This is the closeup video of the South Tower's collapse. Watch it very closely. Around :19-:21 seconds you can see human bodies either being blown out and falling or jumping out when its zoomed in. O_o

Two people apparently get blown out of the tower when whatever floor they're on is blown and they fall like ragdolls into demolition wave below. There also is someone who jumps out at the last minute but since the tower is fallning at freefall speed he is jumping into the cloud and rides it all the way to the ground.

Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?

http://investigate911.se/southtower.html

point it out for us. Use the paint application

Thats understandable seeing as there was huge explosions going on right behind them, but in the video I couldnt distinguish between people and debris...I dont really want to see that kind of thing anyway.

I think he's talking about something dark that comes out of the left face right about the 17 second mark. Although it seems to come right out of the place with a big raging fire, so that makes me think it probably isn't really a person. Don't know though.

http://i8.tinypic.com/52mj3sw.jpg

OK, in this picture the people aren't in view yet. I'm circling the area you need to watch. The video is fuzzy as it is, but can clearly see two people being blown out and falling like ragdolls. You can distinguish the head, flailing arms.

http://i17.tinypic.com/4mtgp7d.jpg

In this picture you can see an explosion and a bulge coming out of the cloud of debris. It's two people being blown outward and away from the tower, then falling (like they're already unconscious) into the demolition wave below. I have circled the area of interest.

http://i10.tinypic.com/5xr6otf.jpg

In this final picture, the two bodies are clearly visible. You can see heads, a shirt, arms and legs. They look and act much differently than falling steel and I've seen enough collapse videos to know the difference between the two.


The times at which I froze the videos are in the picture, so you will be able to see it much better if you watch the video and pay attention to the area I've circled.

This is yet another gruesome reality of 9/11 hidden in plain sight just like the rest of the crime.

I guess no one wants to touch this with a 10 foot pole. It is pretty disturbing.

Not really, you can't actually see anything.

i watched the video and i think i saw it its like 2 bodies just being flung out once the buldings collapses. its right in the middle of the screen when you watch it.. theres no need to zoom in

Time to get a grasp on actual science, Whistleblower -

1. If the tower was falling at "freefall", a person falling through the air would travel slower than large metal components (being smaller and less dense)

2. How come large lumps of both towers managed to fall faster than the progression of the collapse zone?



That is to say - you don't really understand the idea of freefall, or of objects falling through a viscous medium (such as air), do you?

Anyway, that video shows undeniably the explosions blowing the whole thing out. The explosions blow out at great speed.

Explosions usually send things out in perpendicular angles across three axies.

What you see is a building being weakened from the inside out.

Actually the size and density of a falling object should have no bearing on how it falls. Remember Gallileo.

The only thing which would make a difference is the aerodynamic properties of the falling object.

If you take a 12 inch bar made of wood, a 12 inch bar made of Steel and a 12 inch loaf made of bread wrapped tightly in cling film so it doesn't fallapart.

All three would fall in exactly the same manner and exactly the same speed. Because they are exactly the same shape. their density and weight would be totally different.

whereas if you take 100kg of steel shaped like a bar and 100kg of steel shaped like a rectangular sheet half an inch thick, they would be the same density and weight but would fall at vastly differing speeds.

This follows that if a 36 foot section of steel from the WTC tower was falling to the ground a man's body would fall at a very similar rate. Unless he had the foresight to be equipped with a parachute. Even waggling his arms and legs would make very little difference. A strong loose coat would probably make a difference but not enough to slow down his speed enough to save him.

Utterly wrong. Look it up.

Ok, I think I can offer an explanation. There needs to be some mention of terminal velocity.

The objects described above would all accelerate at the same rate. In a vacuum they would all fall at the same velocity. In atmosphere, they all have different terminal velocity, but all undergo the same acceleration. A steel bar will definitely fall faster than an equal volume of bread because the steel has more mass. From Newton's law, F=ma, more mass means more friction (force), or in this case drag (force), is needed to slow the object. From another of Newton's laws, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, air just doesn't have the force required to slow steel as it does bread. You cannot hit a fly out of the air with more inertia than it already possess.

Simply put, in an atmosphere, density, mass and aerodynamic structure play a major role in overall velocity during free fall. Only acceleration due to gravity is constant, which is, I think, what Galileo's work refers to, not velocity.

Given equal volumes of steel or bread in free fall, I'm looking to catch the bread.

Equal masses however...

The footage was not shot in a lab, and without actual calculations of velocity, this is all a bit moot. The difference in terminal velocity might not show up until much later in a fall.

No. The acceleration - in air - is different from the moment they start falling. This is because the effect of drag is proportional to mass.

Take 2 ping-pong balls. Fill one with water with a syringe. Drop them from a height. The water-filled ball will pull away from the empty ball from the outset.

Or take an extreme case if you like - a 6" soap bubble vs a 6" steel ball covered in soap film, dropped in still air. The only variable is mass.

The primary factor is atmosphere. In the atmosphere, things that have a bigger mass-to-surface ratio will fall faster than those that are big, but lightweight. The shape of the object is also important, as we have to deal with resistance from air.

Pretty Dramatic.

It's debris. Any individual would have been vaporised by the initial crash into
the building. Only thing you would really see - if you could see it would ashes
of people.

Hmmm, how do bullets work then?

Drag is proportional to velocity.

Aren't you confusing bouyancy with drag?

LOL, oh boy, more of this 'truth movement' physics I see.

Drag is proportional to area and velocity.

You also have yet to give any proof that a steel girder and human body would fall at any decernablely different rate. You can say aerodynamic differences, but you have to show there is a differnce.

The towers did not fall at anything close to a 'free-fall' rate. Debris falling on the side hit the ground 30 to 40 floors before the pancaking collapse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...essive_collapse

so in other words if u drop a bowling ball from the 93rd story it reaches the ground in 8.61 seconds (as long as nothing is in its way), or if u drop one from 81 stories it reaches the ground in 7.91 seconds. this their measurement of freefall time (93 and 81 are the number of floors below the lowest point of the impacts).


now, they say the collapses took 57.7 and 42 percent longer than freefall, but in reality this is merely a few seconds of difference:

12.74 (actual collapse) minus 8.61 (freefall) = 4.13 seconds longer than freefall

10.52 (actual collapse) minus 7.91 (freefall) = 2.61 seconds longer than freefall


so thats how much resistance was offerred by the sections of the buildings, below the impact locations (when compared to freefall speed). specifically:

4.13 (seconds) divided by 93 (stories) = 0.044 seconds of resistance per floor

2.61 (seconds) divided by 81 (stories) = 0.032 seconds of resistance per floor

(im saying that the 4.13 and 2.61 seconds extra that transpired could be divided by the number of floors involved, to account for how many milliseconds longer than freefall it took each floor to fall.)

yes the difference between freefall VS crashing your way thru 93 or 81 stories took only fractions of a second, uniformly and at a constant speed the whole way down, all the way around the entire buildings. never slowing down, never meeting anything but "minimal resistance" (as specified above), despite the fact that the lower u go, the bigger, the thicker, and the stronger are the core steel support columns.

so to me, because the damage was uniform all the way around (all four sides and everything in between coming evenly "undone"), and because the descent never slowed (constant speed all the way down), and due to the shortness of the overall "collapse" duration, the towers are suspect fof having had "help". in my unprofessional and only minimally educated opinion: all the various connections that held the building together could not come "undone" in the fashion they did, in the short time they did, unless something was able to uniformly and super-efficiently UNDO these connections (in milliseconds).


but im no physicist or structural engineer, so my opinion/deduction is only worth so much. perhaps only 2 cents...

:P