired in a timed sequence that mimicks the "nearly freefall" descent of the top, in other words, they'd not fire charges on either end of 3-floor panel at the exact same moment, but as much as 300 milliseconds apart. For a panel that's supposed to travel 48 mph laterally (to take one of the lowest numbers consistent with Truther claims), which is 21.4 m/s, the top of the panel would already have travelled laterally more than 20 feet by the time its bottom gets cut from the panel below. Which makes zero sense of course.
  3. So the "best" idea that I think Truthers could come up with would be a reference to "kicker charges". They may have heard of this demolition technique where you have two separate charges per location: One cutting charge that severs the column apart, followed in close succession by a kicker charge that laterally moves the end of one or both parts of the column laterally such that the top end no longer stands on the bottom end and instead falls through thin air. A Truther might hypothesize that they used kicker charges to move entire panels laterally - but shooting them out at 48 mph would be overkill.
Hope that helps :D
 

Joe Hill

Member
except that these particular "red things" are, IMO, not the "gash makers". They seem to fall too far to the east.
"They" are the "gash makers". Actually, one large piece of wall made the gash. That particular spire is distinct. It appears out of the dust higher and later than all the other pieces, travelling near horizontal. It's easy to identify that spire from north views, and it is clear it lined up with column 20.

Well, let´s use your clip for the moment. I zoomed in and split the screen into 3 areas:

would
I think what we see is like a dozen (but at least 5) core columns in three different bundles.
If you look close, you see large panels falling, with only the leading edge showing due to the dust. If you watch the dust around them, you can make out the larger shape falling as one unit.
Equally as important as studying video of collapse in identifying the falling structural members, is studying other evidence, after which you will find:
1. The entry hole at the top of Building 7 at column 20 is about 40 feet wide, and about as deep into Building 7 footprint. How would a core column(s) make such a hole?
2. Video shows the large standing core section falling east and west. The core was split north/south, and the east half fell east while the west half fell west. None can be seen falling north.
3. Aerial photos of the site show core columns spread out south, east, and west of the NT footprint. There are no signs of core columns north of the footprint. North of the footprint, debris is predominately NT perimeter wall panels. There are a few single columns north, but they are not the same length as NT core columns observed elsewhere. They more likely are columns from Building 6.
There simply is no evidence that the NT core fell north, and the entry hole damage in Building 7 does not match potential damage from core columns; it does match potential damage from perimeter wall panels.

 

Joe Hill

Member
They look like torn spandrels from the North Tower perimeter wall.
For the record, upon closer inspection, they are too large to be torn ends of spandrel plates. It is more likely they are the ends of 3 to 4 still joined perimeter panels, which comports with the size of the hole created at the top of Building 7.
 

econ41

Senior Member
...
However- you say the floors are collapsing one on top another all the way down.
Those floors are stung between the inner and outer columns. Those floors sit beside the core not on top of it.
The only things those floors will crush is those floors- they can't get at the core.
How are you destroying the core with falling floors?
cptn_fantastic - your discussion with johnnyH is way off topic as I noted in my previous post.

And you are repeating many questions which I have already offered to respond to or explain....in an appropriate thread.

However I see that you ignore my post and my offer to assist. So I will cease commenting on the off topic material.
 

cptn_fantastic

New Member
The only thing thst can reduce the (vertical or horizontal) velocity of such a ball is air resistance (drag). Air resistance won't kill the horizontal velocity of a steel ball until the ball has travelled a few hundred metres--assuming the ball doesn't hit the ground first.

So yes, the time of fall and hence the original height will influence the horizontal distance travelled before the ball hits the ground.
If the height is sufficient for both balls to run out of horizontal momentum prior to colliding with the ground, both balls travel equidistant from the building.
A thrown ball, whether made of rubber or steel, will land the same distance from the building whether thrown from the 110th floor or the 100th.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 2
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 13
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 3
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
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's Analysis of Slag Residue from WTC Debris 9/11 20
Dan Wilson Debunked: Steven Crowder: The AIDS epidemic was a hoax Health and Quackery 9
Dan Wilson Debunked: Infowars product damages sperm Health and Quackery 2
Mick West Debunked: Corbett Report Targeted by Google/Youtube Conspiracy Theories 37
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top