IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
High Speed Massive Projectiles From The Wtc On 9/11, Video by David Chandler Apr 27rd 2010

JimMac
post Apr 28 2010, 12:01 AM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



A revised estimate of Chandler's earlier work, this 3 min video shows/analyzes the ejection of some major bldg chunks hurling out of WTC 1 & 2. Made into a thread because its good data, and can find it later for reference, when the CD discussions surface.

High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11
By DavidChandler911 April 27, 2010 I have revisited and extended some of my early measurements of high speed massive projectiles from the World Trade Center on 9/11. The results for the three projectiles measured: 55 mi/hr, 45 mi/hr, and 78 mi/hr. I don't claim this is smoking-gun evidence of explosive demolition all by itself, but it is part of the puzzle and it is more compatible with the explosive demolition hypothesis than simple gravitational collapse.

This post has been edited by JimMac: Apr 28 2010, 12:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 28 2010, 08:42 AM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Material ejected from the north tower at 93rd floor (1150') at

78 mph would land 1,750' to the west in the Hudson river more than 500 feet offshore

55 mph would land 1,250' to the west in the Hudson river more than 250 feet offshore

45 mph would land 1,000' to the west in the World Financial Center Marina

ref

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/traj.html#tra8
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Apr 28 2010, 02:28 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 28 2010, 08:42 AM) *
Material ejected from the north tower at 93rd floor (1150') at

78 mph would land 1,750' to the west in the Hudson river more than 500 feet offshore

55 mph would land 1,250' to the west in the Hudson river more than 250 feet offshore

45 mph would land 1,000' to the west in the World Financial Center Marina

ref

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/traj.html#tra8


That might be true, however we don't know what the launch velocity is, and the projectiles are flying thru a curtain-wall of debris meeting resistance. We also don't know the weight of the projectile, is it one or two wall sections? can't be sure.

He plots the horizontal velocity of the object as seen flying thru the air. This is visual data recorded on camera, and saying it couldn't have happened, doesn't seem to change the record.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 28 2010, 03:43 PM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The question is exactly what material is he plotting.

I would guess it is not a facade panel.

If it's a steel section from the core are you say it was moving at those speeds after penetrating or destroying the facade?

But still if it emerged from 1100 feet at 70 mph it would have landed in the Hudson river.

We need to be clear what we are measuring on the video. If the angle is normal to the camera it is one thing. If it is coming toward or moving away the horizontal speed would vary by the sine of the angle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Apr 28 2010, 05:11 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 28 2010, 03:43 PM) *
The question is exactly what material is he plotting.

I would guess it is not a facade panel.

If it's a steel section from the core are you say it was moving at those speeds after penetrating or destroying the facade?


I'm not saying anything really, just observing. If we look at the 'west ward' projectile that he tracks from WT1 is hard to say what it is, but it's a big chunk. I doubt that core chunks were blown thru the facade, because it seems that the facade was already destroyed and falling away while the core was still standing. Explosions occurring higher above the lower wave, as Chandler points out, are evidence of multiple explosions on different levels occurring simultaneously. It looks like the core was blown behind the facade collapse, for any particular floor.

QUOTE
But still if it emerged from 1100 feet at 70 mph it would have landed in the Hudson river.

We need to be clear what we are measuring on the video. If the angle is normal to the camera it is one thing. If it is coming toward or moving away the horizontal speed would vary by the sine of the angle.


Of course, and debris traveling any obtuse angle, offset from the 90 deg (true north, true west) would be traveling farther, therefore the observed horizontal speed calibrated at a 90 deg would be the minimum speed possible, i.e. if traveling the offset angle it would mean it was traveling faster than the appearance indicates (not slower). So for that particular chunk, the minimum speed appears to be 55 MPH (it could actually be 57 MPH). The point really is that its massive tonnage flying thru the air horizontally calibrated at a speed of 55MPH. This observable data is not in dispute i would think, other than splitting hairs about the true west angle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 28 2010, 05:54 PM
Post #6





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The camera angle is almost on the diagonal of the building since we see the North and West facades.

If something is clocked at 50 mph and it is actually moving at a 45 it's speed would be 1.4 x the clocked speed or about 90 mph.

And the 78 mph would be 110 mph.

I know of no claims of any debris raining down on the Hudson. And this would be further than the building is tall. i don't buy it.

What I do agree with Chandler is that there were explosions in the core and I believe they were at the perimeter columns where the beam stubs are. I think this occurred on multiple floors and started and avalanche and the disorganized mass of floors dropping on each floor was like a piston which exploded air and material out the windows and pushed the facade over as it went.

I also believe some of the corners were blasted free as well facilitating the facade to fall away.

This was violent and chaotic and the downward collapsing material churned itself to bits and it looks like it disappears down into the foot print. And like water spilled it splashed and spread a huge cloud of dust in all directions along the ground.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Apr 28 2010, 06:20 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 28 2010, 05:54 PM) *
The camera angle is almost on the diagonal of the building since we see the North and West facades.

If something is clocked at 50 mph and it is actually moving at a 45 it's speed would be 1.4 x the clocked speed or about 90 mph.
And the 78 mph would be 110 mph.
I know of no claims of any debris raining down on the Hudson. And this would be further than the building is tall. i don't buy it.


Yes, i explained the obtuse angle also. You seem to be in disagreement with Chandlers speed data findings looking at observed data. What do you claim they are then? Less than he states?

And don't forget about the cloud of debris the projectiles fly through. Why not just lay out some numbers you feel comfortable with, as Chandler did, and move on. After all, we can all see the large objects moving thru the air at horizontal speed. Its not as if they are fabricated notions. Its hard physical evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 28 2010, 08:30 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Jim,

When I first became "active" in the truth movement I supported all the "findings" of the 911 Truth Movement with the assumption that qualified scientists had used science and statics and sound forensic analysis to reach their findings. I would refer to these findings as evidence and facts.

Then I noticed that there were some conflicting numbers and an absence of structural information about the twin towers. There were the architectural plans. I decided to check some "numbers" such as the weight of the concrete in one tower. It's not hard if you know the floor area, the thickness of the floor, and the weight per cu ft for the concrete. The cores were thicker and used denser concrete and had openings for the shafts. Once I had the spread sheet built it returned a value of 86,922 tons. I read one professor who published on his site a figure over 10x this number meaning the slabs were 40 inches thick! YIKES.

This led me to look at every single claim made and question it and try to see how this was arrived at and if it was in fact a fact or evidence of something.

The discussion of ejection speeds was another area I looked into. And I referred to a web site which you enter values and it computes all sorts of goodies. I next studied the debris in aerial photos and as many other photos of the site as I could find and did a scale drawing of the entire site and buildings around it and plotted the further facade panels I could locate.

Here's the trajectory site...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/traj.html#tra8

have yourself a ball.

I deeply respect Chandler and his work is brilliant, but he is human and I think he got this wrong.

There clearly was debris exploding chaotically at the top, but this largely appeared to me to be the aluminum cladding and perhaps some of the short lateral core beams. I saw no facade panels twisting and rotating randomly as the smaller pieces.

When I measured the debris at the furthest location from the twin towers I got the following results:

WTC 1 / WTC 2

north 350 / 270
east 390 / 380
south 320 / 255
west 430 / 250

The furthest was the west debris from the north tower at 430' Since I measured from photos and known landmarks the distances were reasonably accurate.

If an object begins at rest as the facade panels were and end up at those distances the speed of ejection is determined by the height the started from.

I made an assumption that the furthest panels came from the beginning of the collapse at the highest floors. For WTC1 I assumed 1150, 2 floors below the plane strike and the 1050 for WTC 2 which was 2 floors below the plane strike. If the panel was from a lower floor the ejection speed would be a but higher.

I also noted the pattern of the panels which despite the chaos were arrayed as if they had fallen or were exploded perpendicular to the facades. it wasn't a radial pattern - it was two cross and the patterns did not intersect the foot print of the other tower.

That explained why there was no damage to the north tower's facades by the collapse of the south tower.

The formula calculated the speed of the panels ejection from the facade at the heights given

The speeds were in mph:
wtc 1 / wtc 2
north 28 / 23
east 32 / 32
south 26 / 22
west 34.4 / 21

If you used a longer distance it would return a faster speed. Chandler says it was 600 feet. Reality says otherwise. The Winter Garden debris is 430 +/- 15 feet from the west facade of WTC 1.

I calculated the weight of every facade panel and they ranged in weight from 4 tons to 17. 2 tons each made from plate as thin as 1/4" at the top to 1.75" on the 7th floor. These seem to match what I saw in the photos.

I also observed that the panels by the Winter Garden were ranged out in sequence almost as if a wall had toppled over.

In the Chandler video that loops the collapse I observed a massive collection of panel emerge from the west facade. it's hard to estimate their size but I guessed it was at least 3 high at 108' / 9 stories and and 8 wide 80' weighing 3 x 8 x 6.2 tons or 148.8 tons YIKES

They can be seen in free fall going from almost vertical to horizontal. You don't see them vertical because they would be still attached to the facade, but you see the almost vertical and arrive at horizontal in free fall with no stress. Seems unlikely that something could explode 148 ton assemble and not blow it apart and get it moving at any speed. If these were the furthest panels they were moving at 34 mph.

But how much speed would something 108 feet tall to reach when toppling over? it's around 30 mph. So it's likely that those panels were the ones that landed at the WFC and Winter Garden and broke apart on impact.

This all rings true to me... all the observed evidence supports the finding of the 34 mph speed.

Were there ejections shooting out of the building clocked at higher speeds. You betcha. but they were dust and small debris such as the squibs. And there may have been some smaller members like aluminum cladding shot out and slowed down by air resistance and even blown in the wind like a leaf. If there are panels moving at those speeds I want to see them. I don't deny that they are there. I just have not seen them.

I did not clock the speed of material in videos. I calculated it from distance and height and assumed that what ever was exploding was no more powerful at the lower part of the event than at the top. And with heavier panels at the bottom it would take even more energy to get them to those speeds and those distances.

The same goes for the debris at Deutchebank, 90 West Street and WTC 7 which was only 350 north of WTC 1.

If you use lower floors as the origin as in this analysis the speed is 37 mph



This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 28 2010, 08:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th November 2019 - 10:30 PM