It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

"Pancake collapse" proven possible

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

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


Yes, it's a demolition of a building in France (I am not sure of what the tower was called but I have heard it called variously the "ABC Tower" and "Balzac tower".). No explosives were used in the demolition, just mechanical pulling of columns to cause the top part of the building to impact the floors beneath, starting off a top-down progressive collapse like the WTC. The point I am trying to make with it is that it shows that the impact of the upper floors of a sufficiently big building is capable of smashing the lower floors, thereby leading to progressive collapse -- thereby providing evidence to further increase the plausibility of the official theory of what happened on 9/11, and to take one more argument away from the "Truther" theory.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

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.


Huh? That does not at all look like a substantial argument, just asserting things about the video. The obvious and simple conclusion is that it shows a top-down progressive collapse of a large building achieved with no explosives. (The version with audio, which I linked to earlier but will link to again here: (www.youtube.com...) backs me up on the no-explosives thing as the expected "report" ("bang" sound) of the explosives is absent.)

Please, provide a better critique than just asserting it is wrong. The video speaks for itself. You need to explain why the obvious is not correct.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike3
Huh?

Please, provide a better critique than just asserting it is wrong. The video speaks for itself. You need to explain why the obvious is not correct.


Yeah I should have known you would not understand.

I will try again slowly.

You cannot show a video of the twin towers and then say that them falling is proof that they fell.

Comparing an apple to the same apple and saying see, apple 1 proves apple 1 is not logical at all. You did not even try here..

and sigh... to your orignal video.

I already explained this but you seem to have missed it.

You show a video of a controlled demolition....right?

Then you say that the way it falls proves that the twin towers were NOT a controlled demo because they fall the same way?

How does that make sense to you?

Your example is a controlled demo on a building that was weakend in preparation for the demo. How does that prove the twin towers fell naturally? Contolled demo = natural collapse???????

[edit on 8/16/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by starchildtesla
 


There was plenty of debris and not all of it dust. Not to mention the massive amount of circular logic you use.


lol.....YEA....debris in a 1400 foot radius EQUALLY around each tower.

one thing this video does, is SHOW that dust and debris is being ejected, AFTER there is impact with the lower floors, to which FRICTION can create it.

on BOTH towers, YOU SEE the EXPLOSIVE ejection of dust and debris, EQUALLY on all 4 sides....AS THE TOWER IS COLLAPSING....BEFORE there is contact with the lower floor in which to have FRICTION create it

HOW does THAT happen?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by SPreston
 


As far as your video goes its called air pressure finding the easiest path to flow out of the building. As the building collapses it forces air down the elevator shafts and stair wells and whenever it reaches a good sized crack or an open door it flushes as much air as possible into those floors. Then the weakest windows go first to release the AIR pressure. It is not an exposion.. Its AIR.


AIR......then WHY didn't it take the SAME path as the HYPOTHETICAL 'FIREBALL' that destroyed the basements and lobby?

Seems to me THAT is the path of less resistance

HOW does the collapse 'keep a seal' to force pressure and compress the air, to force it out the weakest point, in a hermetically sealed building, 40 floors below


'specially when, WE SEE 'the destruction wave' going down the towers, at different floors on each side, sometimes 10 to 15 floors LOWER than the corners on the SAME side.

What we see, CAN NOT happen NATURALLY

The building is NOT causing itself to do that

YOU find ANY building that has had TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE for ANY reason,....and then we'll compare the causes



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by turbofan
 




WHat FORCE stopped the upper section from tilting?


The main support columns.


uummmm.....if the top is doing what it did, it was NOT attached to ANYTHING...it was PAST it's fulcrum point, and it had forward momentum...it STOPS dead and just before it disappears into a cloud of dust, and what we see is CRUMBLING apart

WE SEE this happening, and SHILLY people like you, say it's NOT happening...

So much for THAT "top crushing block", that NIST/Bazant HYPOTHESIZED, as to what crushed the tower down



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike3

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

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


Yes, it's a demolition of a building in France (I am not sure of what the tower was called but I have heard it called variously the "ABC Tower" and "Balzac tower".). No explosives were used in the demolition, just mechanical pulling of columns to cause the top part of the building to impact the floors beneath, starting off a top-down progressive collapse like the WTC. The point I am trying to make with it is that it shows that the impact of the upper floors of a sufficiently big building is capable of smashing the lower floors, thereby leading to progressive collapse -- thereby providing evidence to further increase the plausibility of the official theory of what happened on 9/11, and to take one more argument away from the "Truther" theory.


Mike 3
Thanks for getting back to me on this. Taking your time to help me get a better idea of what was happening there.
If I hadn't been posting here for a few months on these topics I probably would not attempt a reply to you as the one that follows.
You should realize that "Truthers" for the lack of some better PR are a loosely formed group of people actually seeking answers to very, very serious questions. And I might add--- in the form promoted by the democracy we live in here in the USA. Granted the world is involved in this as well and we usually do not know who we are talking to for certain.
I guess the point I am trying to make is this---
What the heck would it hurt if there could be a better Investigation?
What could there possible be to lose from that.?
Do we not owe it to the rest of the world as well. We all have suffered way to much since that day. Please don't be a part of the broom that tries to sweep this tragedy further under the rug.
I do appreciate the discussion you have created . It is good to learn and vent at the same time.
thanks donny



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Well darn, I thought I was gonna be able to go back to sleep by the title, but after seeing the video, guess not.

I'm not even going to bother pointing out the flaws with the theory it proves anything. I figured long ago that people who want to know the truth already do, and those who want to remain asleep about it will.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

posted by weedwhacker
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.


Laughable? By your criteria? I counted 4 seconds from the explosion sounds to the top of the tower starting to collapse. Add 3 seconds for the explosion sounds to reach the videorecorder across the river in Hoboken NJ.

Explosion sounds were recorded across the river 7 seconds before the WTC 1 collapse. The video shows a vertical collapse with pulverized dust, debris, and steel sections thrown out symmetrically in all directions. What do you think those explosions were? Edna Cintron beating on cold metal with her fist?




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

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


There, now your entire post has been repeated twice. Happy? It does nothing to change what I said. I cut it for brevity in my reply, not so I could avoid reading it. I know what you said. You just do not like that I called you wrong.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by weedwhacker
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.


Amazing isnt it? We have video of the planes crashing and the buildings falling that are used to point out how no plane wrackage or plane is seen crashing into the pentagon. We see 3 buildings in NYC collapse symetrically with no pulverizing hammer on top. We basically see all kinds of reasons that the OS is a lie and yet, that video is just lying to us or we are misrepresenting or some other crap.

But.....finding videos with crappy sound are supposed to be proof there were no explosions? I want to see all the video cameras down there that were built to capture such a thing?

First of all, in the VAST majority of personal video recording equipment, sound is the last thing anyone cares about. The mics are cheap and the range is poor. They often miss sounds that are too high, too low, too soft, too far away, and yes - too loud.

Somehow when we point to videos to make a point, we have it all wrong but these same people think that having a video where they hear no explosions is proof there were no explosions?

What does this mean about the videos that do contain explosion sounds as well as the videos of people talking about these explosions?

Laughable? By your criteria? I counted 4 seconds from the explosion sounds to the top of the tower starting to collapse. Add 3 seconds for the explosion sounds to reach the videorecorder across the river in Hoboken NJ.

Explosion sounds were recorded across the river 7 seconds before the WTC 1 collapse. The video shows a vertical collapse with pulverized dust, debris, and steel sections thrown out symmetrically in all directions. What do you think those explosions were? Edna Cintron beating on cold metal with her fist?



[edit on 8/16/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


1) Once again with the plumes. Read the history of the thread.
2) Once again with the tumbling debris. This I will repeat, though only in quotation:

[sarcasm]
Yes because nothing tumbles away from a collapse. And by extension the higher something has to fall that is not giving it a chance to tumble farther away.. IMPOSSIBLE I SAY IMPOSSIBLE!
[/sarcasm]

SOURCE:That Post, This Thread

Do at least try to pay attention eh?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob
AIR......then WHY didn't it take the SAME path as the HYPOTHETICAL 'FIREBALL' that destroyed the basements and lobby?

Don't listen to the armchair debunkers. The concentrated plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and not a single one of these armchair debunkers have proven otherwise:





The armchair debunkers can only speculate and theorize as to what they think the plumes are. They make up unprovable things to tell themselves so they can sleep at night. They will never be able to show an image or video showing these concentrated plumes in a building collapse that is not a controlled demolition. But you will see these plumes in most every controlled demolition and that is not a theory or speculation, that is a fact. Which means the "plumes" aspect of 9/11 is undebunkable and untouchable because no proof exists to prove otherwise.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


And since it looks like this it must be this unless you can produce videos that show it otherwise.
Do you have that thing saved on your clip board to paste it every few seconds?



[edit on 16-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You can't prove it wrong, so it doesn't really matter. These plumes have only ever been seen in CD and there's not a single shred of proof out there for you to prove otherwise. Unless you have some real proof to show these plumes in any other building collapse that's not CD, anything you say is just a waste of forum space and bandwidth.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


That's funny. Rather like when I proved that eye witness testimony is inherently faulty due to the way we incorporate memories and even change memories when accessing them? With multiple studies from cognitive psychologists and college textbooks talking about said studies? And I still remember your stubborn response in the face of facts.
You offer nothing in the way of proof except hyperbole and stubbornly holding to an idea you cannot let go of and it shows. And besides, how many videos have you seen of accidentally collapsing buildings of over 100 floors? Don't worry I know you won't answer.
But I must say I love your ability for selective perception.




[edit on 16-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by hgfbob
 


1) Once again with the plumes. Read the history of the thread.
2) Once again with the tumbling debris. This I will repeat, though only in quotation:

[sarcasm]
Yes because nothing tumbles away from a collapse. And by extension the higher something has to fall that is not giving it a chance to tumble farther away.. IMPOSSIBLE I SAY IMPOSSIBLE!
[/sarcasm]

SOURCE:That Post, This Thread

Do at least try to pay attention eh?


ummmm....what point are YOU trying to make?

the point of this video , is to prove that a building can fall, EVENLY, without explosives, but it does just the opposite...the building was conditioned, and the collapse was initiated mechanically, uniformly to ALL vertical support at the SAME TIME

WTC7 is suppose to be a NATURAL total global collapse that EVENLY fell as FAST as an object can fall through the AIR

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity. This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0 s.

from fires that CAN'T be seen through the windows...

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

and this...'fire'... is to,'SOMEHOW affect the perimeter columns that the facade is attached to, where they took the measurement of free fall ACCELERATION...

so if YOU believe, FIRE ONLY, then you MUST agree that 'COLD' steel offers no more resistance than 'HOT' steel involved in fire...HOW else are the perimeter columns going to EVENLY fall along with the REST of the building as fast as an object can fall through the AIR

Are YOU saying, that this video shows that the ONLY way to achieve free fall ACCELERATION, of an ENTIRE building, EVENLY, is by, mechanical methods



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


I think you greatly misintrepret the aim of this thread. Nothing was said about evenly to being with.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


That's funny. Rather like when I proved that eye witness testimony is inherently faulty due to the way we incorporate memories and even blah blah blah blah blah


...and the opening post gets backed up some more(edit to add sarcasm.) Speaking of things on the clipboard for easy recall...why do we keep seeing this in this thread?

"No, I cannot prove my point and I cannot prove your point wrong so I will turn the tables and call you out on something unrelated or pretend it is your job to prove a negative to me no matter how weak my argument is all the way around.

Besides, you do not need a video of a 100+ floor building collapsing to try to prove those plumes are simply air pressure. We are not talking about a plume shooting out of the lobby as the top sectin begins to crumble. The plumes are just floors away from the collapsing area.

Can you find any video of any 20+ floor building coming down by accident that produces those same plumes? Or would you like to pretend that you need over 100 floors to prove something that happens whitin 40.

[edit on 8/16/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


? You do realise that was what I was getting at right? Or are you even talking to me?

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join