Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

As for pancaking, there had to have been pancaking of the floors. I mean honestly, where are the floors going to go? disappear? The HAD to pancake onto each other. As to this being the main cause of collapse is doubtful, once the collapse initiated, the floors had to pancake onto each other al the way down. The WTC didnt "pancake" into itself. Over all it telescoped into itself. the floors did end up pancaking, but over all, the whole tower telescoped.

Show me the study that states pancaking occured.

Show me the photos of the stacked floors at the base of the rubble.

Explain where the core structure ended up. Here's a pretty picture
of the important core that you (and Mackey) are forgetting:

whatreallyhappened.com...
911.yweb.sk...
www.rinf.com...

Kinda tough to "telescope" with all of those core columns down the center
of the building.

wake up.

reply to post by impressme


You have asked many questions but may not have understood the answers. I have shown how the Jones paper is in error and explained it in detail. I have shown how the analytical techniques were faulty or incorrect. I have shown how conclusions are not based on fact.

Why don't you point out where I am incorrect and show how the Jones team is correct? For starters you should be able to find such support on the web that will allow you to explain the advantages of running the DSC in air and how measuring resistivity and effects of a solvent on an complex unknown is a good analytical technique. If you can't find anything to suport Jones, you could always send him a note. Many scientists are sending him notes about his latest paper.

reply to post by pteridine

You have asked many questions but may not have understood the answers. Ihave shown how the Jones paper is in error and explained it in detail. I have shown how the analytical techniques were faulty or incorrect. I have shown how conclusions are not based on fact.

You have only given us your opinions, supported by nothing. I have asked you many times to give some scientific sources to back up your claims. You are saying that your opinions are the facts. You have ridiculed Professor Jones report, and insulted his integrity. Why all this hostility against Pro Jones? What has Jones done to you?

Here are some of the questions that I have asked you early on and you refused to give me any answers, but only to make a ridiculous statement that I do not understand anything.

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, and what politics are these people following?

I am still waiting for your reply maybe I have missed your answer somewhere.

Would you care to demonstrate that Jones doesn’t practice good science?

I am still waiting for your answer.

Show some proof of your accusations. I do not see any facts here to support your claims. Where is this fraud that you mention, or are you just spouting your opinions again.

I am still waiting for this answer or have you just posted it, or did I just misunderstand your answer? Could you please direct me to your post where you answered this question thank you?

Is Jones so blinded by his desire for the limelight that he would falsify conclusions or is he just completely incompetent?

Would you care to back up your statements with some facts of Pro Jones falsifying conclusion? Incompetent? You have to be kidding right!

I am still waiting for you to post some facts with your sources to show that Professor Jones “falsifying conclusion” and I am still waiting for proof that Pro Jones is “incompetent”.

He seems to write conclusions, throw in some fancy analytical work to impress those who have no expertise in the area, and then hop on a soapbox to proclaim the "truth."

This is nothing but your opinion, and your desperate attempts to sabotage Pro Jones’ creditability; where is your proof?

I never got an answer for that one ether, of how Jones throws in some fancy analytical work to impress the experts, or how Jones jump on the soapbox to proclaim “truth”.

The conclusions that Jones arrives at are completely unsupported by evidence and his analytical protocol ranges from faulty to nonexistent.

Jones, et al., flunked the exam.
Really, why don’t you demonstrate just how Professor Jones conclusions are completely unsupported by his own science? (Oh that’s right you can’t!)

I still have not gotten an answer on this one ether sad thing is all these question are from one post. (Oh, I get it, I didn’t understand!)

I have critiqued the paper and pointed out the shortcomings throughout these posts. If you do not understand the paper or the critique, please ask specific questions and I will explain them to you in more detail.

I did ask specific questions, and you ignore me, I am still waiting.

Earlier you said "Really, why don’t you demonstrate just how Professor Jones conclusions are completely unsupported by his own science? (Oh that’s right you can’t!)

I can and already did.

How confusing, I can uh! I mean, I will. You did neither; I am still waiting for your answers with some facts that are supported by science with sources and links.

What qualifies you to make the determination that Jones’ science was wrong?

You still have not answered this one for me still waiting.

Why don’t you let us know your background that gives you the knowledge and ability to critique Jones or any scientist.

Just curious, what scientific papers of yours have been published and by which organizations or universities? Of course, I know you will provide links.

You still have not answered these two questions that I have ask of you. If you want people to take you seriously when it comes to debating scientific journals, then you need to show were you are getting your sources from, and answer peoples questions, and be respectful to other people feelings, and ideas, and opinions.

Ask him how the control sample releases less energy than the paint chip in air...

I'm still waiting for Jones' reply BTW.

reply to post by impressme


I have explained, in great detail, why Jones' paper is bad science. If you do not understand the explanations and must have an internet reference for every statement I make, you will be disappointed. I do not use the internet as a primary source. In this case, I used many years experience in the fields of analytical and organic chemistry. If you want a consensus by other scientists that it is bad science, you have only to read sources other than somebody-for-911truth websites. You will probably not see much of this in the mainstream press because many scientists have more important things to do than to pay attention to the rants of the fringe. Essentially, Jones is on permanent ignore by the scientific world. I take exception to their positions and feel that someone should set the record straight on all fronts, including ATS. I am likely wasting my time but I must deny ignorance whenever I can.
I will be gone for a week so you may save your criticisms for when I return. Ciao.

reply to post by turbofan


Are you serious? I mean really?

amny.image2.trb.com...

www.stevespak.com...

www.stevespak.com...

I do not understand what is so hard to get here. Logic dictates that the floors had to go somewhere and logically speaking the only way they fell is down. And when all the floors go down, they will end up stacking onto each other. This is not a "theory" or "an idea" it is what happened.

As for the core? What do you think? It also fell apart. I mean I hate to sound like an a$$ but DUH? A large part survived for a few seconds before it also fell down. I can obviously see that you have a very limited understanding of something so complicated as a 110 story building collapse. I mean a normal person would understand, the building fell apart. The floors fell, the exterior fell apart, and the core columns did as well. Are you suggesting that the core magically disappeared? Just poof! Vanished into nothing? I can respect people being skeptical about certain things, but once it starts to get rediculus like this, it starts getting a little old.

Again I can see that you are a little lacking in the understanding of the design of the WTC. When the towers telescoped down, what can the core do when it also fails? Or are you forgetting the fact that the floors were essentially huge open spaces which would allow for the tower to collapse into itself like that? Are you forgetting the fact that the core beams were much much thinner at the highest floors then at the sublevels? This means that once the tower started to move down, nothing would have stopped it once it fell 10-20 stories.

are you suggesting that the top of the tower was suppose to just fall off like a tree? NOW I can tell you have no clue how the Towers were designed, and your lack of physics knowledge is quite telling. For the top of the tower to have snapped and fallen off to the side as your are suggesting, there would have had to of been a force applied at the top of the tower towards the side. However, when you watch the video, you see one side sag into the tower, and tilts, the opposite side acts like a HINGE on which the tower tilts down, and then the hinge breaks and the initial lateral movement is stopped and the vertical movement becomes the dominant move. Once the collapse of the top begins, its getting torn apart from plowing into the top of the remaining tower structure. THATS why it looks like it disintigrating from the bottom because THAT is where it is encountering the rest of the structure and the forces are tearing it up. The top is collapsing into it and it gets swallowed up the dust and debris. I mean it doesnt take a freaking rocket scientist to understand this little bit of logic.

Its funny, you redcule me, and nitpick away, and yet you take "Dr." Jones' embarrassment of an analytical paper, and consider it God's truth, immaculate, and unblemished. You redicule the thousands of reputable, honerable, intelligent professionals that have studied the WTCs in the NIST reports and claim they made tons and tons of mistakes, and yet you dont even blink a questionable eye at the massives flaws in the alleged therm*te "analysis", and take it as unspoiled and flawless. I mean one must wonder if you are truely interested in the truth, or more interested in the preconcieved notions posing as "truth".

And no, there is no "hint" of explosives ANYWHERE in the samples. Finding aluminum and iron oxides in this mess is like finding carbon dust in a coal mine. And even when its THIS obvious you have to ignore it all and still stick with the flawed analysis, so filled with mistakes that a high school chem teacher would automatically fail the student for such poor shoddy work.

You can show your pictures all you want, all they show is the top section of the tower collapsing into the rest of the tower. Thats it. Collapse initiated, and all the way down. Unfortunately you cannot use critical thinking for 5 seconds and figure out that the top of the tower is already behind the huge dust and debris cloud, but somehow there just have to explosives somewhere in there. Even though there is no evidence whatsoever. I thought therm*te isnt an explosive. I mean which is it?

Originally posted by EvilAxis
10,000 gallons of aviation fuel might well be enough to burn a wooden object like a tree to a cinder, but no amount of aviation fuel will cause a tree to implode from top to bottom into a pile of sawdust and sticks.

So what examples of completely hollow, burning trees set on fire by aviation fuel have you encountered which supports this hypothesis?

Test your powers of observation. Does this column look "snapped like a twig" or melted and cut?.

Neither, actually. It looks like the steel was broken from the gigantic forces of the steel trying to bend in ghastly angles. If it were cut, the steel would have have been all melty at the end and have a fairly straight cut line, not clean and raggedy like a torn piece of paper.

BUT, if you wish, I will retract my original statement and rephrase it- the support girders found at the site had edges that looked like they were torn like paper, not cut. The difference still disproves your claims of thermite being used, so the retraction is perfectly fine by me.

Are these men describing columns "snapped like twigs" or bent but unfractured??.

Seeing you just showed me a photo of a girder with edges that look like they were torn like a piece of paper, it really doesn't matter what they were verbally describing. We can see right away what they were describing, and they weren't cut with any thermite.

No it isn't. That's what NIST (and you, apparently) would limit it to, because the "mechanical process of the collapse itself" cannot be accounted for by fire and plane damage.

Noone is saying the mechanical process of the collapse itself was caused by the fire and plane damage. That's a strawman argument on your part. The collapse itself was caused by each floor failing in turn due to the overbearing forces from the cascading floors above them. I posted an explanation of the mechanics behind all that earlier and you haven't been able to refute it, so I will presume that you consider it valid.

Again you seem unable to grasp that you haven't provided an analogy - "a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based". You must provide an example of something we can both agree exists in the real world. You can't offer your explanation of how you think the three towers collapsed as an analogy for how the three towers collapsed.

That's becuase I don't need any analogy anymore. You yourself posted photos of the support girders bent in ghastly angles, and the the laws of physics say the only way that could have happened is if gigantic forces beyond its capacity to support pushed down upon it. Once it became bent, it obviously couldn't hold anything up anymore and, as shown by its torn edge, it broke off and fell in turn. Since you were the one who posted the photo, we're both in agreement that it does in fact, exist in the real world.

Please, continue to post evidence like this, as you're only doing the task of refuting these thermite claims for me.

A tree that topples but doesn't implode is an analogy. I asked you to provide one counter-example - a self-supporting structure that can be imploded by localised damage and fire. It can't be a steel framed high-rise because, apart from on 9/11, it hasn't happened.

Ah, well, if you want an analogy, fine by me- in 1912 the Titanic was hit by an iceberg which caused it to sink and take 1,200 people with it. According to your viewpoint, it couldn't have sunk becuase apart from the Titanic, no steel framed ship was ever sunk by an iceberg before or since, so either the iceberg really didn't sink the Titanic, or the Titanic really wasn't steel.

Personally, I vote for the option that "it's intellectually lazy to claim it's impossible for something to happen solely becuase it hasn't happened before." Your opinion may differ.

reply to post by GenRadek

And when all the floors go down, they will end up stacking onto each other. This is not a "theory" or "an idea" it is what happened.

Your theory does NOT follow the evidence. SHOW me photos of stacked
floors at the base of the towers.

As for the core? What do you think? It also fell apart. I mean I hate to sound like an a$$ but DUH? A large part survived for a few seconds before it also fell down.

As it drove itself straight down against the laws of phsyics? Would you
like the video link, or will you dodge the evidence just like the exploding
top section?

You have not given a proper explanation of what happened to the upper
section according to the video and photo still shot evidence. NOTHING
telescoped into the lower structure. It could not have because it was
TILTED. It doesn't even show that in the video. Open your eyes.

are you suggesting that the top of the tower was suppose to just fall off like a tree? NOW I can tell you have no clue how the Towers were designed, and your lack of physics knowledge is quite telling.

I'm suggesting you can't view evidence and provide a logical scenario
such as explosives. I'm suggesting that NIST claims only a few perimeter
columns were cut and only a few core columns were cut. I'm suggesting
that the upper section was still connected by about 35 core columns and
did not telescope...as CLEARLY shown in the video as it tips to one side.

side sag into the tower, and tilts, the opposite side acts like a HINGE on which the tower tilts down, and then the hinge breaks and the initial lateral movement is stopped and the vertical movement becomes the dominant move.

Contradict much? So if the hinge breaks, what's the direction of force?
Surely you wont say DOWNWARD?

If the hinge breaks, did the core columns snap at the same time as well?

So....let me understand this...the hinge breaks meaning the force was
somewhat lateral...then an invisible angel from the clouds began to
push the top section down...or did that magic force happen how?

While this magic force suddenly shifted the upper block downward, why
does about 80% of the block blow up before the supporting structure
descends?

Here are some photo links in stop frame style to prove to you once
again NOTHING telescoped and the upper block exploded from the
bottom up:

www.procision-auto.com...
www.procision-auto.com...
www.procision-auto.com...
www.procision-auto.com...
www.procision-auto.com...
www.procision-auto.com...


If you can find pics of telescoping sections going into a tube of equal
dimensions while on an angle please provide them.

Here's a link to help you out:

www.blogsouthwest.com...

[edit on 17-4-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Did you not see the set of photos I posted? Of course not.

Do you even realize how much explosive should have been packed into each and every single floor in order to do that? And where were these explosives planted to do so? And why didnt they eject the exterior columns much much farther than they actually fell? You have to understand what explosives are and how explosives behave, what are their properties, and what they can and cannot do.

Yes it tilted over, with ONE side acting as the hinge. The hinge then breaks and the top begins to descend down. Physics was followed correctly. The top of the tower tilts down, starts collapsing, and falls (telescopes) into the rest of the tower. It doesnt fall to one side, it doesnt go up, it goes DOWN, into the tower. Now the core columns could have severed at the connections, however this is logical speculation as I wasn't there and neither were you. THAT is when we can use logic or speculation, becuase we obviously see the top of the tower tilt and that must mean the core columns have seprated at the connections, where any lateral forces would sever the bolts. The reason why it APPEARS to explode apart is the hundreds of tons of tower getting crushed in the collapse.

As for the hinge, I apologize for the lateral forces as there were none acting on the tower at that time. Only gravity. HOWEVER, there was lateral and vertical movement as one side came down, but the other side did not. This hinge is why it fell the way it did. When the hinge area failed then there was nothing holding up that side and it too would go straight down instead of tilting farther over.

I'll even use your photo to explain this:
www.procision-auto.com...

You can see at the base of the section that is tilting that it is not only tilting, but bending inwards. The base of the "top section's" exterior columns are going into the building. The debris we see is the concrete floors and drywall paneling getting crushed as the floors are beginning to fail.

www.procision-auto.com...
By this time the top has already fallen into the tower. The debris ejections are from the lower floors that are being crushed by the top section. Its already collapsing and during this, everything is getting crushed and pulverized. Thats about 40 floors right there getting demolished right there at the last picture.

You also forget to take the WHOLE series of events TOGETHER. One thing you conspiracy theorists always do is focus on ONE thing at a time. Instead, you ignore A) The impact; B) The fires; C) The columns destroyed/damaged; D) Movement of the tower after impact; E) The effect of the fires on connection; F) behavior of steel in fires; etc etc etc. And when you add it all up it equaled the collapse. But no, you just look at oh only a few columns were damaged or destroyed, this cannot be the cause of collapse. However you fail to take into account EVERYTHING else together. Its pointless to argue when you ignore everything, and approach each single thing as the only thing that caused it.

Did you not see the set of photos I posted? Of course not.

Why, are they of a different tower, or show a blue elephant? What's the
difference? The same physics apply.

Do you even realize how much explosive should have been packed into each and every single floor in order to do that?

If you read the report by Harrit, Jones, Ryan, etc. you would get an idea.

You have to understand what explosives are and how explosives behave, what are their properties, and what they can and cannot do.

Oh, now you're an engineer, architect AND an explosives expert!!! Wow,
where's your license and report showing how the explosives should act?

Yes it tilted over, with ONE side acting as the hinge. The hinge then breaks and the top begins to descend down.

Let's stop here and cut the rest of the post because you continue to dodge
questions!

The hinge then breaks...and the top begins to descend DOWN?

I thought the 'hinge' was preventing more rotation of the upper section?

The expected result after the hinge breaks would be a continued tilting of
the upper block.

WHERE did the force come from to stop the upper section from falling off
the edge AFTER the 'hinge' broke?

Please explain what matter, or item(s), or or mass, or object provided the force
to stop the upper section from tilting.

THEN explain what force transitioned the momentum from a lateral movement
to a downward movement.

You continue to ignore this important question to support your theory.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by pteridine

I have explained in great detail, why Jones' paper is bad science.

No, you have only given your opinions and it does not stand up to real science.

If you do not understand the explanations and must have an internet reference for every statement I make, you will be disappointed.

I am disappointed.

I do not use the internet as a primary source.

I know it shows.

In this case, I used many years experience in the fields of analytical and organic chemistry.

Yes, it shows, the only problem was you left out all the science.

If you want a consensus by other scientists that it is bad science, you have only to read sources other than somebody-for-911truth websites.

Would you care to show me those sources that you talk about? (I didn’t think so)

You will probably not see much of this in the mainstream press because many scientists have more important things to do than to pay attention to the rants of the fringe. Essentially, Jones is on permanent ignore by the scientific world.

WOW! Can you prove, or show me where the world has put Pro Jones on “ignore”.
Can you show me what scientists have made statements that Professor Jones report is nothing but a RANT?

I take exception to their positions and feel that someone should set the record straight on all fronts, including ATS.

Are you serious?

I am likely wasting my time but I must deny ignorance whenever I can.

Had you taken your time to present your report seriously, and scientifically, and showed some real creditability, people on here might have taken you more seriously, including me.
However, you spent more time bashing, and insulting, ridiculing, and attacking Professor Steven Jones character, instead of concentrating on his journal and that is not how one goes about proven their side of science, that is unacceptable.


[edit on 17-4-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by EvilAxis
10,000 gallons of aviation fuel might well be enough to burn a wooden object like a tree to a cinder, but no amount of aviation fuel will cause a tree to implode from top to bottom into a pile of sawdust and sticks.

So what examples of completely hollow, burning trees set on fire by aviation fuel have you encountered which supports this hypothesis?

If you believe 10.000 gallons of aviation fuel could not incinerate a hollow tree but would cause it to progressively collapse from top to bottom into a pile of sawdust and sticks, I think I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Noone is saying the mechanical process of the collapse itself was caused by the fire and plane damage. That's a strawman argument on your part. The collapse itself was caused by each floor failing in turn due to the overbearing forces from the cascading floors above them.

I understand what you are saying - that fire and plane damage (minus plane damage in WTC 7) initiated the collapse and gravity did all the rest.
You're just restating your position, which I've proved untenable, that floor collapse caused floor collapse which for an unspecified reason destroyed the massive steel core and other support structures of all three towers.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I posted an explanation of the mechanics behind all that earlier and you haven't been able to refute it, so I will presume that you consider it valid.

If you don't wish to acknowledge that I refuted it in every detail - that's your prerogative.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Ah, well, if you want an analogy, fine by me- in 1912 the Titanic was hit by an iceberg which caused it to sink and take 1,200 people with it. According to your viewpoint, it couldn't have sunk becuase apart from the Titanic, no steel framed ship was ever sunk by an iceberg before or since, so either the iceberg really didn't sink the Titanic, or the Titanic really wasn't steel.

Are you seriously offering the Titanic as your analogy for the imploding towers?

It sustained localized damage causing it to sink and strike the sea floor, but the structure did not undergo any kind of pancaking or progressive global collapse, as evidenced by the pictures taken in 1985.

Clearly a steel ship can sink however novel the collision, be it iceberg or Captain Nemo's Nautilus. But you're building on your reputation for bold statements made in ignorance with "no steel framed ship was ever sunk by an iceberg before or since". The cargo ship Finnpolaris sank after striking an iceberg in 1991 and there have been many others, large and small: www.icedata.ca...

You can't provide a realistic analogy for the progressive collapse theory because it has no basis in reality.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Personally, I vote for the option that "it's intellectually lazy to claim it's impossible for something to happen solely becuase it hasn't happened before." Your opinion may differ.

My opinion doesn't differ. I said it was impossible for quite different reasons, but pointed out that a thesis based on something which has previously never happened occurring three times in the same place on the same day and never again, has a strong prima facie case against it.



[edit on 17-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by turbofan

Why, are they of a different tower, or show a blue elephant? What's the
difference? The same physics apply.

So you didnt. No surprise. It was of the south tower.

If you read the report by Harrit, Jones, Ryan, etc. you would get an idea.

Now were these for just the destruction of core columns, or complete and total destruction of the top section? and where were they planted exactly to create what we saw?

Oh, now you're an engineer, architect AND an explosives expert!!! Wow, where's your license and report showing how the explosives should act?

You flatter me but no sir. I'm just someone whos studied explosives, and uses a little something called critical thinking and common sense. And it does not take a special expert with a license and report to know how explosives behave after reading, watching, studying, and blowing some stuff up. Which is why I ask you where were these magic explosives located, why werent they heard (there is a difference between a series of demolition charges going off and the sound of a collapsing building). Also I ask you where were the detonations observed or heard prior to the exterior columns buckling inwards? Since when do buildings collapse before the charges go off?

The hinge then breaks...and the top begins to descend DOWN?
I thought the 'hinge' was preventing more rotation of the upper section?

The expected result after the hinge breaks would be a continued tilting of
the upper block.
WHERE did the force come from to stop the upper section from falling off
the edge AFTER the 'hinge' broke?
Please explain what matter, or item(s), or or mass, or object provided the force
to stop the upper section from tilting.
THEN explain what force transitioned the momentum from a lateral movement
to a downward movement.
You continue to ignore this important question to support your theory.

You see, the hinge itself is what was allowing the tower to tilt into itself, not over the side. You are grossly incorrect in your "observation". If the hinge were to remain in one piece through the entire revolution, it may have fallen more over. However it will not continue to keep tilting over since it is no longer attached. The hinge connection severs only after a second and then it just falls down.

Also, what do you call it when the top of the section falls behind the exterior columns?

This video explains precisely what is happening here:

Just be sure to pay EXTRA attention to the video as all your questions will be answered in it.

GenRadek - I notice you fell silent when I pointed out the huge flaw in your "man holding a bowling ball" analogy.

I take it you realize you cannot supply a credible analogy for a progressive or pancake collapse.

reply to post by EvilAxis


I see that you have missed the point entirely.

What I was demonstrating before you twisted it up, was how a falling body impacts with a force much larger than if it is standing still. Hence the bowling ball. A bowling ball dropped from 1 ft will impact with less force than a bowling ball dropped at 10ft. A bowling ball dropped at 15ft will impact with even more force then the 10ft drop. And so on and so on.

Ergo, one whole floor which has begun to drop (or possibly even two floors) impact the lower floors with enough force to destroy the connections of that floor, which is designed to hold a certain limit. Also dynamic loads were not factored into the floor designs as I doubt anyone expected to have an entire floor to catastrophically let go and drop onto the one below. However in the south tower, there are 29 floors all moving down together, impacting the sections below it. By then its just a chain reaction and collapse. In the case of North Tower, the whole section came down in much the same way. 10 floors moving as one is more than enough force to dislodge and destroy the floors below it. And after reviewing and studying the floor truss connections its easy to understand why on a large part of the exterior columns floor truss connections were completely sheared off, not blasted off.

also, the core was never meant to be a freestanding structure. Without the floor trusses and the exterior columns, it would not have been able to stand on its own for a longer period of time. It needed the structural support from the floors and exterior columns. That is why the core was destroyed as well. also do not forget, the core columns progressively got thinner towards the top. And the bolted sections are the most susceptible to shearing forces which would snap the connections and allow each column segment to break off. After all, remember on the Titanic, it was found that it wasnt a gash in the solid steel plate that caused the sinking, but rather a failure of the riveted plate areas where two plates joined, when they were punched in or dislodged by the ice.

[edit on 4/17/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


GenR...perhaps this little utube video will help people comprehend the dynamics involved in the collapses.....

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by EvilAxis
What I was demonstrating before you twisted it up, was how a falling body impacts with a force much larger than if it is standing still. Hence the bowling ball. A bowling ball dropped from 1 ft will impact with less force than a bowling ball dropped at 10ft. A bowling ball dropped at 15ft will impact with even more force then the 10ft drop. And so on and so on.

Oh I see. So you weren't trying to provide an analogy for progressive or pancake collapse (because clearly you can't).

Thank you for demonstrating that a body gains momentum as it falls.

Now try the difficult one - one example from the real world of any self-supporting structure that has exhibited progressive or pancake collapse analogous to what we saw 3 times on 9/11, without the use of demolition charges.

Weedwhacker - you're welcome to try too, but I must remind you that a YouTube Video with computer generated images of collapse initiation and nothing to explain how global collapse ensued won't count as an analogy of progressive collapse in the real world.


[edit on 17-4-2009 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks weedwhacker!
I was debating if I should post it as well, but you beat me to it!

reply to post by EvilAxis


Well here is a better question, when did we have three buildings designed just like these three, have a plane and (the third one large parts of a building) crash into it, and then burn for a while over multiple floors?

We never did. Which means, we technically cannot group these incidents with other known building collapses (ie through structural failure, fire, demolition, earthquakes, etc). This was the first time two tube-in-tube designed buildings had planes impacting them at over 400mph, had fires burn through multiple floors and collapsed. So we cannot compare it directly to other cases. However, the only comparisons we can take from these is the behavior of unprotected and damaged steel in severe fires, and how they behave during a collapse. After all, how can you tell the difference between a building that is collapsing from a catastrophic structural failure from a building collapsing that was demoed? Sure they look similar, but the cases maybe totally different.

A building like the Empire State Building will behave much differently than say, WTC1. Right? Two completely different designs. One has solid I-beams arranged in a box pattern with columns throughout the structure and all connected. The other had columns on the exterior and deep inside (tube in tube) which were connected with light steel trusses which held up the floors. If the WTCs were designed with heavy steel I-beams supporting the floors, then they would probably be standing today. In fact, some of the smaller WTC buildings (like 4 5 and 6) which had the more familiar design with I-beams and columns throughout the structure, relatively survived and did not collapse, although in some we saw severe damage and even some failures of entire sections, but they did not get leveled to the ground. again, different designs.


[edit on 4/17/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by EvilAxis


Evil....you could be entirely correct, of course. It IS important to keep digging, just in case.

From what I've seen, based on SOME architects and engineers (I know, there are disputes...) it boils down to the design.

It would have been great if the structure had been designed differently and had stayed standing. I wonder if, say....other skyscrapers enduring the same circumstances would have faired better....

Seems to me that the Saudis were hoping to cause the Towers to topple over. Obviously, that strategy didn't work (fortunately). Ironically, if they had hit down lower (depending on the other buildings in the way of their approach) the devastation would have been a lot worse, and the collapses would have occurred more quickly.

AND, just think: IF the buildings were rigged for demo....it would have been a lot easier....fewer floors to rig up.

So -- somebody who planned this was pretty darn stupid.