"Pancake collapse" proven possible

South Tower explosions from Hoboken

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Ahem, the two videos show what is happening as clearly as they could.

That sounds quite a bit like "as far as I know..." As clearly as they could? Right and the could not get clear enough to show anything like what you are describing. There is no pancaking. The top goes byebye.

The picture is taken already after the top floors have dropped lower. The rest is covered by the dust clouds. Unless someone had an x-ray machine or supervision to be able to see through the dust, we cannot see it. However, what we can see is the top section in one piece collapsing down, before it gets completely covered up and obscured by the dust. The picture is only showing the dust tht has already been thrown up and out by the collapse.

Are you even watching these videos?

EDIT to add:
Well, maybe if you can point out the part with the series of detonations of demolition charges anywhere prior to collapse would help. Also if you could find an estimate of just how much explosives would have been needed to completely destroy the top floors without a soul hearing the demolition charges going off (save for the roar of the collapse as heard by all, any detonations of high explosives would have been audible over the collapse. but none was heard.)

Ah...here we go again. JThomas, Joey Cameltoey, is that you?
Now you want me to point out explosions to you and explain how much it would take to bring the towers down?

What planet are you on. All you 'debunkers' use the same lame old tactics. You cannot win your argument so change it. Corner the person and ask them to back up something they never said and then stand proud and say "See, told ya."

Go ask a demolition expert. All I know is that the top is not crushing the rest and there is not one hint of pancaking in any videos or photos.

You want proof of something I never said? Nice try but you fail.

posted by GenRadek

Maybe you can point out the detonations here in this video, of the first collapse taken from inside the North Tower as the South collapsed:

Now why cant i hear the detonations?

You want me to explain flaws in the sound recording abilities of a 2001 videocamera?

Why can't you hear the explosions from both Towers recorded in the videos from across the river in Hoboken?

Most people can hear them.

Originally posted by SPreston

You want me to explain flaws in the sound recording abilities of a 2001 videocamera?

You serious? Man, that's funny! I bought MY first camcorder in 1992. It has EXCELLENT sound recording capabilities. Heck, it's better than the guy's in the YT video YOU posted!! From 2001!!!. Boy, is that funny!

Why can't you hear the explosions from both Towers recorded in the videos from across the river in Hoboken?

Explosions? The guy who posted the video points out dust clouds at the base. Minutes go by, no collapse. Ever seen a CD??? There must be a more compelling video out there, somewhere. You'll find it, I have 'faith'.
_______________________________________________________
(tags)

[edit on 14 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Originally posted by SPreston

You want me to explain flaws in the sound recording abilities of a 2001 videocamera?

You serious? Man, that's funny! I bought MY first camcorder in 1992. It has EXCELLENT sound recording capabilities. Heck, it's better than the guy's in the YT video YOU posted!!

From 2001!!!. Boy, is that funny!

Ummmm.... I hate to be a stick in the mud but uh.... you just backed up his point. You had a video camera with great sound recording capabilities and you state that the youtube videos do NOT have as good sound. That was what he was saying.

If we assume that the falling mass you speak of which noone can see because (its not there) is covered by the dust.
The a progressive collapse is still impossible.

The progressive collapse requires sequential failures of floors each floor adding more and more weight to the collapse.
If we assume that the collapsing mass covered by the dust is roughly the same during the descent of the tower, then the momentum of this collapsing mass would be halted as its pulverising the material below it causing it to slow down from friction.
In other words how can it be progressive when its constant
The energy required to pulverise all the material in the towers far exceeds the gravitational potential energy of the resting towers.

The reason for the exterior columns buckling in is the core columns were cut by thermite first causing the core to fail , this resulted in the natural looking first seconds of the collapse , before high explosives were used to demolish the building.

Sounds of explosions? I think the answer here lies in the problems of recording loud sounds with video cameras.



[edit on 14-8-2009 by starchildtesla]

www.rtve.es...

in this video we can see that even the material which wasnt exploded did not magically pulverise from a similar load of falling building as the twin towers.
Look at the debris of this controlled demolotion and compare it to twin towers

reply to post by starchildtesla


Plenty of people record sounds of explosions w/video cameras. Note all the explosive controlled demo videos (the ones everyone knows are controlled demo, i.e. not 9/11 stuff).

As for energy needed to pulverize -- the collapse shown in the video I posted showed that large amounts of concrete can be pulverized using only the available gravitational potential energy and no additional energy.

On here:

911guide.googlepages.com...

there is a computation for the energy balance in the WTC collapse. There's enough energy available from the gravitational collapse alone to drive all observed phenomena. No explosive "boosting" needed. In addition, the purpose of explosives in explosive demolitions is just to knock out columns, not to pulverize everything. If there was enough explosives in there to pulverize the building it would likely create a devastating shock wave that would cause damage to surrounding buildings. No such shock waves are seen. And how would you think the perps could pile that much explosive in there without anyone seeing it? Even if explosives were used on 9/11, it would not be that extensive. Therefore even under the explosive demolition scenario we'd have to assume the majority of the breaking, crushing, and pulverizing of concrete is done via gravitational collapse. So the existence of pulverized concrete fails to differentiate between explosive demolition and unassisted progressive collapse.

Finally, the video also proves that progressive collapse via gravity alone is possible!

[edit on 15-8-2009 by mike3]

Originally posted by mike3
Finally, the video also proves that progressive collapse via gravity alone is possible!

No. The video only proves that it is easy to make a video that will convince you of whatever someone wants you to think. You cannot hold the collapse of the twin towers up as comparison to....the twin towers falling.

My mom won't let me attend the movies presented here on ATS lol.
So could you tell me Exactly what started the collapse?
and why the cameras were there?
thanks OP

No there is no energy calculation available , nist hasnt done one.I dont beleive some random 'skeptics' energy conservation calculation posted on jref forum would be accurate...
there is no other explanation for the dust than explosives you dont need a calculation to figure out
Dust cannot crush concrete

reply to post by evil incarnate


No, what he was saying was the video from Hoboken had "obvious" sounds of explosions, indicating a CD, and GenRadek had another video, up closer, with no sounds of "squibs" or anything else associated with CD.

Preston's version from across the River was laughable. IF you hadn't snipped the rest of my post, there.

Originally posted by mike3
Hi.

I'm quite skeptical of all these 9/11 Bomb theories. Just a short time ago I came upon something which shows that yes, a "pancake collapse" of a large building is indeed possible:

www.youtube.com...

No explosives were used, the building actually crushed itself after that one floor failed, causing the top to drop onto it. The impact of the top falling just ONE FLOOR had enough strength to crush the floors beneath it.

What do you think? Looks like such a collapse really is possible. It just takes ONE FLOOR of fall to start the process, and the whole thing goes down. The whole tower was destroyed.

Hmm.

Mike 3
I can' t watch the video that you included in your OP here.
So would you be so kind as to explain why it was filmed?
Also what caused it to fall to the ground and go boom?
Why was the camera there at such a time?
How did the film maker know the building was going to be pulled at that exact moment?
What was the factor that created the first molecule to displace?
thanks donny

reply to post by Vinciguerra


*sighs and shakes his head* Too bad the floors didn't "immediately" turn to dust on the WTC like you claim.

reply to post by SPreston


Um. How high above ground level is the 110th floor? And the 109th, and the 108th? I am sure you understand the progression I am going with here. How far does those floors have to fall BEFORE they strike the ground? ALOT more than that dinky little building shown. With a heck of alot more weight involved and many other floors to hit. The expectation that the end result would even remotely look like that picture is ludicris at best.

I was thinking maybe the 'rumbles' that are claimed to be explosions in the tower were actually something else, maybe the camera was too far away from the towers so the sound was from something else, but you can quite audibly hear the rumble sound from the tower collapsing.

Also, the smoke which appears at the base of the tower following the rumbling sound is interesting.

Obviously it is suggested that IF we are hearing explosions from the tower, the sound would be originating from somewhere low, or in the basements maybe? Would those explosions be the real big ones which weaken the base of the structure? I just think that if that's really what we are hearing, wouldnt the tower have fallen sooner than it did?

Just wondering.

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


The collapse would have occured at the base had the hypothetical charges went off there.

not worth it
sorry

[edit on 15-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]