High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11

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.
(On a technical note, if you are looking at the numbers in the three measurements, the third measurement is taken while the video was zoomed in, relative to the calibration frame. The numbers shown have to be scaled down by a factor of 1.701 to give the stated results.)

UP and OUT

There are examples of up and out ejections, easily seen on the WTC2 collapse taken from West Street north of the complex, that ended up across West Street in the World Financial Center.

No gravitational collapse could send objects UP. This is evidence of explosives.

We can see debris ejected up and away from WTC7 also.

We had an entire exterior panel three stories tall from WTC1 end up on Cedar and West. This panel had over 110 very robust bolted connections that had to fail simultaneously for it to fly that far. This supposedly happened upon Flight 11's impact,. But shredded aircraft debris traveling from the north face, through the central core, could not eject an entire panel that was part of the south face.

Very good work, Mr. Chandler. Thank you.

A question about up and out

Doesn't the degree of the arc that the objects coming up and out also tell us something about how much energy was applied to achieve it? It's been over 15 years since I last used any calculus and even then, I only got a C+ :o| It just doesn't seem credible to say that these are "flexing" and "springing" up and out. That's preposterous. Steel bends, it does not snap back like rubber. Of course, NIST doesn't make this claim in their report, this is just very bad conjecture from desparate protecters of the OCT who cannot come to grips with what they are seeing.

Thanks for any input.

peace all.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"No building collapse that exhibits all the criteria of a controlled demolition, has ever NOT been a controlled demolition."
-- David Ray Griffin


I am more than 50 years past my calculus but do remember a bit of physics.
Significant horizontal movement alone would seem rule out a gravity collapse. With all force gravitational, then all initial movement would have to be downward. Wouldn't it then be the case that all horizontal moments of force would have to result from collisions between falling masses of different velocities and resulting different trajectories? Any large horizontal movement, such as that observed, would have to come from an accelerated mass striking a stationary, unyielding mass and obliquely rebounding, it would seem. And that would be impossible in the near-free-fall time and symmetrical nature of the destruction.
I would appreciate any correction should I be seriously wrong in this.

Hey David, nice to see you on

Hey David, nice to see you on 911blogger again.

You are the Copernicus of the 911 Truth Movement!

8th Grade questions. Analogies

This is cool data, and of course, we all know the Towers were blown.
Could you help out by giving some comparison examples (and perhaps implications)?
I was trying to think of relative comparisons of tossing or throwing or "shooting" an object out... ...like throwing a baseball and its velocity, but I couldn't toss straight out a 100 pound weight much less 4 tons. I was trying to get some comparative analogies, but I just don't come up with any good examples relative to the force/speed. I thought of a huge cannon, but speeds are different. I even thought of driving a fully loaded Ford Truck straight out at 80mph.

I hate sounding silly or stupid, but if you can think of some comparisons or analogies it will help me in digesting the significance of the forces involved.


Get a pencil, place it on top of the edge of a table, hold it at the tip, then lift your hand up and let if fall over and make a note of where it lands. Then flip that pencil in the middle or at the base and see where it lands. I've seen students get the point (pardon the pun) when viewing the and comparing the evidence in this fashion. You may want to get the numbers behind something of that nature as I'm not a physics master.

What is the matter with all the other physics teachers?

Are they stupid? Or just terrified?

I emailed two physics teachers at my local high school district saying that I wanted to discuss a physics problem with them. Neither of them responded.

Okay - now that I got that off my chest ---- Could David reach his fellow physics teachers through his teachers' association? David has real clout as he got NIST to retract a false measurement and adopt his correction of their work.

I am just an ordinary fool who knows that things fall down - not sideways. No one listens to me.