It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC Tower Official Crush-down Explanation Is Just Not Possible

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:09 AM
Supporters of the 9-11 WTC Tower OFFICIAL STORY obviously have not considered the ramifications of your belief. NIST claims 11 seconds and Lamont-Doherty Near Earth Observatory's seismic data claims 10 seconds for a WTC 1 near-freefall collapse. Let's assume for arguments sake that free-fall speed for Tower 1 is 9 seconds for the 97th floor to the ground. (an average of almost 11 floors per second free-fall time) Tower 1 collapse was allegedly initiated at the 97th floor.

In your theory, each floor would have to overcome the resistance of the floor beneath it, which the vast majority of the 97 floors would have had zero fires to weaken the steel and connections. The tower took the path of most resistance by falling through its own strongly reinforced and inter-connected mass.

Assuming a time of one second for each floor to sheer its connections to the massive core and outer wall sections, and the trusses and the cross-trusses, we would add 97 seconds to the 9 for a total of 106 seconds for your pancaking to take place.

Even dividing the time by four (1/4 second per floor resistance) would leave us 33 seconds pancaking time; far too much greater than the official observed times of 11 and 10 seconds.

The official Explanation(s)

The official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 (photo above) global collapse (sic) is that the alleged release of potential energy (PE), of the mass of an upper part C above all supporting columns after sudden, local deformation and buckling, due to downward, alleged near free fall movement in an initiation zone (indicated by red) and impact of a structure below, exceeds the strain energy (SE) that can be absorbed by the same columns below and above and that all this was due to gravity only.

It is suggested that the upper part C is rigid and remains intact during the complete crush down of the WTC 1 structure below, i.e. the global collapse (sic) is not a collapse but a 'crush down'.

The crush down is suggested to take place as follows:

WTC 1 is assumed to consist of three parts:

Part A - the lower structure (97 stories before crush down).

Part C - the upper part (13-15 stories).

Part B - rubble that is formed of part A, when part C crushes the stories one after the other.

Each storey is 3.6 meters tall with density 0.255 and becomes a 0.9 meter thick layer or rubble with density 1.025, when crushed, e.g. [2].

At time t = 0 sec part C is alleged to drop on part A - crush down starts.

At, say, time t = 8 seconds about 60 stories have been crushed and there are still 37 stories remaining of part A. A 54 meters thick layer of rubble - part B - has been formed of what was 60 stories! The upper part C remains on top.

At time t = 10 seconds part A is completely crushed and only a 87.3 meters thick - very tall! - layer of rubble on the ground - part B - remains of part A. The upper part C still remains on top.

At time t = 15 seconds nothing remains! Part C has been destroyed in a crush up and the rubble - part B - is spread out on the ground.

Evidently this crush down model and theory is complete nonsense, but it is the official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 destruction on 9/11! A small, fairly weak part C, 95% air, cannot possibly crush a big part A of similar structure only due to gravity and compress it into a 87.3 meters tall tower of rubble on the ground after 10 seconds! Anyone that has just dropped anything on something knows this. Try then to crush this something! You need a big force for that, which gravity alone cannot provide.

What you would expect to happen

The following would happen, if the upper part C actually drops; two of its thin walls slide and drop outside and do not damage anything. The other two thin walls slide and fall inside the structure - part A - below and punch holes in or slices the floors there locally. No rubble is really formed.

The thin floors of the upper part C are in turn locally punched or sliced by the part A walls/columns below and will soon be jammed inside the part A walls/columns below. No walls or columns are dropping on other walls or columns producing an impact! Do not believe that the upper part C is solid, rigid, strong or anything like that! It is quite weak. Local failures - floors punched and sliced - will be produced at contacts. No crush down will ever start!

Local gravity failures above cannot destroy the columns of the intact structure below! All the energy released by dropping upper part C is absorbed by the deformations, failures and fractures of floors in the initiation zone and locally in the upper part C and top of lower structure part A and by friction between locally failed floor parts rubbing against each other after initiation and by any loose parts dropping down outside. The crush down should be arrested inside the initiation zone! Or maybe upper part C would slip off and drop beside the structure below.

Of course we have plenty of evidence that the rooftop antenna which was mounted to the top of the massive core section, fell seconds before the rooftop moved downward. This is proof that the massive core was severed completely through in at least one or more places, before the collapse sequence was initiated.

There is no possible way a 757 completely severed the core; so something else severed the core. Demolition explosives of some nature or thermite cutting charges of some nature seem the most viable causes; although some scientists are postulating a mini-nuke and others a focused energy beam.


WTC 1 Roof Antenna Fell First From A Stationary Video Camera - frames

“For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores.” Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."

Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torins part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures (frames above) of the collapse initiation of the North tower, WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the world trade center is a perfect guide of measurement for height, as there is a standard of changing the paint color of antennas once per fifty feet. The part of the antenna on the roof of WTC 1 appears black, then white alternated every fifty feet. There is a guide wire in the bottom left of every picture that shows that the camera does not move.

[edit on 7/16/09 by SPreston]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:40 AM
Excellent detail, nice work.

The point(s) about the top section were a crucial thing the moment I saw it happen. There had to be virtually nothing underneath it, the whole building had to fall at once, and it had to be falling at the same time or before the upper section, or else it (the upper section) would have been tossed to the side.

You can reply to that, but the laws of physics don't lie.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:57 AM
Ok, i'm pretty sure it's safe to say 911 has been DEBUNKED! Now we just need to get hard evidence together and bring these scum to justice! And no they dont deserve the death penalty, after watching episodes of americas hardest prisons they need to be sent to some of those prisons for 5000 years or some rediculous sentance.

Pretty confident they wouldn't last 2

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:09 AM
I really find it hard to believe that after all these years and all the reports that have been made from experts in the the field and all the material that is available on the net, people still believe that the planes alone brought down the WTC buildings! It's just ludicrous to think that the people behind the attacks could tell the world that the steel was weakened etc. and everyone would say, "Oh OK, that's fine then, let's move on."

I think after it happened, even if the government would have told us that it wasn't just the planes, but the terrorists also used bombs to make the buildings collapse, that would of been OK, well not OK, but it would have fit with what we saw. I would have accepted that. Terrorists are capable of anything. They could have got access somehow to the towers and planted bombs before the event. Maybe it's a bit far-fetched, but it would have stopped me thinking that the government itself could have been involved.

Even if Larry had stuck with what he said originally when he said that it was OK for the fire dept. or whoever to go ahead and pull down WTC 7, I would have accepted that. There had been enough death and destruction that day, so if it was safer to pull a building that threatened collapse then that would have made sense to me....well, aside from it not being that badly damaged, but who am I to say if a building is safe or not. But he didn't do that. He later said that he meant something else and went with the ridiculous steel weakening story.

These people didn't do themselves any favours whatsoever. Their statements and actions begged to be pulled to pieces and they went silent.

Instead, all the evidence was shipped off to Asia to be destroyed, they fed us this ridiculous story and put up ridiculously small funding for a delayed investigation after the fact, which turned out to be a joke.

Part of me still can't fully believe that the US government could be responsible for this. I watch the scenes of devastation and hear the screams of sheer terror and I just can't accept that a family man who would read a book about a pet goat to a room full of young children could allow something like this to happen, let alone be involved in actually making it happen. He can't have known.

I think the entire planet would call for a new investigation if we thought another terrorist group was responsible and it was just a case of finding out which group that was. It's because we know the US government have been named as being involved and we don't want to hear that, we can't accept that, it's just too awful. The truth is we're scared because somewhere deep inside our subconscious, every day we're actually beginning to believe more and more that it is true.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:26 AM
More to the point, this image shows a large section of steel arcing out
from the top of the demo wave.

Where is the big piece of tower that is crushing down on this debris?

red line shows point were rising smoke meets demo wave
yellow mark aligns with right edge of tower
green arrow shows dust shooting up and to the right
blue arrows show large piece of steel

The section of steel shown is falling at free fall speed, faster than the less
dense 'dust' which would be more susceptible to air resistance.

Therefore it's safe to say this steel is encountering very negligible amounts
of air resistance as it falls.

The fact that no large section of building is visible to crush down on the
tower, or the steel section getting ejected laterally proves explosive forces
are present.

This photo also shows the demo wave is keep up with the falling debris
at this time.

If I'm not mistaken, there is also a jet of dust shooting up and to the right
above this falling mass of steel. More proof of explosives.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by turbofan]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 10:06 AM
For the number crunchers and forum boffins let`s not forget this simulator..

Although it`s beyond impossible to calculate the necessary pay loads, kinetic energy, heat damaged steels etc etc from that fateful day, we do have a rough time lapse of all 3 collapses, so have a shuffle with it and see what is needed to reflect those times.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:05 PM
This thread is dubunk free? What nobody has a clue to how a tower
crushes itself...without a 'crusher'?

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
This thread is dubunk free? What nobody has a clue to how a tower
crushes itself...without a 'crusher'?

Nah. the defenders of the 9-11 perps are a bit shell-shocked and totally avoiding some threads.

A close-up view of the South Tower as it hurls heavy pieces of steel high up into the air above the descending top-down demolition. Does this act like a crush down?

Bazant's crush down - crush up nonsense.


The first error which Dr. Bazant has made is his assumption that all of the available energy would be utilised exclusively in the destruction of the uppermost storey of the lower section. This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances.

The energy available to the collapse is derived from the mass of the upper section. This mass is distributed throughout the upper section. Take for example the mass of the topmost floor slab of the tower. How is it possible for this mass to have its effect upon the uppermost storey of the lower section? In order for the energy associated with this mass to act at the collapse front it must be transmitted through the columns of the upper
section. This energy has no other route to the collapse front other than through these columns. The very fact that all of these upper section columns are subject to load, means that they would absorb energy, in the form of elastic and plastic strain. Thus Dr. Bazant's
argument that all of the energy would be concentrated into overcoming the columns on the uppermost storey of the lower section cannot be true.

It is impossible for all of the energy of the falling section to act on only the one topmost storey in the lower section, since the very act of transmission of the energy to that storey, dictates that all of the storeys in the upper section will come under load and consume energy.


posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:06 PM
WTC7 Video Compilation

I have said this many times here at ATS, WTC7 is the weakest link of the entire government fabrication. To me it is the first domino of lies to fall to make all the other ones go down too.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:58 AM
More info for 'them' to duhbunk:

3. Thermal Behavior
When the chips are heated to about 430ºC (806ºF), they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC (2795ºF) -- the melting point of iron.
The residues produced by these reactions -- iron-rich spheres -- match those produced by igniting commercial thermite and particles found in WTC dust samples.

Fig. 19 compares the DSC traces of a chip from each of the four samples. Although a trace does not capture the increase in temperature once a sample ignites, the area underneath it approximates the sample's energy density.
The thermal behavior of the chips is analyzed using an instrument (a DSC) that measures the flow of heat into and out of the sample as its temperature is gradually increased. When the samples are elevated to about 430ºC, they ignite in a run-away reaction that reaches at least 1535ºC. The fact that the reaction reaches those very high temperatures is evident from the reaction's residue of minute solidified iron-rich sphereoids -- residues that had clearly experienced temperatures above the melting point of iron to create molten droplets that became spherical under the influence of surface tension.

The iron-rich spheroids formed by heating the chips in this manner match those found in abundance in all of the samples of WTC dust studied, and those produced by the reaction of commercial thermite, both in appearance and in chemical composition revealed by XEDS analysis.

Fig. 30 compares estimates of the energy densities of four chips to those of high explosives and thermite.
A measure of a pyrotechnics' performance is its energy density: how much energy can be packed in a given weight or volume. Estimates of the energy densities of chips ignited in the DSC shows them to be similar to those of conventional high explosives and conventional thermite. These estimates include the weight of the inert gray-layer material, which may account for the range of energy densities of the four different chips.

Whereas structural and chemical analysis of the chips shows that they were designed as some kind of pyrotechnic, thermal analysis shows that, despite their fragmented form and age, are still active pyrotechnics, and ones with impressive energy densities.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered does not describe tests that might indicate the discovered material's power density. The fact that it ignites somewhere between 370ºC and 430ºC would seem to make it a delicate explosive, since an office fire can generate such temperatures. However, the material might have more than one reaction mode: It might be designed so that the more gradual heating by a fire causes it to deflagrate and appear to burn like a hydrocarbon material; whereas the small spot of extreme temperture provided by a micro-detonator causes it to detonate with a shockwave powerful enough to shatter objects several feet away.

Although building rubble can contain flammable materials, it is not possible that legitimate materials in the Twin Towers or residues of them formed in the buildings' destruction would be capable of reacting to produce temperatures above the melting point of iron.

>> FURTHER READING: thermal behavior of the chips

As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason.

The North Tower is consumed in a vast eruption as would be produced by a choreographed cascade of thousands of small blasts.
The chips are clearly the unexploded remains of a pyrotechnic material -- likely a high explosive -- that was present in the Twin Towers in large quantities. Reasonable estimates of tonnage of material based on the abundance of red-gray chips in the dust range from the tens into the hundreds. Although the installation of so much material would require considerable planning and logistics, it would not necessarily be difficult to conceal, as this hypothetical blasting scenario shows.

The progressive detonation of so many tons of energetic material would explan the mushrooming explosions that so systematically shattered each Tower from top to bottom, and the incredible thoroughness of the destruction, which left virtually no recognizable building components other than the heavy steelwork and cladding, and no traceable fragment of more than 1000 human bodies.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by turbofan

I'm sorry, I have no real desire to participate in a conspiratorial circlejerk over who has the bestest evidence.

If you would like me to debunk something, state your hypothesis, back it up with facts, and I will give my opinion on the matter. SPreston as we all know has shown no real training or knowledge in this subject, and is just copying the words and opinions of others.

If I wanted to debate them, I would go and find them

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:11 AM
No problem, then don't post in this thread. I'm awaiting your response to
our friendly debate about the tilting south tower...

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:30 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
No problem, then don't post in this thread. I'm awaiting your response to
our friendly debate about the tilting south tower...

I'm trying to find where it was! I've posted in so many damn threads now and they're always not the same subject as the topic title.

Ah well, I'll find it !

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:33 AM

Perhaps you can just explain how World Trade Center 7 collapsed after experiencing 100% uniform failure across every section of the building. Despite the fact that only small sections were damaged.

Then provide one valid reason for not releasing anything more than 6 frames from one camera that would show what hit the Pentagon.

Then provide photographic or other proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon, including but not limited to, the impact damage from the 124 foot wingspan, the two engines and the vertical stabilizer.

Then please continue by providing proof that kerosene or any fire can melt steel. Then additionally prove that it can melt steel 80 floors below where it is actually burning.

Also provide a valid reason for the astounding amount of Nano Thermite that has been scientifically proven to be found in New York that day.

Please explain how a jet impact near the top of the building will result in molten metal in the basements of the building, able to hold their molten state for several weeks after the event.

Then I want you to explain how Terrorists in a Cave, were able to have Norad stand down on one day in history, luckily for them, the only day in history they attack with planes.

Then tell me why normal protocol was not followed by the Secret Service when the country was under direct attack. Bush sat in a publicly announced location like a sitting duck putting himself and the children in grave danger.

Then I want a reasonable explanation for every single lie that the administration told which has been PROVEN to be a lie due to contrary actions to their statements.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:06 AM

posted by exponent
reply to post by turbofan

I'm sorry, I have no real desire to participate in a conspiratorial circlejerk over who has the bestest evidence.

If you would like me to debunk something, state your hypothesis, back it up with facts, and I will give my opinion on the matter. SPreston as we all know has shown no real training or knowledge in this subject, and is just copying the words and opinions of others.

If I wanted to debate them, I would go and find them

e^n (exponent) why are you even on this thread if you are unwilling to address the OP?

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:08 AM

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by turbofan

I'm sorry, I have no real desire to participate in a conspiratorial circlejerk over who has the bestest evidence.

If you would like me to debunk something, state your hypothesis, back it up with facts, and I will give my opinion on the matter. SPreston as we all know has shown no real training or knowledge in this subject, and is just copying the words and opinions of others.

LOL...But, THAT is what YOU do....

YOU sit there and quote the NIST HYPOTHESIS, STATING it as FACT and pushing it as so...

YOU won't participate because YOU have NOTHING but a HYPOTHESIS, with NO facts to back it up

new topics

top topics


log in