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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
The progressive and pancake collapse are impossible as all the weight of the bulding is turned to dust in the explosion, wake up and see the towers exploded they did not collapse

If it were a progressive or pankake collapse one would expect some concrete or solid material at the bottom of the towers because you need the weight above to avalanche in a progressive fashion,
yet there is no concrete floors found at the bottom so where did the weight come from.?

You cannot have it both ways debunkers

THere is a reason why NIST has failed to explain the collapse of the wtc1,2 and only state the intitiation of collapse rather than the actual collapse .This is because the conservation of momentum and energy are so totally broken one can discern visually that the towers didnt collapse but were exploded.

squibs
As for jets of air being ejected from windows as popular mechanics states.It is not air but pulverised concrete being ejected at high speeds laterally ,how did air pulverise the concrete pushing it out 10-40 stories below the pulverisation zone.
Why would the pressure be elevated 10-40 stories below the pulverisation zone and not ONE STORIE below .
Makes no sense.

Why are we even arguing this Dr jones has proven nanothermite was used in the explosion of the 3 towers.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 297GT
 


How about not attempting to shift the focus when the conversation is going against you? You realise that encoding is talking about how our minds makes information into memory?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   





posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinciguerra

floors can pancake without immediately turning into fine dust blown for miles around in pyroclastic flows.


Where did this happen?

pyroclastic flows?

So people somewhere were burned to a cinder by hot dust clouds?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Vinciguerra
 


Allow me to put it a different way then. Something heavier falling from hundreds of feet *not to mention hitting other things in the course of a fall* up is going to be VASTLY different than 5 or 6 floors falling from 20-50 feet tops. I am amazed that anyone would think otherwise. It's rather like saying jumping from 5 feet up will have no difference than jumping from 200 feet up.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


It "looked like" pyroclastic flows so thusly to support their preconcieved stance it "was a" pyroclastic flow. I understand the illogic of it about as much as I can without agreeing.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   


there is no mass above the pulverisation zone, all material is exploded outward .A progressive collapse or pancake collapse is therefore impossible and has yet to be explained by nist or anyone.
The only possibility is explosives.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by starchildtesla
 


Yes there is mass there. Its the top floors collapsing down onto the rest. what you see is the dust and debris getting forced out by the collapse, as it is being pulverized during the collapse.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I am not sure that I understand the point here. It is apples and oranges but just for fun, I will accept the given premise. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You offer up a video of a controlled demolition right?

Your video is supposed to prove that the twin towers could have pancaked due to the planes crashing and NOT a controlled demolition. Right?

Please explain how showing a controlled demo and saying it looks like how the towers fell and therefor proves they were not a controlled demo.

I just want to make sure I am getting this thread straight.

The buildings are not the same at all and the circumstances are completely different. All the other stuff in the first page and....we all know the buildings did NOT pancake. That is the accepted fact at the time and video pretty much backs that up.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by starchildtesla
 


Yes there is mass there. Its the top floors collapsing down onto the rest. what you see is the dust and debris getting forced out by the collapse, as it is being pulverized during the collapse.


I am having a little trouble identifying the mass above the crash zone. It looks an awful lot like the top half has been pulverized. I guess I am just not smart enough for this thread because it is really confusing to me.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I'll say this: Yes, no two demolitions are the same but any explosion of high explosives in which the shock wave reaches the air always produces a sharp, distinctive, and LOUD sound. There are absolutely no exceptions. It is the laws of physics. Shock waves turn to sound waves. Fluid dynamics 101.

Here are some videos from near the collapse site, with audio. There are no voice tracks dubbed in that could introduce additional sounds:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Why can't we hear any explosion? Why none of that distinctive, sharp bang/pow sound that we can hear on any explosive demolition from similar distance? From this distance we should easily hear the very loud report of the charges -- it should blot out just about every other sound, esp. in the second one. Hell, they should've been startled out of their wits by just how frakking loud it would be. I mean it would be unmistakable. There is NO WAY it could fail to be recorded. NO WAY. FACT. There should be explosions happening throughout if you don't think a progressive collapse is possible (never mind the first video I posted here shows it IS possible) -- and even if you do it should still take one or a few explosions to start the process if we assume you are right that the fire can't do it. Compare with these videoS of explosive demolitions:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Notice the distinctive sharp sounds.

This all goes to buttress my argument that what was in that other video was NOT high explosives, like those used in controlled explosive demolitions, going off.

As for the wind thing -- the collapse of the towers is so huge that it could generate its own air current. Where was that voice track recorded in relation to the WTC towers? That might help some in figuring this out. I'm not 100% sure what that sound was but I'm very sure it's NOT what you think it is, as I argue and evidence above.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


The point here is simple. The video shows that a building's top section impacting upon the lower section can cause a complete collapse without the use of explosives, thereby debunking the claim that a complete progressive collapse of a big building in a top-to-bottom manner cannot be achieved without the use explosives.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Well for one, a picture is only telling you 1/2 of the story. When you watch the collapse you see three things: A) The top floors beginning their descent in collapse; B) The floors below getting crushed by the mass above collapsing onto it; C) The dust from resulting collapse obscuring the top floors during their descent. As the top floors collapse and go downward, they get covered by the dust from the collapse. The debris falls faster than the dust. That picture shows this simply. We see dust, we see debris, but most of it is covering up the rest of the collapse. Yet we can see exterior columns falling over and out during the collapse. The top floors are breaking up during this point, but not by explosives (because logically this would have required every single floor to be packed to the ceiling with high explosives in order to achieve "being blasted into dust.") but by the force of the collapse.

Each tower had a different number of floors above the impact zone. The first to collapse had more floors above the impact zone, which is why it collapsed first, due to weight. As it collapsed it threw up a ton of dust which naturally would obscure the tower. There is one video where during the first seconds of collapse, you can see the top section briefly come out of the dust before it's covered up again:

Pay close attention to the left side of the building during the collapse, you will see the top section. its very quick, but you can see how it stays in shape before it is completely in the dust. and you can see how the top part slightly falls to the left during the collapse. It wasnt blown apart by explosives.

Also: If anyone can show me where the squibs are at the beginning of this collapse feel free to show it here since it is right at the initiation of collapse. I sure dont see anything happening prior to collapse.

also can anyone explain why the exterior columns are bending inwards for this amount of time prior to collapse?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Well for one, a picture is only telling you 1/2 of the story. When you watch the collapse you see three things: A) The top floors beginning their descent in collapse; B) The floors below getting crushed by the mass above collapsing onto it; C) The dust from resulting collapse obscuring the top floors during their descent. As the top floors collapse and go downward, they get covered by the dust from the collapse.


Sorry but no. That is not at all what I see. I see both towers falling apart and the top sections turning to dust. One even leans and the corrects itself, can you explain that little trick in the real world?

It is nice that you see those things. I asked you to help me see those things as well and you have not introduced anything new. I have seen the videos. I have heard your 'logic.' I was calling you out on it so that you could back it up. Apparently, all you have is what you see.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

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


Allow me to put it a different way then. Something heavier falling from hundreds of feet *not to mention hitting other things in the course of a fall* up is going to be VASTLY different than 5 or 6 floors falling from 20-50 feet tops. I am amazed that anyone would think otherwise. It's rather like saying jumping from 5 feet up will have no difference than jumping from 200 feet up.


No, that is not correct. The roof of WTC 1 was 1,368 feet tall divided by 110 floors equals an average height of 12.44 feet per floor. Each pancaking floor would drop 12.44 feet before it was the next floor's turn. How 110 floors could do that in less than 120 or even 60 seconds, let alone the official 11 seconds for WTC 1 is miraculous.

And there is no pile of stacked floors at the bottom because each floor was pulverized into fine dust as it fell, from the 97th floor down. There are no complete floors falling to crush the floor beneath it. The floors are exploding in a top-down demolition.



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



The wave of horizontal mass ejection moving down the face of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to move faster than heavy debris falling through air nearby.




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


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

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.)

[edit on 8/14/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

No, that is not correct. The roof of WTC 1 was 1,368 feet tall divided by 110 floors equals an average height of 12.44 feet per floor. Each pancaking floor would drop 12.44 feet before it was the next floor's turn. How 110 floors could do that in less than 120 or even 60 seconds, let alone the official 11 seconds for WTC 1 is miraculous.

And there is no pile of stacked floors at the bottom because each floor was pulverized into fine dust as it fell, from the 97th floor down. There are no complete floors falling to crush the floor beneath it. The floors are exploding in a top-down demolition.


You couldnt be more wrong SPreston. What do we have here?

www.stevespak.com...



The wave of horizontal mass ejection moving down the face of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to move faster than heavy debris falling through air nearby.



Those horizontal mass ejections are the result of the floors collapsing onto each other faster than the exterior columns falling away. Most of that was dust and small debris being blown out by the air being squeezed out by the collapse. Now Spreston, here is the part where I have to ask you, where are the sounds of the series of detonations prior to collapse, and during the collapse? because every sound of the collapses I have heard, we hear a constant growing roar of the collapse, not any sharp, distinct cracks of high explosives as is heard in real CDs.

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?




top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join