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: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mike3
 


Looking into this to see exactly how that demolition was exactly done, I came up with a few more details I thought I'd add to the discussion.

First this style of demolition was patented in 1997 by a guy named Dominique Ferrari(of Ferrari Demolitions) and its called "Pressing".

They basically attach giant pumps/actuators to the designated floor and at one time they all push the floor out from its center of gravity and then the top half crushes the bottom half.

Should be noted that the building is always halved and it falls two floors not one. For example in this case this building was fourteen floors and the actuators were attached to the 8th floor. When the 8th floor was moved, and the collapse started, the columns from the 7th floor and 8th floor are all moved sideways at the same time. Causing the 9th floor to fall to the 7th floor and beginning the crushing/pressing of the lower half.

A quote from one story


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.

translate.google.com...://www.cg94.fr/balzac&ei=UdyISvbPAceltgewoNznDA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/sea rch%3Fq%3Dd%25C3%25A9molition%2Bde%2Bla%2Btour%2BABC%2BBalzac%2B%25C3%25A0%2BVitry-sur-Seine%2B%2894%29.%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%2 6rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US
fficial%26sa%3DN

There are several attached files to the article and slide show(I couldn't get to work). All needs translated also, as it is in France.




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
So was there any mass left in the rubble of the buildings collapse? were there any concrete floors still intact i beleive there would be ?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

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


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


The purpose of this thread is to distract

The collapse has NOTHING to do with what occurred on 9-11, nor can it be used as a comparison.

there is NO top-crushing-block pushing down the towers

this DEMO has MORE in common with the collapse of WTC7, than the towers, the OP might have NOT intended so, but......play it side by side with BLD. 7...the SAME EVEN decent, which ONLY puts one more nail in the NIST coffin...WHAT affected EVERY vertical support of WTC7, at the SAME time, to get the EVEN decent of the ENTIRE building...as FAST as an object falls FREELY through the AIR...WASN'T from FIRE no one can see through the windows

[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.

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

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
i dunno...fatcs really dont lie...
i dont want to get to much into this, because i don't know very much. But from what i seen... you cant come up with a logical excuse for pictures or physics lol



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


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


Well please let me appologize if I missed something but what I read is Bonez saying that the plumes shown have only been seen in controlled demolitions and that you cannot prove otherwise. Then you respond with


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.


So...it seems to me that you are disputing that these plumes are evidence of controlled demolition but when asked to back up your theory, all you do is lash out about how other people have no proof. You also talk about 100 floors as if that has anything to do with it. The only thing that really matters is the distance between the plumes and the collapsing area which is how many floors exactly?

If I misread, please forgive me and I would appreciate you clearing it up.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Well please let me appologize if I missed something but what I read is Bonez saying that the plumes shown have only been seen in controlled demolitions and that you cannot prove otherwise. Then you respond with
So...it seems to me that you are disputing that these plumes are evidence of controlled demolition but when asked to back up your theory, all you do is lash out about how other people have no proof. You also talk about 100 floors as if that has anything to do with it.
If I misread, please forgive me and I would appreciate you clearing it up.


Well, considering his arguments consist of "You see something that looks like this in videos of controlled demolition so thusly it must be this because I sure don't see any videos of accidental collapse with them. *which is I am sure due to not looking and there not being many videos of buildings collapsing other than ones being brought down by demolition*" I fail to see how the assesment I typed is incorrect. I painted out the senario for him in exacting detail and his response was the classically silly response of "Show me a video or it didn't happen". He couldn't knock the mechanics of the thing as offered so chose that tact. Rather like how he asserted in the face of cognitive psychological studies that he will still believe eye witness testimony is infalliable or that at least the testimony offered that supports him. Which some of them doesn't as they simply say "It sounded like....." which is not the same as it was.


The only thing that really matters is the distance between the plumes and the collapsing area which is how many floors exactly?


Are you familiar with the dynamics of air? Here, I want to do something. Take a wide piece of lumber say a foot and a half or so. Now swing that board through the air. The resistance that you feel is air not moving fast enough out of the way and air pressure building up in front of the face of the board being swung. Although it has the ability to escape in that situation as nothing is really penning it in except it's inability to "get out of the way" quick enough. As for the building collapse on the other hand the air has nowhere to go but get pushed down and when it get to a place it can't go farther pressure builds and builds. And then, like I pointed out earlier, once enough pressure builds it will blow out violently at the weakest point since that material was not as strong as the rest, like say a window.

But of course this is where I get a call for a video again right?

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Obviously you miss the point. The physics involved is the same. It shows that the upper part dropping down can generate enough DYNAMIC force to smash the floors beneath. It does not matter whether the method used to drop the chunk of tower is a demolition system or fire weakening (NOT melting) columns that have been overloaded, distorted, and damaged by the impact of a giant jet plane going at 500-600MPH. Once it drops and it's gonna generate massive dynamical load many many many many many times in excess of the static load.

And do you have some evidence to back yourself up on that claim that it was weakened beforehand?


[edit on 17-8-2009 by mike3]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally 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?


Exactly!



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinciguerra

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


5-6 stories collapsing will not show you what to expect from an collapse of a 100+ story building collapse. About all that building had in common was that 1) it was a building 2) perhaps building materials. We are talking different weights, different structure/configurations of material, different heights, etc.


Nonetheless, it illustrates that floors can pancake without immediately turning into fine dust blown for miles around in pyroclastic flows.


However, as was mentioned, the WTC floors were not built the same way, and WTC was a much larger structure. Furthermore if there was enough explosive in there to powder the concrete completely to dust it would make an unbelievably loud sound -- not to mention a devastating air shockwave that may damage other buildings in the area like a giant bomb! None of that is observed, so I think we can say with 99.999999999999% certainty the destruction of the concrete was NOT done with explosives.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


Ehmm.... DYNAMIC force again! If the bottom gives way and the top falls far enough the dynamical shock will break it and it will pile up in a pile.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
how can you be 99.999 percent sure the towers werent blown up when you cant even explain how it collapsed?

explosions were heard by 100's of people ,in the 1993 wtc bombing people working close to the towers couldnt hear that bomb.

The shockwave of the explosives was mostly absorbed by the concrete turning it to dust
and its hard to determine the shockwave speed as nanothermite has tunable front velocitys meaning the shockwave is tuned to specific speeds.

Your video is comparing a small wide building to the tall towers ,your building is wide and low, half of the weight is crashing on the other half
all of that floors columns were removed at the same time, how does that happen in both building 7 and the twin towers



[edit on 18-8-2009 by starchildtesla]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by starchildtesla
 


how can you be 99.999 percent sure the towers werent blown up when you cant even explain how it collapsed?


Yet endlessly it is attempted to explain to you how it collapsed... Go figure.



[edit on 18-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike3
reply to post by hgfbob
 


Ehmm.... DYNAMIC force again! If the bottom gives way and the top falls far enough the dynamical shock will break it and it will pile up in a pile.


Ehmm....which brings us RIGHT back to the POINT of the FACT of WHAT affects 100+ft. of vertical support, at the SAME time, to enable the top of the building to achieve free fall ACCELERATION.

free fall ACCELERATION can ONLY happen if there is a CLEAR path, NOTHING in the way. If something is there, it HAS to offer resistance...hence, NO free fall ACCELERATION

And WE ALL SEE WTC7, as soon as the kink is formed, EVENLY falling as fast as an object can fall through the AIR.

If ANY vertical support offered resistance, you would SEE it reflected in the exterior of the building...it EVENLY ACCELERATES through ITSELF till after the 4.0 second mark of the collapse, THEN the internal debris starts to affect the exterior of the building


So....WHAT point are YOU trying to make AGAIN?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Are you familiar with the dynamics of air? Here, I want to do something. Take a wide piece of lumber say a foot and a half or so. Now swing that board through the air. The resistance that you feel is air not moving fast enough out of the way and air pressure building up in front of the face of the board being swung. Blah blah blah


You use far too many words to say so little. You completely sidestepped my point. You opened as if you were going to attack it and then just missed it completely.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Rather like when I proved that eye witness testimony is inherently faulty


Let's talk about that, because I know a bit about it. I'll keep it simple.

Under stressful or quick, unexpected circumstances, certain things will be retained wih accuracy, while others will not. It all depends how these things are processed in the brain.

You quoted stuff about recognising faces, signs, etc. Yes, these are good examples. But lets use more relevant examples. For example, the planes, in order of most to least accurate.

Recognising the size of the planes, although only as far as it being "Big" or "Small", is pretty accurate. Recognising the speed, as far as "it was going pretty fast/slow" comes next. Recognising the color is starting to be pretty inaccurate. Worst of all, most people won't even be able to tell you the direction it was travelling in. That's ok, though, because we know that from where they hit.

Simple things that require next to no processing by the brain are accurate. Hearing an explosion, or seeing a flash? These will be remembered accurately.


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And besides, how many videos have you seen of accidentally collapsing buildings of over 100 floors?


None.

Because it doesn't happen.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And besides, how many videos have you seen of accidentally collapsing buildings of over 100 floors?


None.

Because it doesn't happen.


At least not until 9/11 when buildings were pushed into unknown territory by being impacted by planes traveling at 600mph full of fuel.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
The whole pancake collapse theory and the way the towers fell beggars belief... Floors that are being turned to dust as they collapse, and 80% of their weight being ejected out of the areas needed, will at the very least not cause two things, no weight - no gain - for floors to pancake they really do need that load bearing status, and a test here for the wind induced squib guys... get two paving slabs that are square, drop one on to the other and indeed you will feel a draft, now like any correct experiment do it the way it happened, smash the slabs to bits, and drop a bucketful of dust on to the other, and ofc for any type of air pressure activities the whole emphasis is.... air tight environments and no fires in the vicinity as one they will use that precious oxygen and two - compressed gases and fires are bad.

So there we have it, not enough weight due to displacement outside the target areas, and an impossible time lapse to beat, oh nearly forgot, a pancake spread would not explain the mysterious disappearance of both centre cores.

The list of viable causes of building collapses is getting shorter - Not subsidence, nor an act of God, a fire contributed no doubting that, but still cannot be proved it was fire, a pancake collapse = lol, a horrendous explosion caused by combustible items and or fossil fuel gases is not guilty also, bombs - a viable cause due to the facts of explosions as reported by at least 503 FR`s, and videos proving explosions (we cannot put the air pressure being released due to being compressed between floors, that are not affected by the collapse yet down to all these squib like spurts, so we`ll do a deal, all the none heat based squib type exits that appeared between top and tail of the storey in the chain at that time of collapse, the debunkers can have, or are the GL`s hinting at compressed to such a high pressure the collapse inducing multi directional slip stream vacuum, is actually behaving like an over pressurized sealed container... wow).

Nor termites caused it, not many possible causes left now.






[edit on 18/08/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

This looks like the building buckled, and didn't get "blown up"

[edit on 8/20/2009 by TheInsurgent666]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
yes it did buckle because the core columns were evaporated by thermite causing a deceptive looking collapse



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike3
At least not until 9/11 when buildings were pushed into unknown territory by being impacted by planes traveling at 600mph full of fuel.

The buildings were designed to withstand the impacts of fully fueled jetliners travelling at 600mph, so that point is automatically moot. You can make things up to ignore that fact and/or just explain it away and call all of the engineers who built the towers liars. That would be the easy, denial-fueled way out.

According to NIST, only 15% (I believe less) of the columns in the impact areas were damaged from the impacts, and most of those were exterior columns. That means 85% of the structure in the impact areas alone was intact while 100% of the rest of the towers were intact above and below impact. A 15% local failure of columns doesn't come close to suggesting collapse.

Another glaring fact is that fire has never globally collapsed a steel-structured highrise before in our entire history before 9/11 or after. You can again make things up to explain this fact away, but it doesn't make the fact any less truthful.

Since the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts we saw on 9/11, since 15% local damage to the structure is not significant, and since fire has never brought a steel-structured highrise down before, what does that leave? It leaves us with explosive demolition as all available evidence suggests.

You can keep making things up in your mind to explain away these facts, but you will never make the facts go away with your opinions, speculations, and denial.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join