The 9/11 Forum

ozeco41 wrote:I'm waiting till someone (femr2??) either confirms or disproves Chandler's measurement of over G.

I'm looking at it now.

I contacted DC and sourced the same video clip he used, to make sure we're "on the same page".

The trace is pretty awkward, as the camera is moving over multiple axes, latch-points for static point extraction don't stay in-frame for the entire trace period, and the object itself is pretty indistinct, precluding a fully automated trace (in other words, some manual repositioning. ew.).

However, it is fast. It's obviously falling "freely", so freefall would be no surprise at all.

Initial thoughts on probable (it does probably go) over-g...

I'd imagine there's a decent amount of force applied to that small piece by the rapidly expanding cloud of debris behind/above it. Don't see why that could not apply more than a nudge, over quite a long period of time.

I'll get as best a trace as I can and post it this evening (UK).

Thank you.

Hmm...an initial DRAFT velocity profile...


Pretty constant at the start, accelerating later.

DRAFT. Might be bad smoothing decision...but something to look at...

slow motion




The "thrust" while falling refers to the smoke seen as the object first becomes clearly visible well into the fall.

The original separation of the piece from the building seems to happen after the 7 78th fl ejections along the east face emerge (the Seven Sisters). The 78th fl ejections are visible as the first light grey ejections along the east face (right side). From this angle one can see overpressurization throughout the building, especially from the west face (left side).



I have no problem with the claim of an odd initial thrust off the building. The second thrust in mid-air depends on the ability to detect the object before the smoke from it becomes more visible. That doesn't seem easy to do and if it is measured incorrectly, it would give the illusion of a second thrust in mid-air.

Here are the first overpressures along the east face





I haven't seen anyone address the mechanics behind those. Here is one of them...



Earlier, OWE and Achimspok suggested a spring mechanism for this particular ejection and flash, but that ceases to make sense when all Seven Sisters and their symmetry are considered.


So, I am seeing shocks and thrusts througout the area along the 78th slab for which no natural mechanism has come up in discussion. Under every third panel, symmetrical about the center of the east face. For this reason, the initial downward thrust is interesting.

But the mid-air one...... need better measurements.

Considering the location of the seven symmetrical shocks along the 78th fl (red ovals), it is worth checking out whether similar shocks throughout the 78th slab could propel a single perimeter column downward from the south face. The little puppy under consideration sure does move fast out of the starting gate, like a greyhound destined to win the race.

I swear people who don't know physics should never talk physics. Amelius Brown, who seems to have registered at JREF just to be able to comment on this subject says:

Yes - an impact or a force. Here's an experiment. Set a AA battery upright on the edge of your desk. Push down on it with your finger tip, and while doing that, with your other hand tap the side of the battery so it clears the edge of the desk.

If the battery accelerated faster than gravity, please provide an explanation that requires rocket engines and thermite.

Well, duh. F = ma, no surprise there. The moment contact with the finger is lost, the additional force is gone, and the fall proceeds at freefall. An impact 'way up there' doesn't provide lingering acceleration for some time after, and it doesn't provide acceleration at some deferred time later on.

Major_Tom wrote:Q3: Why does the "rocket" propel downward when the object is changing orientation while falling??

That question pretty well states the obvious objection. Rocket with gimballed nozzle and thrust vector control?

femr2 wrote:Hmm...an initial DRAFT velocity profile...

Cool. You are an evidence machine. Draft status noted.

By eyeball I get about 17 m/s^2 average acceleration on the 0.8 second interval of increased acceleration on the high side and a bit over 10 m/s^2 on the low side. Hmm...

Just a small fraction of a second wider than that interval (inclusive of it), however, I get a low side of less than 5 m/s.

This is precisely why questions are asked and incredulity expressed at the physics apparently associated with some phenomena of the collapses. Honestly, this is the sort of thing that would make a debunker go tilt, if they could distinguish good arguments from bad. Amelius Brown cannot.

Let me restate Amelius Brown's argument:

F = ma

That looks familiar... why, it's David Chandler's argument! No one gives a rat's ass what forces were applied to it before it launched into open air, the question is what is the downward force (if any) besides gravity which acts during an interval of free trajectory?

Amelius Brown's argument parroted, coincidentally by a parrot:

GlennB wrote:Welcome Amelius Brown and ... bingo.

Sorry, no. Not bingo. Ridiculous, in fact.

More likely measurement problems, or femr2's speculation:

femr2 wrote:I'd imagine there's a decent amount of force applied to that small piece by the rapidly expanding cloud of debris behind/above it. Don't see why that could not apply more than a nudge, over quite a long period of time.

You know, GlennB (aka Li'l darlin'), it's actually more likely to be propulsion from a thermite cutter than Amelius Brown's example - which implies force applied earlier results in acceleration observed later - because that violates Newton's laws, and therefore is easily dismissed as impossible.

But it does have an explanation. Whatever that may be will only be determined by diligence and care, not by casually tossing out physical impossibilities and then going for a round of high-fives. It is wrong to immediately conclude that the explanation involves pre-planted demolition devices, but equally wrong at this stage to conclude it is not because of fallacious reasoning.

Y'all okay with an oxygen tank? hahahaa

OneWhiteEye wrote:It is wrong to immediately conclude that the explanation involves pre-planted demolition devices, but equally wrong at this stage to conclude it is not because of fallacious reasoning.

Yes, thank you! Falsification-speculation! If you're not in church doesn't prove you were at the bar!

And thanks for those who contributed some insight.. Much appreciated.

femr2 wrote:Hmm...an initial DRAFT velocity profile...


Pretty constant at the start, accelerating later.

DRAFT. Might be bad smoothing decision...but something to look at...

Hmmmm... am I the only one or does the sinusoidal profile (~1 to ~1.6s) , with increasing amplitude, look like an object rotating faster and faster? We don't see that in the video though, do we?

From a 2d perspective, wouldn't an object rotating around the x axis (in the y/z plane) look like it grows and shrinks with the corresponding velocity jumps if a point was chosen on one of its extremities? Hmmm. Hmm...

Didn't Chandler just manually pinpoint/encircle the entire object and then use the center of that circle as the reference point? And you Femr2? Just thinking out loud here.

SnowCrash wrote:...Didn't Chandler just manually pinpoint/encircle the entire object and then use the center of that circle as the reference point? And you Femr2? Just thinking out loud here.

That's the sort of concern I would like to see eliminated.

Thanks for the draft femr2

...also Major_Tom for the pics.

I can't understand what Chandler could be tagging on the object... and at best it's the whole thing and this would ignore rotation... sort of a gross measurement at best.