Analysis of Rocket Projectiles from WTC2

[Make7]

 

Analysis of Rocket Projectiles from WTC2

Submitted by davidschandler on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 1:31am

I have uploaded to YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvw0_i1rGns) an analysis of the acceleration of a projectile that races ahead of the surrounding falling debris. I had discussed this object before but due to the difficulty caused by a moving camera I had not previously measured the motion directly.

The object (apparently a perimeter wall unit) raced ahead of its neighboring debris, but its acceleration was about 1/3 of gravity. This is an indication that it was kicked downward initially by an explosion, after which the air resistance partially canceled the effect of gravity as it approached terminal velocity. As it fell, however, there was an outburst of white smoke, at which point the projectile changed directions, slightly, and accelerated downward for about a half second at 1.5 times gravity. It then fell back to continued acceleration a little under 1 g.

The acceleration of the projectile is unambiguous proof that very energetic material was applied to the wall unit. What I found particularly surprising is that the ignition of the material in an unconfined space where it was free to expand three dimensionally would provide sufficient thrust due to expanding gasses alone to cause what was probably a 4-ton wall unit to accelerate 50% faster than gravity. The fact that the unit continued to accelerate close to freefall thereafter is an indication of an ongoing thrust capable of largely canceling the effect of air resistance.


http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-26/analysis-rocket-projectiles-wtc2

Words fail me.
 

[mrarundale]

1. I don't think you can make that kind of an analysis

from probably faked video. So I agree with you.

[jberryhill]

2. Impressive

This sentence really stands out for me:

"The fact that the unit continued to accelerate close to freefall thereafter is an indication of an ongoing thrust capable of largely canceling the effect of air resistance."

I gotta get me one of those rockets which applies thrust in proportion to the square of its own velocity!

(assuming one can translate that sentence into anything meaningful)

[LARED]

3. Nothing is too hard for

BUSHCO

[jberryhill]

4. Or ACME, apparently

[spooked911]

5. what's the problem?

you don't find the rocket-like behavior of the column striking?

[jberryhill]

7. How do mini-nukes explain that?

[spooked911]

9. can you seriously not figure that out?

I suppose you can't figure out how this projectile is destroys the official collapse theory.

[terrafirma]

10. One column section

Out of thousands....

Yes. That anomaly sure does blow a hole in the official story....

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. perhaps if someone demonstrated that it is a "projectile"

Hint: demonstrating that, for some time period, it accelerates downward at greater than g doesn't suffice.

And call me cynical, but if you thought you had a coherent explanation of how this is a "projectile," wouldn't you present it? I've been watching people point to observations that supposedly "destroy evolutionary theory" for decades now.

[spooked911]

12. because it projects sharply out of the normal path of the falling debris

You cynical? No.
Annoyingly pedantic? Yes.

[terrafirma]

13. How

In a chaotic event like that collapse, can you possibly ascertain what a "normal" path would be?

[spooked911]

17. the normal path of the falling debris

most of the debris is falling in a certain range of motion away from the building.

[William Seger]

14. Chandler's characterizations are as inaccurate as his measurements

In this analysis by fermr (a "truther" btw), the column section appears to be doing nothing more than falling and "flying" back and forth a bit as it rotates. Those aerodynamic forces could also cause a variable acceleration, but Chandler's claim that it ever exceeds g is, um, unconvincing.

[spooked911]

18. we could argue over the calculations for days

I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone else got a different result. Nonetheless, the (apparent) column is clearly rocketing away from the normal path of the debris as if propelled by a separate force and not just falling away from the collapse.

[William Seger]

20. "Clearly" to whom?

People who really, really, really wish they had some evidence of a controlled demolition? Sorry, but in addition to not being "clearly rocketing away from the normal path" (a.k.a. begging the question), the premise is pretty dopey, anyway. If there was anything like a rocket thrust as large as Chandler claims, if the axis of the thrust was just slightly off from the center of mass, it would set the column spinning like a cartwheel. What we see is white smoke or dust trailing off one end of the column, always upward while the column is rotating relatively slowly. Does Chandler propose that some sort of steerable rocket engine was used to deliberately propel the column downward? Even that wouldn't work from out on the end of the column. This is just an idiotic hypothesis, born from sloppy measurements.

[cpwm17]

21. If the column had an initial velocity greater than the surrounding falling debris

The column would continue to have a greater velocity than the surrounding falling debris as it fell to the ground. So naturally the separation of the column from the surrounding debris would increase as it fell to the ground - no rockets required.

[zappaman]

15. wheee!!!

back to the brilliant scientific theory(made famous by Spooked911) of "it doesn't look right to me, so it must be mini-nukes".
Outstanding!

[cpwm17]

16. Messy building collapses like that don't happen everyday

So what's "normal" is hard to know. But in the experience of living on this earth for awhile, we should know that there is a range of velocities of particles when things collapse or break. If you drop a plate, there's often one plate piece that flies far from the rest of the broken pieces.

In the collapsing WTC's, pieces flew off in various directions and velocities. I wouldn't expect anything different.

As typical for a Creationist, I mean, Truther, DavidChandler911's comment section was disabled - coward.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. nope, same problem

I'll grant you that the term "projectile" is sufficiently ambiguous that it might simply be irrelevant to your unsupported assertion that this object's motion "destroys the official collapse theory." Is that all you've got?

[Flatulo]

6. Hmmm, if I apply rocket paint to the rear bumper of my car, will it go faster?

[terrafirma]

8. Only if the aliens allow it.