Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
dadeets wrote:Has this already been discussed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqwbBn4bbFs at 2:35 s in.
He doesn't say specifically this is horizontal velocity, but even if it isn't, doesn't it suggest a horizontal force was necessary to get it going?
Oystein wrote:Chandler suggests that the force acting upon multi-ton steel segments and accelerating them to such velocities came from explosives.
This begs the question(s): How can explosives accelerate large steel segments like that?
Surely, no one would attach explosives to the steel with the purpose of flinging them around at high speeds
when the goal is to just sever the steel
I'd like for you to ponder a few questions
1. How would you attach explosives to a perimeter panel
if you wanted to give it a velocity of 35 m/s
and how what amount of explosives would it take?
Please have considerations in mind such as conservation of momentum, and that all the explosive energy that goes into kinetic energy cannot be used to also sever steel.
2. Do actual controlled demolitions throw multi-ton building segments laterally like this?
3. In a non-explosive demolition
do you expect any debris parts to move laterally, or none?
If yes, is there a limit to the size or velocity of such laterally moving pieces, and how would you derive it?
I think you will find that, to fling such masses with explosives, you'd need extremely large charges
A different angle to tackle this
It has been claimed that the towers "fell into their footprints", and that this is a telltale characteristic of "controlled demolitions", which implies that natural collapses would NOT fall into their footprints, which is another way of saying that, in a natural collapse, major lateral ejections would be expected.
Perhaps you are rejecting the footprint argument
I don't see why you think lateral ejections are a sign of explosive CD?
SanderO wrote:Chandler obviously appears to not consider the lateral forces generated when a column buckles
dadeets wrote:One item of evidence as I remember it is the columns (by and large) did not buckle.
Has this projectile been mapped back to a specific floor?
If so, is there reason to believe columns may have buckled on that floor?
femr2 wrote: there's no reason to think it wouldn't be kicked out by the ongoing ROOSD process.
SanderO wrote:Does this make sense?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests