Can photos/videos prove demolition?

[Craig W]

This maybe a stupid question, so don't be too harsh if it is.

In many of the photos of the collapsing Twin Towers there are plumes of debris that appear to be moving upwards. (I know we will all have seen these kind of photos but I can't find any links to them at the moment - please post away if you have suitable examples.)

Well, I was wondering whether it was possible to tell conclusively whether tany debris really did move uwards from the photo sequences and video films available. (Is anyone aware of any such analysis?) And if so would that constitute proof of some form of demolition?

Or is it possible that debris can be ejected upward from a building simply falling down?

[marky 54]

all we can do is look for simular trademarks for CD, that dos'nt mean it was CD but if the trademarks are identical then it has to be a suspected method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
the flashes are spot on IMO, compare them to a known demolition below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

can this be moved to controversies, no matter how you answer the question of the first post its going to be supporting a theory others disagee with.

[Craig W]

As far as I am concerned, marky, this is a physics and a video/photo analysis question not a controlled demolition question. I don't think my questions assume any particular method of demolition.

I am just trying to find out if it is possible to establish whether any of the debris was ejected upwards and if so would that constitute proof of demolition or could that be explained via a gravity-powered collapse.

Does anyone know?

[rodin]

I would say yes. You can show video collapse @ free-fall speed plus ejection of debris. Freefall speed only possible if no resistance. Lateral ejection of debris requires that some gravitational energy is converted into deformation, fragmentation or vector change (from down) by falling structure hitting something. Or by explosives. Hitting something = resistance = slowing down. Hence the collapses had energy input. How much I would leave to the serious physical engineers. Some say 10x gravity potential based on dust analysis.

Note I did not even have to prove pulverisation to prove that this was an energy-assisted collapse, not merely gravitational. The pulverised dust is additional proof of energy input (and analysis of the dust will be a major factor in quantifying the energy input), but it is not video proof.

[telecasterisation]

There has never been a period in history where photographs can be held up as being definitive proof of anything;







In these days of electronic manipulation it is impossible to quote any image as 'gospel';

This now extends to all videos and photos, 911 being an excellent case in point. All associated imagery, moving or still should be treated with utmost suspicion and never cited as 'proof' of anything.

Alexander O'Neal should never be ignored.

[Craig W]

I know what you mean, Tele, and I have some sympathy with your view.

Perhaps, proof is too strong a word. How about: Can photo/video evidence help provide very strong evidence of assisted collapse by indicating that debris travelled upwards (and perhaps outwards) in a way not in accordance with a purely gravity-driven process?

[Craig W]

tele, what about photos/videos widely regarded as true and from sources used by those who support (or at least don't question) the OGCT?

If we could find evidence of upward debris not consistent with a purely gravity driven process would that not constitute strong evidence?

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

IMO you need more than just photo's and video to prove debris moving up are coursed by CD.

you need to explain all the laws of physics which apply in both normal and controlled collapses, and what happens to the debris moving upward in each case.

one clue for me though is that if the debris are moving up in a normal collapse this suggests resistance, which we know there was'nt much of if any. if the debris were moving up in a CD it would'nt need resistance because it is being propelled by another force from a certain point.

so i suppose no you car'nt prove it by video/photos alone, you can only show simularites and reasons why you should suspect it.

inorder to prove it you would need to add content on all the techincal stuff and demonstrate the laws of physic. which would'nt be just video and pictures.

[rodin]

You can prove it in the case of WTC as per my earlier posts. While I share Tele's scepticism about video/photo/audio evidence, it does not apply here. Here's why.

1) Many people filmed the same event from all sort of angles
2) Videos come from multiple certifiable sources including real-time broadcasts that were captured.
3) Apart from a few deliberately altered videos, the bulk do show what happened.
4) By measuring the collapse speed from the film you can show that the buildings fell very close to free-fall speed in a vacuum. The minor discrepancy (less than 10% in 2 out of 3 cases) can be accounted for by air resistance. (In fact I think I read on a physics forum that at least one, maybe 2 buildings collapsed faster than free-fall in air).

So there you have it. Proof of controlled CD from just MSM broadcast. If you can't get a result with evidence like that, what can you?

(For freefall v resistance argument re-read my earlier post on this.)

[marky 54]

of course the freefall collapse explains it, but if your focusing on debris moving upward you cannot prove this factor was CD as opposed to natural just by using a photo or video.

anyway i think it all needs to be focused on and provided as one, concentrating on one factor only ie:debris moving upwards makes a weaker case than all the factors witnessed in the collapses.

the freefall scenerio is the strongest point, but when accompanied with all the other factors it is irrefutable that CD needs to be looked into as the reason for the collapses.

freefall
falshes
debris moving upward
witnesses hearing explosions in differant parts of the buildings
etc etc

spliting them into a seperate events makes it easier for people to come up with lame excuses, this is impossible when you provide all the information as one.

for example how can freefall(no resistance) provide so many upward moving debris?(needs resistance). answering each point seperate you can come up with lame excuses but together they kind of cancel out any arguement.

how did the building end up at freefall?

ok so what caused the resistance for all the upward moving debris?

but how would the building end up at freefall if that was the case because this point alone suggests no resistance great enough to cause that many upward moving debris?

anyone coming up with lame explainations would be contridicting themselves to explain each point whilst trying to maintain it was a natural collapse. its the exact reason why nist did'nt touch this part of the collapse.

[Craig W]

I wasn't suggesting that there wasn't other evidence within the collapses, marky.

I was just trying to focus on the upward debris question, as a discreet problem, ato see if that could be proved and if so whether that would constitute evidence of assisted demolition.

If:
- upward debris (not just dust but material like steel or concrete) could be proven
- and could not occur in a normal gravity-driven process

then that would prove assisted demolition, without need for any corroborating evidence.

Does anyone know whether it is possible for steel/concrete to move upwards in a gravity-driven demoltion?

Does anyone know if it is possible to analyse photos/videos to be sure that the images presented (whether faked or not) show upward movement of heavy debris?

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLXn0w3ZmOc&mode=related&search=

also see eyewitness video on the front page which goes into to debris propulsion and upward movement.