"Pancake collapse" proven possible

Originally posted by kenton1234
This video proves absolutely nothing of a kind. This building was gutted for weeks ahead of time and was constructed of concrete. All the pillars were pre-weakened weeks ahead of time as well. Explosives were used to blow the top half of the building to fall on the second half. Nice try though but your just making a fool out of yourself.

Any proof for all the above claims?

You really should provide a citation because if we look at the video (try 1:11 for starters), we can see the columns just buckle and fail, they don't get exploded.


[edit on 7-8-2009 by mike3]

Originally posted by audas
As the buildings collapsed the floors were turned to dust - it was therefore only the top 20-30 floors which were crushing everything - yet - these two were turned to dust ....

Further how is it that the floors of 1 through to 30 were able to support 70-100 stories of weight - yet when hit with the weight of just a few dust remnants they throw there hands up in despair and self destruct ?

It is simply absurd to think that the towers exploded from the top to the bottom because the top 20 stories fell - totally absurd.

How do you know it had been entirely turned to dust by that point? As the collapse starts there's quite a bit of mass up there, and even as the top is disintegrating, the floors below are adding fresh mass to replace what is lost from disintegration, debris ejection, pulverization, etc.

Holding it up is different from resisting the top _impacting_ the floor below. Statics vs dynamics. Think about holding a 50 lb weight in your hand vs dropping a 50 lb weight ON your hand.

Originally posted by turbofan
There is nothing similar about that video and the WTC demo.

First of all:

- Your video shows about 50% of the building's potential energy used to
crush the lower floors (also consider the middle section that has been cleaned out).

- The building in that video does not have 47 core columns running up
the middle.

- Also, notice the top section stays intact as it crushes the bottom section
UNLIKE the towers.

Point 1: The energy isn't so much the problem -- it's the FORCE applied to the floor below. You're talking about a good portion of the building actually falling onto the other part. Many many many tons DROPPING onto it. Once a casading failure is begun all the potential energy is released.

Point 2: If you notice in the WTC videos, you can actually see some parts of the core still standing for a moment before they topple over. I don't have a link on hand at the moment but I've seen it. So if you're saying the core would have to fail entirely for it to all collapse, it didn't, some of it remained. Think about chains only being as strong as their weakest link, think bolts, welds, etc. And again think about dynamic force. How does concentrating the strength in the core and outside make it more resistant than it being packed with columns in a more "grid"-like configuration?

Point 3: The top section of the WTC towers also holds together for a while. In this video the tower just didn't have as much height. So it doesn't have enough collapse time to come apart completely "in flight". And don't forget dust billows obscuring things in the WTC. Also consider tube building vs grid building.


[edit on 7-8-2009 by mike3]

Originally posted by audas
As the buildings collapsed the floors were turned to dust - it was therefore only the top 20-30 floors which were crushing everything - yet - these two were turned to dust ....

Further how is it that the floors of 1 through to 30 were able to support 70-100 stories of weight - yet when hit with the weight of just a few dust remnants they throw there hands up in despair and self destruct ?

It is simply absurd to think that the towers exploded from the top to the bottom because the top 20 stories fell - totally absurd.

Please explain how 1 through 30 were able to support 70/100 stories? Because my guess is that it began with one story[that collapsed], pilled up to about 2 or 3 stories plus the weight of the fully loaded 767.And you're telling me that is possible to sustain, actually ignoring the conservation of momentum[which also explains the compressed air bursts], not to mention the doubled free fall speed with more and more stories cumulatively pilling up..
The pancake story is imo the most plausible one, the bomb video's with the towers collapsing are just ridicule..
This doesnt take away the official explanations were not explained in a proper way...

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Foppezao]

Originally posted by mike3
Most likely the "explosions" seen in the video are due to air compressing and being forced out.

That'd be a big NEGATIVE.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


These concentrated jets have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of explosives being detonated. You will never find these concentrated jets anywhere else but controlled demolitions. I challenge you or anyone else to try.

Originally posted by mike3
Biggest proof this is not explosions from charges: no sound -- high explosives in a demolition can be heard for literally miles.

You can hear them from miles away in the documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness". Parts 2 and 3 are there as well, filmed from 2 miles away. The first responders can corroborate the explosions in that video as well:

Gregg Brady, 9110184

I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now.

Frank Campagna, 9110224

You see 3 explosions and then the whole thing (north tower) coming
down.

Craig Carlsen, 9110505

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.

The video corroborates the first responders testimony above to 3 loud explosions in the north tower before collapse (there were actually more, but 3 loud one's are evident). And from Craig Carlsen above who said there were 10 explosions in the south tower before collapse. I believe "9/11 Eyewitness" picked up 9 of the explosions and they even point them out to you so you don't miss them.


Now, watch the following 30-second video and then read on:

Google Video Link

Richard Banaciski, 9110253

It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions...

Karin Deshore, 9110192

Somewhere around the middle of the (north tower), there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Stephen Gregory, 9110008

I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Flashes were seen at the lower and mid levels while the collapse was happening up top. The lower structure was being weakened so the collapse wave could come right through with zero resistance. You will find flashes going up, down and around a building, only in controlled demolitions and nowhere else.

The above quotes are just a few of the over 500 first responder oral histories. These don't include the many documented civilian witnesses that heard the detonation sequence as both buildings were brought down.

Originally posted by mike3
we can see the columns just buckle and fail, they don't get exploded.

The columns were severed remotely, but not with explosives. They used powerful hydraulic actuators to sever the columns:

On 14 February, the Ferrari-Demolition proceeded with the demolition of 168 homes simultaneously, using a patented technique since 1997: the pressing.

It consists of a building collapse on itself by a horizontal thrust or oblique hydraulic controlled remotely.
Powerful actuators to move the upper part of the building by moving laterally its center of gravity of the fulcrum. The directional movement causes the collapse of the building on itself. This method of demolition is adapted to buildings, towers and industrial facilities that are confined in a dense urban fabric.

Source

The above is translated from French, and may not be 100% correct.


I noticed you ignored my previous post. Too undebunkable for ya?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Ok, please don't take offense at this sir but, you seem to be letting "It looks like this." stand as proof. You do realise that in a collapse air is quite naturally going to be pushed down right? Well, when that air gets trapped like say in a area of the building that is more or less closed off except where the air came in at. You are going to quite naturally have preassure building up. And just like with a defective intertube and anything else once you get to a certain preassure it WILL bust out at the weakest points. In this case the windows. And it will quite naturally look like as it does without being an explosion.

reply to post by mike3


lol..I didn't see any fire there either, is that the SAME crew that did WTC7....looks like it

ALL YOU did was to PROVE that 7 didn't fall from FIRE.....GREAT JOB
S&F for YOU

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by mike3

 

Best 911 video I have ever seen on ATS. A star and flag for you. This PROVES that a building can pancake on itself just like the WTC did on 911. This should put an end to those truthers. Ahh who am I kidding, nothing will put an end to them. Guess we can dream.

A star and flag for you and a job well done.

I think his post, BACKFIRED

so....how many floors were gutted and vertical support pre-weakened in this video compared to the 12 feet of travel, with ASYMMETRICAL damage that the,(hypothetical), top crushing blocks of the towers had...hmmmm..let's see, looks like 6 floors, at 12 feet per, so...this building has about 80 feet in which to ACCELERATE , BEFORE it hits it's first floor.

80'+ of ACCELERATED, Symmetrical, EVEN decent......hmmmm where have I seen THAT before

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Architect David Banner]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Architect David Banner]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Architect David Banner]

It's probably also worth pointing out at this point that the building in the video appears to be a short, long concrete structure, not a slender, very tall high rise steel structure.

However, what the video does show is that it is possible to do controlled demolition from the top down, or at least the middle down, and that you don't have to crack them at the bottom. A common claim of debunkers is that no controlled demolitions are done like the WTC 'collapse'.

Originally posted by Foppezao

Originally posted by audas
As the buildings collapsed the floors were turned to dust - it was therefore only the top 20-30 floors which were crushing everything - yet - these two were turned to dust ....

Further how is it that the floors of 1 through to 30 were able to support 70-100 stories of weight - yet when hit with the weight of just a few dust remnants they throw there hands up in despair and self destruct ?

It is simply absurd to think that the towers exploded from the top to the bottom because the top 20 stories fell - totally absurd.

Please explain how 1 through 30 were able to support 70/100 stories? Because my guess is that it began with one story[that collapsed], pilled up to about 2 or 3 stories plus the weight of the fully loaded 767.

too bad WE DON'T SEE THAT...where is the debris at the base of the tower...it's in a 1400ft. radius AROUND each tower...where are the 'building crushing blocks'?
WE SEE the 'tipping top' CRUMBLE, just as it disappears into the cloud of dust...and, WHAT force, STOPS this forward momentum, INSTANTLY?

WE SEE the antenna, drop about 9 stories, BEFORE there is ANY movement below the impact area...how is THAT possible?

Do the math, YOU think a 767 weighs 'near' what 30+ floors of total occupancy weighs?

And you're telling me that is possible to sustain, actually ignoring the conservation of momentum[which also explains the compressed air bursts], not to mention the doubled free fall speed with more and more stories cumulatively pilling up..

you CAN'T DOUBLE free fall ACCELERATION....it either is, or it is not

The pancake story is imo the most plausible one,

Why, so YOU don't have to think about it?

When the collapses are done, WHERE is the 'BLOCK' that JUST pushed the towers, SYMMETRICALLY, down at the SAME CONSISTENT speed?

WE SEE 400ft, of core standing for a few seconds after the collapse...HOW does a "top crushing block", that is PUSHING THE ENTIRE building down, GO AROUND, 400+ft of core structure, to COLLAPSE EVERYTHING around them?....only to have them DISINTEGRATE seconds later

the bomb video's with the towers collapsing are just ridicule..
This doesnt take away the official explanations were not explained in a proper way...

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Foppezao]

Why is it that Newtons 3rd law rules the natural world BEFORE 9-11...AFTER 9-11, BUT, NOT on 9-11

...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, when one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts a force of equal strength in the opposite direction on the first object.

The 'top block' HAS to receive just as much damage as it is causing...HOW do 30 floors outlast 80 floors, and starting from a velocity of '0', it is physically imposable to get any where near the full potential of kinetic energy in only 12 feet, to start a chain reaction of destruction

EACH time the 'weight' hits a floor, it HAS to momentarily STOP its momentum to OVERCOME that floor, it HAS to transfer it's energy to THAT floor, to overcome the vertical support, and continue....that TAKES ENERGY AWAY from the process of collapse.....pulverizing material takes ENERGY AWAY from the collapse....EJECTING pieces of steel weighing two to three hundred tons, HORIZONTALLY, HUNDREDS OF FEET takes ENERGY AWAY from the collapse

Since it is PHYSICALLY imposable to reach it's full potential energy in only 12 feet, through the *S-L-O-W* NATURAL deformation that is expected when you have HOT and COLD steel showing different resistance... WHERE is this EXTRA energy coming from?

HOW can there be an EXPLOSIVE discharge of dust and debris, on ALL 4 SIDES of EACH tower, BEFORE there is contact with the stationary floors, in order to create the dust and debris through FRICTION?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


You can make up whatever BS you need to help you sleep at night and keep you from believing in a conspiracy. However, your made-up explanations are theory and opinion only. What's not theory or opinion and what's real fact is that these concentrated jets/plumes that I posted in my last post, have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

There's absolutely nothing you can do to prove that wrong. You won't find a single video of a building collapse that is not a controlled demolition that shows these concentrated jets/plumes. So while you're sitting there theorizing and making things up to explain them away because of your denial, the rest of us who are seeking the real truth will deal with just the facts and the facts are these concentrated jets/plumes are seen in controlled demolition only and nowhere else.

The problem I have with WTC 7 and the idea of it being "a momentum of one floor collapsing" is because it is quite obvious in the youtube video that this thread starter posted that there is an obvious "one floor collapse" because you can clearly see "the one floor" that "blew out" and caused the floors above it to crumble down, therefore taking the other floors below it all the way down as well...

But in all of the WTC 7 videos we see, there is no defined/clearly seen "one particular floor blowing out"..........

Originally posted by audas
As the buildings collapsed the floors were turned to dust - it was therefore only the top 20-30 floors which were crushing everything - yet - these two were turned to dust ....

Further how is it that the floors of 1 through to 30 were able to support 70-100 stories of weight - yet when hit with the weight of just a few dust remnants they throw there hands up in despair and self destruct ?

It is simply absurd to think that the towers exploded from the top to the bottom because the top 20 stories fell - totally absurd.

What the heck are you talking about? Do you people even think before you type? You have 30+ floors collapsing down. It doesnt all disappear and turn to dust and have no mass. You have 30 whole floors moving downwards in relatively one piece. Not some dust. My god, the ignorance here is simply stunning!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


As I have pointed out before, those jets INCREASE in velocity as time moves forward. Explosives do not increase in velocity after detonation. And watching the video of the collapse, I can clearly see the jets accelerating and throwing out more dust and debris. Please show me explosives that behave this way.

Explosives do not increase in velocity after detonation.

Thats actually the definition of explosion.

a sudden great increase

reply to post by jprophet420


Nope, an explosion has a quick initial velocity that DECREASES over time, not INCREASES over time. Big difference. Yes it does increase in velocity, however this is instantaneous, and then it decreases quickly.

[edit on 8/8/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


That's still not proof that the jets/plumes are not explosives. You still can't show any jets/plumes in any other collapse besides a controlled demolition. That is a fact. You're "theorizing" on what they "could" be. The type of explosive used will dictate the velocity and size of the plume. The distance the plume has to travel through the building and what material it has to travel through will also dictate the velocity and amount/type of debris being pushed out.

I've spent several years researching controlled demolitions. There are videos out there of known controlled demolitions that have plumes identical to the WTC. These will be shown in my upcoming video, but any researcher who truly wants to know if these plumes are explosives or not, will take the time to research controlled demolitions and seek out these videos. Not sit on the internet and make things up and speculate what they "could" be because they don't want to believe in a conspiracy.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


But every CD I've seen, the squibs come out first, THEN there is collapse. Not collapse first, THEN squibs. I thought this was most obvious.

And there is suppose to be a whole series of detonations all around, not from one spot on one side of a wall during collapse. And the building is suppose to have detonations in series PRIOR to collapse. Why is it that in every video surrounding the WTCs, nothing happens at the areas of collapse initiation? It just silently sags down and collapses? The beams bend inwards for a few seconds before collapse, since when do explosives do that, SILENTLY I might add?

[edit on 8/8/2009 by GenRadek]

The twin towers were built by the Rockefeller brothers. They were built to be destroyed. They were designed for destruction. One can argue if they were designed to fall incase of fire or by some sinister plot. I would go with the latter considering who built and owned the building before Lucky larry.

Thats all I will say at this time.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But every CD I've seen, the squibs come out first, THEN there is collapse. Not collapse first, THEN squibs. I thought this was most obvious.

As I constantly have to point out, you're still in the mind-set that this has to look exactly like a CD. No two CD's are ever the same. Not to mention that they wanted to make the towers collapse as little like CD as possible.

If you're in control of the explosives, you can detonate them at any time in any sequence. Or program them to go off at any time an any sequence. There's no reason why you can't initiate collapse, then start removing the supports below as needed to keep the collapse going.

But for people like you, who think it has to look exactly and be exactly like CD, you won't believe anything else and that is too bad.

Originally posted by GenRadek
And there is suppose to be a whole series of detonations all around, not from one spot on one side of a wall during collapse.

There were. I keep posting the following, but everybody keeps ignoring it:

Richard Banaciski, 9110253

It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions...

Karin Deshore, 9110192

Somewhere around the middle of the (north tower), there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Stephen Gregory, 9110008

I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Originally posted by GenRadek
And the building is suppose to have detonations in series PRIOR to collapse.

There were those also:

Gregg Brady, 9110184

I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now.

Frank Campagna, 9110224

You see 3 explosions and then the whole thing (north tower) coming
down.

Craig Carlsen, 9110505

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.

The above quotes can be corroborated by the documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness" and this link is Part 1. Parts 2 and 3 are there as well. The video is shot from 2 miles away from the WTC so you won't hear the steel beams breaking or crashing through each other. Only the unadulterated sounds of the explosives being detonated.

The video corroborates the first responders testimony above to 3 loud explosions in the north tower before collapse (there were actually more, but 3 loud one's are evident). And from Craig Carlsen above who said there were 10 explosions in the south tower before collapse. "9/11 Eyewitness" picked up 9 of the explosions, I believe, and they even point them out to you so you don't miss them.

The above is just a handful of the hundreds of testimonies given by firefighters, police, EMT and other first responders on-scene. Their testimony is identical to known controlled demolitions and/or corroborated by video recorded of that day.

Then there were the explosions that destroyed the basement levels and the lobby:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee433799816b.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8adb1d5f09f9.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by GenRadek
Why is it that in every video surrounding the WTCs, nothing happens at the areas of collapse initiation?

In "9/11 Eyewitness" that I posted a link to above, you will hear a large explosion, followed by smaller explosions coming from the north tower. While this is happening, the smoke in the impact area becomes disturbed (likely from the explosions) and then collapse ensues.

Nothing will ever be enough to satisfy your questions, but evidence is evidence. Only you can choose whether to accept it or ignore it.