It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Howakan
Its called a "progressive collapse', not a pancake collapse and it has happened many times......several were caused by fires.....of course, this fact will be ignored.....anyhow, heres a link citing many examples, should anyone actually care to learn about it.......
Synonyms of progressive collapse and their origins
Since the resulting damage in a progressive collapse is disproportionate to the original cause, the term disproportionate collapse is frequently used in engineering to describe this collapse type.
The first date-recorded instance of the term pancake collapse being published in lieu of "progressive collapse" occurred in the August 10, 1980 edition of the New York Times. Fire Chief John Connelly of the 19th Battalion explained that the apartment building, which they responded to in the Bronx, had been weakened by fire to the point that all floors had begun to pancake down on one another. "'It was a pancake collapse.' said Chief John Connelly of the 19th Battalion. 'The entire building was flaming and it went down to the ground.'"
The first date-recorded instance of the term pancake theory being used in reference to a progressive collapse was published in the March 2004 book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the bush Administration and 9/11" by conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin in which he wrote, "...the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up..." Griffin, David (March 2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the bush Administration and 9-11. New York, New York: Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-552-9.
The term "pancake theory" is confusing as people mean different things with it. In general it is not seen as a synonym for progressive collapse by truthers. Instead, most truthers will say there is the pancake theory and the progressive collapse theory. I personally think they are indeed synonyms, but haven't found any truther agreeing yet.
Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
Because it's never happened before that day and not once since...what is your point? It looks like you can bounce around a bit so why don't you just go ahead and land whatever it is your flying?
WTC7: A steel structure building has never fallen into it's own footprint with fires as the cause. Is this not true? There is your one fact. That tower couldn't have fallen that way without help.
I could really care less what you believe, but since you asked.edit on 26-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by malachi777
Malachi, you are right. A lot of these people also believe what they see in movies is actually real. If they only knew what it takes to make a movie and all these buildings blowing up in the movies are really models of buildings. What is see is this, the 9/11 conspiracy is a really good espionage novel.
While it may be a good novel, it is retold so much that people who hear it begin to believe it. Most of these same people will say the Bible is not real. They don't even question the beginning of the theories, who postulated the theories or what the motives were for making the theories. If Joe Schmoe told me something I would want to know where Joe Schmoe got his facts and why Joe Schmoe told me this. But they say their theories must be correct because some guy in France wrote about it. Did they go to the guy in France to take him to task for what he said? No, and they have forgotten the original theories. When you ask them about this, they pretend we are mentally insane for bringing it up as though those original theories never existed.
Like I said before, if this government is so powerful to do all of these things that theorists say it is capable of, then how is that powerful government still allowing people to "expose" it? And how does a powerful entity even allow itself to be "exposed"?
Even the makers of Loose Change recanted. That tells you something right there.
There is, of course, something deeply troubling about cognitive dissonance, since it suggests that we double-down on our beliefs in light of conflicting evidence. While neuroscientists have begun to decipher the anatomy of this mental flaw – you can blame your anterior cingulate cortex – I sometimes worry that the internet is making things worse. Although we’re all vulnerable to cognitive dissonance (and the paranoid style has always been a loud presence in American politics) we seem to squander ever more oxygen on worthless conversations about Obama’s birth certificate and the North American Union. After all, thanks to Google we can find “evidence” in support of practically any belief. If you can imagine the conspiracy theory, there is a website out there ardently promoting it, and a clan of fellow believers who share your peculiar obsession with fluoridated drinking water and the New World Order. The end result is that we never have to recant. We can always find another link to “prove” that the government is trying to “zombify” us, or that aliens are going to destroy the earth at midnight.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by malachi777
AGW deniers are the same in many ways. They have a desire to deny any fact that connects humans to climate change and I think it stems from there lack of knowledge about climate. They do not like the feeling of being inadequate to the occasion, so their response is to deny it. This is just like how you describe conspiracy theorists. Bottom line, learning about the FACTS is the way out of this delusion. It obliterates any ideas that're just plain wrong.
On the opposite side, you have left wingers (aka. democrats) that automatically believe whatever climate scientists say. They suffer from a kind of confirmation bias. It sits well with them to blame humans for things because they want the government to be in control of things - it's a preconception. So it's natural for them to believe it when it's claimed that humans are to blame for something and a government answer is needed. They eat it up like chocolate pudding. (And similar to the AGW deniers, any facts that reside outside this realm are denied. For example, if it's shown that reducing taxes boosts certain portions of the economy, left wingers will more likely than not deny this fact because they do not like the feeling of being inadequate.)
Again, FACTS are key to all of this. A person has to be able to absorb them. I've just given two examples of peoples that do not absorb facts very well: AGW deniers and left wingers.
More than that, I think it could be that people like this cannot handle complex information. Maybe they have a preconception that the world is simple and aren't compatible with a complex world. It's like plugging in a 3.5" diskette into a dvd drive and finding out that it's not compatible. Maybe people like this have a brain that is wired differently from somebody who CAN absorb facts. Anything that doesn't fit their wiring is discarded or denied. Maybe it cannot be helped.edit on 29-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by WarminIndy
And facts are the most reliable thing we got, sir. Without them, we'd be blind. Facts that have grown from consensus are the most reliable, especially in the realm of science, where the expectations for correctness are highest. While ti's true that facts can be misleading, I think ti's misleading to point that out since it misses the meat of what my post was saying.edit on 29-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AngryAlien
I really need to know what people mean when they say it "Collapsed into its own footprint"
Why do people insist it collapsed into it's own footprint? The debris field is clealy larger than the building footprint...