Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

reply to post by SPreston


If you carefully study that pic I posted of the WTC site and surrounds, it's not all that remarkable for some of the heavy debris to have reached the Winter Garden, WTC7 or any other buildings that were impacted. This does not require any explosives, just random deflections of falling debris striking unbroken (at that point) surfaces at an angle and bouncing out with a horizontal component of velocity related to the vertical direction prior to the impact (force vectors etc). The collapses did not proceed at free-fall acceleration so truly freefalling heavy sections from above had the opportunity to achieve significant speed before encountering something solid and relatively stationary by comparison.

There's another mechanism I suggested once before involving the transfer of kinetic energy in impacts between objects of greatly differing mass - this can produce some surreal ejection velocities applied to the lesser mass in the interchange and it's something we've never seen before on this sort of scale.

This has all come up before and the scale of explosions required to impart a horizontal velocity of >50mph to solid objects weighing over 5 tonnes simply are not present anywhere in any of the collapses. The blast from just one such explosion would have taken out half the windows in Manhattan but this did not happen did it?

Check the aerial photo again




Notice that not all the Winter Garden was destroyed - just the section
closest to the Nort Tower. Damage is clearly visible in the photo where
can see the glass panels smashed in by debris. Distance is about
the same as to WTC 7 not 600 feet as you are claiming. WTC towers
were over 1300 ft - plenty of height to fling debris for considerable
distance without explosives.

posted by thedman
Check the aerial photo again

Notice that not all the Winter Garden was destroyed - just the section
closest to the Nort Tower. Damage is clearly visible in the photo where
can see the glass panels smashed in by debris. Distance is about
the same as to WTC 7 not 600 feet as you are claiming. WTC towers
were over 1300 ft - plenty of height to fling debris for considerable
distance without explosives.

Nonsense. On my 1600x1200 monitor, the distance from WTC1 to WTC7 on your image is 4-3/16 inches. You say that was about 350 feet. OK.

From WTC1 to the furthest broken glass on Winter Garden is 7-1/4 inches or 3-1/16 inches further. Going by your distance of 350 feet to WTC7 would give us 5.2 feet for every 1/16 inch. 116 (1/16 inch) x 5.2 = 603 feet from WTC1 to Winter Garden. That figure is fairly consistent with other diagrams I have used, including this one which is rotated 90 degrees. Do you think Josef Princiotta is so careless that he would not be sure of his measurements? There are much better methods for obtaining these measurements than on a computer monitor, and I am sure Josef Princiotta utilized such methods. Do you personally have something against WTC victims seeking justice for the loss of their loved ones?



What is down there between WTC1 and Winter Garden to 'fling debris' or 'randomly deflect off of'? Nothing. West Street and a parking lot. 603 feet is a long way away. 4 ton steel pieces do not float in the air like a feather or paper glider. There were no buildings down there. If you bother to look, there are several structural steel exterior wall sections stuck in the American Express Building up at the 15th floor. There is a huge piece weighing many tons down near ground level.

The research of WTC family member Josef Princiotta indicated that these 4 ton exterior wall sections were hurled in 360 degree directions on both towers for over 500 feet during the demolitions. Something besides gravity hurled them 600 feet.




C.S.I. 9/11 by Josef Princiotta




[edit on 10/29/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

Do you personally have something against WTC victims seeking justice for the loss of their loved ones?

In the future, you might want to present your evidence in a logical and clear manner without placing these inflammatory statements. It is quite possible to disagree with your assumptions without "being against the WTC victims". Just because I don't happen to see your evidence as particularly convincing does not mean that I do not care about the families and the loved ones of the 9-11 tragedy. In fact, I had a friend who died in the collapse of the WTC. While I don't ask for sympathy for this... I also don't use it as a crutch to further my own claims.

posted by SPreston
Do you personally have something against WTC victims seeking justice for the loss of their loved ones?

posted by Amniodarone
In the future, you might want to present your evidence in a logical and clear manner without placing these inflammatory statements. It is quite possible to disagree with your assumptions without "being against the WTC victims". Just because I don't happen to see your evidence as particularly convincing does not mean that I do not care about the families and the loved ones of the 9-11 tragedy. In fact, I had a friend who died in the collapse of the WTC. While I don't ask for sympathy for this... I also don't use it as a crutch to further my own claims.

Well you just did, didn't you? Perhaps you neglected to read a previous post directed at me by Mr thedman. I presented the work of a WTC family member, seeking JUSTICE which seems totally UNAVAILABLE to the victims of 9-11, for the loss of his loved ones, and Mr thedman accused ME of lying. Obviously Mr thedman's hostility was really directed at Josef Princiotta who has compiled this evidence of destruction of the WTC Towers by demolition, wasn't it? That was the reason for my question which you took issue with.

And I have since seen fit to aid Mr thedman in improving his measurement skills. Incorrect assumptions can sometimes be quite embarrassing.

posted by thedman
Why are you lying again?

Aerial map of WTC site

external image

The Winter Garden is at the center left (round domed building) between
Merrill Lynch and American Express (WFC 3)

Another map of area

external image

WTC 7 to the north is 350 ft from North Tower - was heavily damaged
by debris from North Tower. Winter Garden is only half the distance
the walkway to WTC 6 was smashed by the collpase.

[edit on 10/30/08 by SPreston]

North Tower Exploding

A clip of the North Tower shows abundant evidence of explosive demolition that is not adequately explained by the official narrative.

by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics



Original video

Damning evidence of demolition





[edit on 10/30/08 by SPreston]

Core was blown from the inside out

Thank you James M Gartenberg for your last words to us. Here is the proof of what you phoned us about, even though the Mainstream News Media prostitutes and their 9-11 controllers you were talking to did not want us to hear your words. We will remember you and those who were deliberately murdered with you by the traitors in our midst.



Original video

North Tower Exploding

A clip of the North Tower shows abundant evidence of explosive demolition that is not adequately explained by the official narrative.

by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics



Original video

Damning evidence of demolition - Yes we see now James Gartenberg.



From the Jim Gartenberg video

Jim: . . . . part of the core of the building is blown out . . .

. . . . . . .

Female anchor: What time did you get to work?

Jim: I got to work around 8 o'clock this morning, and . . I think this happened about 8:45.

Female anchor: It did. Describe what you felt.

Jim: I felt .. eh .. I felt . . just the whole build .. I heard a noise, felt the building shake, saw glass blown out.
The glass on my floor was blown out from the inside of the building out; rather than the exterior windows being blown out.

Female anchor: What were you

Jim: the glass fully shattered with the core of the building .. ehh .. and the interior core, ehh part of the building collapsed.

Female anchor: SILENCE
Male anchor: SILENCE

Jim: hello

Anchors: Nothing but silence

Ignore this important caller from WTC 1, the North Tower

Censor the information from the American public - Isn't that what the MSM is good for?

Propaganda - Drama - Censorship - Disinformation - Absolute Control?

Here is mathametical calculations of the explosives
www.journalof911studies.com...www.journalof911studies.com... GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

Claims have been made that there is no direct proof that explosions occurred in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but there are in fact visible photographs of collapse results that provide that proof. One such photograph posted in late 2005 is shown in Figure 1, which shows the rapidly expanding cloud of the North Tower that directly exhibits
explosions shattering material with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying in the air at the edge of the dust cloud. However, there is also a whole set of photographs posted on the web which can be shown through physics calculations to graphically exhibit the direct effects of explosions in the World Trade Center towers, yet these facts have not
been previously investigated. Figure 1.
In summary, a number of photographs show the destructive impacts of explosions on many vehicles, such as those of Figure 2 and 3, as well as on a several nearby buildings in the vicinity of the towers. Calculations using a range of estimates from observations show the destruction from these explosions range up to 1/4 mile or more in most directions. These
strongly enhance the evidence presented in previous studies, such the photo in Figure 1 which shows the rapidly expanding huge dust clouds from the towers resulting from massive pulverization of the non-metallic parts of the towers in mid-air, along with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying through the air on their rim. All of them provide dramatic examples of the devastation of the explosions in the World Trade
Center towers 6 years ago.

Here is evidence, proof, testimony, math, pictures of expolsives.

Originally posted by exponent
Are you familiar with a principle known as the inverse square law?

Exponent, what is the law of inverse square?

How do you think that would apply to the explosives being set off in such a scenario?

SPreston, keep up the good investigations that deny ignorance.
Throat Yogurt will be here soon.
When the towers first began to fall there were 4 ton pieces of wall section that immediately were ejected at speeds up to 100+ feet per second. That velocity is greater than the initial speed of the falling top of the towers.
The kinetic energy could not have imparted the velocity of 100+ fps upon the 4 ton wall sections.

edit content slightly


[edit on 2-11-2008 by fmcanarney]

posted by fmcanarney
Here is mathametical calculations of the explosives
www.journalof911studies.com...www.journalof911studies.com... GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

Claims have been made that there is no direct proof that explosions occurred in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but there are in fact visible photographs of collapse results that provide that proof. One such photograph posted in late 2005 is shown in Figure 1, which shows the rapidly expanding cloud of the North Tower that directly exhibits
explosions shattering material with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying in the air at the edge of the dust cloud. However, there is also a whole set of photographs posted on the web which can be shown through physics calculations to graphically exhibit the direct effects of explosions in the World Trade Center towers, yet these facts have not
been previously investigated. Figure 1.
In summary, a number of photographs show the destructive impacts of explosions on many vehicles, such as those of Figure 2 and 3, as well as on a several nearby buildings in the vicinity of the towers. Calculations using a range of estimates from observations show the destruction from these explosions range up to 1/4 mile or more in most directions. These
strongly enhance the evidence presented in previous studies, such the photo in Figure 1 which shows the rapidly expanding huge dust clouds from the towers resulting from massive pulverization of the non-metallic parts of the towers in mid-air, along with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying through the air on their rim. All of them provide dramatic examples of the devastation of the explosions in the World Trade
Center towers 6 years ago.

Here is evidence, proof, testimony, math, pictures of expolsives.

Massive tower core structure was apparently shattered with powerful explosives



Yes indeed. Here is a huge many tonned piece comprised of multiple 4-ton exterior wall sections still welded and bolted together, headed for the WTC 6 building or American Express building or Winter Garden building, over 500 feet away from the North Tower. This piece was from near the upper portion of the tower, long before the energy from the alleged gravity collapse was fully generated. This was accomplished by explosive energy of some nature, apparently emanating in all directions from the massive tower core structure, which a true investigation into 9-11 should attempt to ascertain.

Damning evidence of demolition (see video posted above)
A huge piece of exterior wall section hurled with great force away from WTC 1

C.S.I. 9/11 by Josef Princiotta

Josef Princiotta – Cousin of Firefighter Vincent Princiotta, FDNY, Ladder Company 7, Manhattan, lost in the collapse of the WTC South Tower.

Nearly everything pulverized including the trapped victims and firefighters EXCEPT
the heavy structural steel hurled in every direction for over 500 feet






[edit on 11/2/08 by SPreston]

Exponent, what is the law of inverse square??
Please describe it to me or better yet put it in writing.
I would love to learn the law of inverse square.

reply to post by fmcanarney


If I may butt in, the inverse square law fairly universally applies to all omnidirectional energy sources, including explosions. This is highschool stuff and I'd frankly be amazed if anyone beyond that level has never heard of it.

Of course you could get around the implied limitations by prescribing linear shaped charges (LSCs) which provide directional blasts. In the case of the WTC, there is no evidence of charges of either type being used unfortunately.

Blast damage potential initially falls off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed.

After the release wave, the shock front will propagate proportional to one over the distance squared.

reply to post by fmcanarney


Which brings us to the requirement for such a blast to be very close to the member which is being displaced and only one surface of the 3 dimensional object would be subjected to that explosive force. Unless the explosive source was the exact shape and size of that exposed surface plus in intimate overall contact then we have to increase the size of the blast to compensate for the wasted force due to the angle of the impulse effect from a point source smaller than the target member.

To achieve the claimed horizontal acceleration of a 4+ tonne mass (some of the ejected sections appear to be much heavier than that) would take an insanely large explosion and that's just for a single ejection. Perhaps you could point out just one of these huge, and I mean gigantic, blasts in any of the many videos.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
To achieve the claimed horizontal acceleration of a 4+ tonne mass (some of the ejected sections appear to be much heavier than that) would take an insanely large explosion and that's just for a single ejection.

I don't understand the point that you are trying to make here, Pilgrum.

You're stating that large explosions would be required to accelerate the mass horizontally, right? You are almost certainly confidant that explosives were not used, right?

Yet, the large masses did end up where they were, everyone can agree as to where the wreckage was located post collapse. So, according to you, they ended up there, without the use of explosives, right?

According to you, given that the large masses ended up where they were, without explosives, then why would you claim that a large explosion would be required to move the masses to where they were?

I don't get it? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Can you explain what you mean, please?

[edit on 2-11-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


I thought it was reasonably clear

IF the ejections were caused by explosions, the explosions would need to be huge IE not capable of being the subject of argument over whether they did or didn't happen.

We see no evidence of such explosions so I'm suggesting the mechanism by which these heavy parts of the buildings were displaced horizontally has to be something other than explosives.

Throatyoghurt has kindly posted a couple of clearer videos in a recent thread which might yield some better clues - they certainly don't provide any support for the use of explosive charges.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I thought it was reasonably clear

Nah, mate, it's far from being clear. It's really contradictory.

IF the ejections were caused by explosions, the explosions would need to be huge

Maybe, maybe not. For the sake of the argument, we'll accept it as being true, until we read your next quote...

We see no evidence of such explosions so I'm suggesting the mechanism by which these heavy parts of the buildings were displaced horizontally has to be something other than explosives.

This is where you contradict yourself. You claim that the ejections could only be caused by large explosions, if explosives were used, but they ended up where they were without ANY explosives being used at all.

You're happy to claim that some other 'mechanism' was capable of the ejections, therefore making explosions redundant. Therefore, any explosives that may have been used would not need to be large, as you claim that a 'natural collapse' sequence would entirely account for the ejections.

Perhaps, there may have been smaller charges used to blow certain joins or beams. As you stated, smaller explosions would not eject the masses to where they landed, as a natural collapse sequence can manage that all on its own.

Can you see your contradiction or not? You indirectly allow the possibility of smaller charges being used, by blatantly stating that only large explosives could have made the ejections, if the entire collapse was due to explosives.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw

You claim that the ejections could only be caused by large explosions, if explosives were used, but they ended up where they were without ANY explosives being used at all.

Actually the claim goes back a bit further than that - the thread is ' Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof' and the only evidence of this is the horizontal distance travelled itself with zero evidence of the explosions capable of doing that.

You sound close to accepting that it could happen with 'redundant' explosive influence so all you need to do now is extend that level of redundancy down to the point where no explosives at all are required.

Take a look at the newly posted video of the WTC1 collapse and you'll see a massive intact section of the outer wall toppling out and guess where it's headed - directly at the Winter Garden area.

I’m sure that you’re familiar with the technique called Proof By Contradiction, right? Here’s how it works…


Your proposition: If explosives were present and hurled 4 ton sections, then they must have been large.

Your proof: No large explosions were observed.

Your conclusion: Large explosives were not necessary to hurl 4 ton sections. A ‘natural collapse’ sequence was sufficient.

My corollary: Given that a natural collapse sequence was sufficient then any explosives that may have been present were redundant.

My conclusion: If all explosives were redundant, then they still could have been present, although not necessary. If there was no evidence for large explosions, then there could only have been smaller explosives present, although not necessary.

The contradiction: From my conclusion, there could have been smaller explosives present, however, this contradicts your proposition that any explosives present, must have been large.


Once a contradiction has been shown, it follows that the initial proposition must have been false. In other words, your assumption that any explosives present, must have been large is false.

There is a logical possibility that there could have been smaller explosives placed throughout the towers.

Note, I am not stating that there were, or were not explosives placed in the towers. I don’t know how the towers collapsed. I’m not making claims that I can’t support.

However, it’s clear that your claim about any explosives being present, must be large, is false – as shown by using the proof detailed above. There remains the possibility that smaller explosives could have been present inside the towers.


[edit on 3-11-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw

My conclusion: If all explosives were redundant, then they still could have been present, although not necessary. If there was no evidence for large explosions, then there could only have been smaller explosives present, although not necessary.

You're taking a roundabout route to arrive somewhere close to what I was saying in terms of the OP's 'Evidence of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections' - there really is nothing to support that. We have good evidence of 'hurling' and that's about it, the rest is conjecture.

There *could* have been things exploding in there - it commonly happens in large fires after all but if the building was in a sufficiently weakened state to succumb to explosions weak enough to essentially escape detection (externally) we have to remain open to the possibility it could also have failed without them.

The horizontal distance travelled by the debris sounds sensational until the relative height and proximity of the towers is considered.