Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Pancake collapse" proven possible

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


So I guess I'm going to have to assume that you believe the towers were CD'd as well right? Since the OP's was PLANNED with no explosives, you must understand that the WTC's also had to be planned right? To work so well??




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Why do why try to educate those that don't understand?

What percentage of the South and North Tower were available to 'crush'
the remainder of the building?

What amount of area was "removed" to allow the upper floors to crush
the remainder of the building?

Why did the upper section of the south tower stop rotating?
WHat FORCE stopped the upper section from tilting?

How did the antenna on the north tower fall first if there is a hat-truss
system holding it in place?

Answer any of these questions honestly and you will see a problem.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


No that is not what I believe. I believe the supports/bolts were weakened/damaged by the force of the impact and the fact that there was a fire fueled by jet fuel and office supplies and building materials.

The building wasnt designed to survive for that size plane, full of jet fuel to impact it and then for that entire load of fuel to burn.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 




WHat FORCE stopped the upper section from tilting?


The main support columns.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Ok, I give up. Time for bed.

Thanks again for the props you gave on your tread, btw.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


I am off to bed too.. No problem. Lets just agree to disagree on this one. I usually agree with what you say, so I guess a few disagreements wont hurt any. Have a good night!



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

His video explicitly says that no explosives were used in the collapse of that building.

But that means it cant be a CD?

Think about that for a bit while it sinks in.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by turbofan
 




WHat FORCE stopped the upper section from tilting?


The main support columns.


Wow, We have a star on this reply!

So, the main support columns would be perimeter, or core columns?

Please clarify and then we'll get to the next point of why NIST lied to you...
or you debunked NIST...either way, you'll see niether story holds water.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
You actually post a video that proves that you are wrong.

According to your argument (and the ones presented in the video) you only need to cut off a section of the building (assuming that happened with the planes in WTC 1&2). You showed us a video of a building collapse under "pancake" style.

But if you look closer, you see that the debris that fall are pretty much "intact". You can clearly see the shape and volume of the building although it's pretty deformed.

You don't see either of that in WTC 1&2.

Another thing that you actually proven that you are wrong is that in the floors where they used explosives the concret turned into dust, the rest of the floors didn't. Now, explain us WHY in the WTC case all of the floors turned into dust...


And just for the sake of argument, let me show you this:

www.youtube.com...

In this demolation they used explosions on the bottom floors, but they were placed incorrectly.

Explain why a building with 1/4 (if it had that much) of building technology and safety didn't collapse only to the collapse of 3 or 4 floors, and a monumental structure, built to stand against the hardest things humans/nature could find (including FIRE) would collapse turning every floors to dust and all those points that don't ad up to the OS.

Even if the WTC collapsed according to the pancake theory, you know what you would find on the top of the debris? The top part of the building would be pretty damn visible, like in the video you showed.

[edit on 7/8/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Just loved the way the video referred to "troofers" and "these clowns".

Nothing like a little light abuse to weaken any argument.

Then the video... supposed to prove what? That if you pre-weaken a building enough, it collapses? And how did they get it to come down so uniformly if no explosives were used? Did they have long ropes attached to big broom handles that were wedging the thing up, and on "one, two, THREE!" everyone gave a mighty heave?

Just wondering.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


His video explicitly says that no explosives were used in the collapse of that building.


1. So, everything that a YouTube video "says" is true?

2. Then the "troofers" are correct in knowing that they have non-explosive cutter charges (thermate maybe?). Because there was something used to sever all those columns at the same time.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


All they did was weaken the columns on the floor where they wanted the building to collapse. Just like when the WTC supports collapsed on the upper floors. So it is more like that scenario then a conrolled demolition via explosives and as you see you get THE EXACT SAME RESULT between the video in the OP and what happened at the WTC.

[edit on 8/7/2009 by grapesofraft]


Key question here is: How did they weaken those columns and what was used? Because I'm damn sure people weren't used to weaken the supports up to the point of collapse.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Anything is possible when you run the country, your point with this thread is????????????.

Great example here.......

G.W.B. `The public want an official enquiry`.

Advisor.. `Give them one`.

G.W.B. `But i`m a *Snip*, I will give the game away for sure, plus there`s so much to ahem, hide!!!`.

Advisor `Dear oh dear Sir, you are teh man, before we do it change some rules, you know, then just organize it in a fool proof way`.

G.W.B. `Including bending the laws of Science?`.

Advisor `We are the laws of Science, muhahahahahaha`.

G.W.B. `Muhahahahaha, mmm there`s 500 plus 1st responders that heard our.. *cough* uhm explosions`.

Advisor `Like I said Sir, it`s your show, don`t invite them`.

G.W.B. `I can do that?`

Advisor `Yep, right, okay Sir, here`s the plan, you will be next to Cheney, if there`s any complex question like what`s your name, let him answer for you, okay`.

G.W.B. `Okay, got that, how the hell will we explain WTC Seven?`.

Advisor `WTC What?`

G.W.B. `Ah ha, I like your style, what we need is a scapegoat fronting what appears to be a legitimate and complex investigation, with some form of bribery via a solid promotion etc, etc, who do we have in NIST?`.

Meanwhile over at Sector Seven G.

Government Official.. `Gross hey`.

Catch my drift, matters not if it was a pancake, structural failure, someone left the gas on, when you are the government pulling the strings on agencies like NIST and FEMA, it can be anything you want it to be.



[Mod Edit - snipped profanity]
Do not circumvent the sensors.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth proved by analyzing video that there was no "impact" during the onset of the collapse, i.e., the top section of the North Tower smoothly dropped down without bumping into anything with enough force to alter its acceleration.

In the case of the twin towers the "pancake collapse" theory has been completely debunked. As another poster pointed out, not even NIST subscribes to it.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixitIn the case of the twin towers the "pancake collapse" theory has been completely debunked. As another poster pointed out, not even NIST subscribes to it.


I'm still amazed at how these 'debunkers' come to a debate with old,
unfounded information and try to seem like they have something to prove.

Pancakes, diesel tanks, building physical damage...NOPE...not according
to the National Institute of Stupid Turds.

Not even they agree with you.

They said it was "Fiya"


A new phenomenon!



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
The building wasnt designed to survive for that size plane, full of jet fuel to impact it and then for that entire load of fuel to burn.

Care to share where you got this false information from? You should fire them because they have no idea what they're talking about.

A 1200-page analysis on the towers was released on February 3, 1964 and it states:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

The above emphasis is mine. That paper explained exactly what happened on 9/11. Had the towers not been brought down with explosives, they would still be standing today.

John Skilling, head structural engineer for the World Trade Center:

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there.

Kinda like this building structure that was still there after burning for almost 24-hours straight, unlike the 56 minutes in the south tower:






Notice there was only a partial collapse in the above structure from the intense heat and from burning so long. 56 minutes in the south tower vs. 24-hours? Puhlease.

Frank DeMartini, WTC construction manager:




When Frank DeMartini says "fully loaded", that means fully fueled also.


As far as your original quote that the buildings weren't designed to withstand that size of plane:





The 707 and 767 are close in size and weight. The 707 (which is what the buildings were designed to withstand) flies faster than a 767 which impacted the buildings on 9/11. The faster speed of the 707 makes up for the slightly lower weight.

Since the 707 and 767 are very comparable, you could say that the buildings were designed to withstand 767's as well. Never let anybody tell you those buildings weren't designed to withstand the impact of 767's like we were shown on 9/11. They are absolutely wrong.



Originally posted by grapesofraft
All they did was weaken the columns on the floor where they wanted the building to collapse.

They weakened every single column on the whole entire floor. Not 35 columns out of 240 perimeter columns, or 2-3 out of 47 core columns. And not to mention only on a single side of the WTC's, not across the whole entire floor.

That equates to about 14% damaged columns in a WTC tower compared to 100% damaged columns in that demolition in the OP. Big difference there.




[edit on 7-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I can't help but wonder why people think that a problem with a 10-50 story building *which is your examples* or collapse is at all going to be simular to a 100+ story building problem or collapse. About the only thing simular in any of those cases is that it was a building that happend to catch fire and steel and concrete *though in differing ammounts and configurations*.


[edit on 7-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by mike3
 


I hope you are joking. You are aware that even NIST has ruled out the 'pancake theory' right?


Regardless of whether the specific "pancake theory" is actually what happened, the video shows that the falling of the top portion of the building does indeed have enough punch behind it to cause the rest of the structure to fail.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

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.



It is wise that duhbunkers and pseudoskeptics do not set their aspirations too high.


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.


by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics




[edit on 8/7/09 by SPreston]


Most likely the "explosions" seen in the video are due to air compressing and being forced out. If you watch the video of the other tower you can see something similar starting, though without a lot of height available there it doesn't develop as far. Biggest proof this is not explosions from charges: no sound -- high explosives in a demolition can be heard for literally miles. Near the base of the towers it would be deafening, as in causing ear pain at the least. It would be recorded on every camera. It's not.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join