Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

If you freeze the video at 2:29 you will notice, standing right there in the center of the shot, what is left of the core. at 2:34 you can clearly see the core, still intact, even swaying. the camera then pans down for a second and then back up. at 2:37 there is a great shot of the intact core with a long section breaking off to the left of the frame pointing at about ten o'clock. at 2:40 you can see some more pieces of the core snapping off at random heights as the dust/smoke is being blown past them. by 2:43 there is one very tall section of core structure swaying which then leans over and falls from left to right. the shot gets shaky and pans down quickly to the dust cloud and then by 2:49 we are looking at the original angle where we saw the core standing, but now just smoke/dust indicating the remaining sections of the core had collapsed.




It seems to me that if the core was still standing AFTER the collapse the whole cd theory flies out the window. I haven't seen one thing yet that says these buildings couldn't fall the way they did on their own. Not saying the govt didn't have some role such as just being complacent, but so far there is nothing that indicates a controlled demolition. One other thing- don't controlled demos blow up from the bottom not top down?

It looks to me that the stucture you are pointing out is in the corner of the building and not the core. Also I would suggest watching the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" documentary. I watched it on Hulu but don't see it there now. Check youtube. It explains a lot such as freefall speed as opposed to one floor at a time.

Originally posted by Magister
It looks to me that the stucture you are pointing out is in the corner of the building and not the core. Also I would suggest watching the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" documentary. I watched it on Hulu but don't see it there now. Check youtube. It explains a lot such as freefall speed as opposed to one floor at a time.

if it WAS the corner that would also nullify the cd/freefall theory

Originally posted by Magister
It looks to me that the stucture you are pointing out is in the corner of the building and not the core. Also I would suggest watching the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" documentary. I watched it on Hulu but don't see it there now. Check youtube. It explains a lot such as freefall speed as opposed to one floor at a time.

The A&E organization is a mine of misinformation. The collapse of the buildings at about 150 milliseconds per floor argues against demolitions of any sort and argues strongly for a gravitational collapse. To clear a floor that quickly with explosives would require such a large amount that demolition would be obvious.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

if it WAS the corner that would also nullify the cd/freefall theory

Why would it nullify controlled demolition? You haven't explained.

Controlled demolitions and free fall are not synonyms.

A building can only fall at free fall if all the resistance is removed, BUT if it doesn't fall at free fall it doesn't mean it wasn't a controlled demolition.

IMO if it wasn't a "controlled" demolition then the collapses would never have happened in the first place, let alone complete to their foundations. BTW the towers were demolitions, but not really controlled. There was no way to control a demolition of those towers. That's why the rubble spread all over the place, unlike WTC 7 which was a classic implosion demolition.

The NIST hypothesis is that sagging trusses pulled in columns, no one can explain or demonstrate that claim.
So talking about what happened after that is like putting the horse before the cart. The NIST hypothesis makes no sense, and unless that point is explained and cleared up what happened next is irrelevant.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

if it WAS the corner that would also nullify the cd/freefall theory

Why would it nullify controlled demolition? You haven't explained.

Controlled demolitions and free fall are not synonyms.

A building can only fall at free fall if all the resistance is removed, BUT if it doesn't fall at free fall it doesn't mean it wasn't a controlled demolition.

IMO if it wasn't a "controlled" demolition then the collapses would never have happened in the first place, let alone complete to their foundations. BTW the towers were demolitions, but not really controlled. There was no way to control a demolition of those towers. That's why the rubble spread all over the place, unlike WTC 7 which was a classic implosion demolition.

The NIST hypothesis is that sagging trusses pulled in columns, no one can explain or demonstrate that claim.
So talking about what happened after that is like putting the horse before the cart. The NIST hypothesis makes no sense, and unless that point is explained and cleared up what happened next is irrelevant.

edit on 5/8/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

that's all just your opinion. if the core was still standing(which it was) then the whole "shaped charges cut the core beams" idea or "a smaller mass couldn't crush a larger mass" idea flies out the window. The components of the upper mass were individually falling apart shredding the lower section- who's components then became part of the upper shredding mass as the sides peeled away like a banana skin. There was no solid upper mass free falling like you guys believe it happened and the standing core proves that plain and simple.

reply to post by pteridine

besides don't cds happen from the bottom up? that would be obvious but we don't see it... at least I don't.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by pteridine

 

besides don't cds happen from the bottom up? that would be obvious but we don't see it... at least I don't.

(Sigh). This was not a conventional controlled demolition in which everything collapses simultaneously because that manner of fall would have been inconsistent with the official scenario that a plane crash caused fires that weakened the building at the point of impact. So, although still controlled, the demolition of the towers had to start from the initial level of destruction in order to make it look like they collapsed merely under gravity.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
that's all just your opinion. if the core was still standing(which it was) then the whole "shaped charges cut the core beams" idea or "a smaller mass couldn't crush a larger mass" idea flies out the window.

Well that is obviously just your opinion, because I fail to see how the core standing disproves anything, and I see no scientific facts in your claim.

No one has to prove a smaller mass cannot crush a larger mass, it is a known fact. Try looking at Newtons laws of motion.

The components of the upper mass were individually falling apart shredding the lower section- who's components then became part of the upper shredding mass as the sides peeled away like a banana skin. There was no solid upper mass free falling like you guys believe it happened and the standing core proves that plain and simple.

Hmmm no, the NIST hypothesis is that sagging trusses pulled in the columns resulting in a runaway collapse.

The first hypothesis banded about by OS supporters was that the top section collapsed on the bottom section and kept going. That was Bazants crush down crush up nonsense. It was not what "truthers" think happened, it what OS supporters said happened.



If you actually look at the collapses, with a little understanding of basic physics, you can see that the top has nothing to do with the collapse of the bottom. The top sections started collapsing before the lower sections, that is why they tilted, resistance. Then the resistance was removed as the bottom section started collapsing. That is the only way you can explain why the angular momentum of the tilting top section changed and dropped vertically. There is a gif somewhere that shows it clearly.

If it was a gravity fed progressive collapse it would never have been complete. A structure designed to hold it's own weight many time over cannot crush itself.

When two objects collide the forces on each object is equal, Newtons 3rd law, and is why a smaller mass can never crush a larger mass, and is why a progressive collapse could not be complete. Concrete structures that undergo pancake collapse ALWAYS have a pile of floors stacked up like pancakes. If you haven't guessed yet it's why they call it a "pancake" collapse.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

reply to post by ANOK

you're looking at it as a solid, smaller upper mass was moving as a unit when in fact it was a mutual destruction once the components started falling apart hitting one another and you can't quantify that... and be credible.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by ANOK

 

you're looking at it as a solid, smaller upper mass was moving as a unit when in fact it was a mutual destruction once the components started falling apart hitting one another and you can't quantify that... and be credible.

Hmmm try reading my post again. This time do more than just skim, because you have not had enough time to understand it obviously.

Floor slabs are solid objects, steel floor pans are solid objects, steel beams are solid objects, what on earth are you talking about? ALL objects are effected by Newtons LAWS of motion.

reply to post by ANOK

A structure designed to hold it's own weight many time over cannot

This is an assumption on your part.
Can you show us that this particular building was designed to hold 'many times its own weight'?

It's this particular design that designers are being taught not to ever use again. The tube in tube design is too vulnerable to a progressive collapse.

reply to post by ANOK


but you're thinking of the upper section as a solid mass, evenly impacting the lower section as if they were two solid blocks when you talk about "freefall speeds". It's obvious by this video that the upper section not only peeled away the outer skin so that the pieces fell in large chunks but also that much of the core was left standing even after having all that debris raining down around it. You can clearly see the individual components swaying before ultimately falling that weren't "squashed" by the upper "smaller mass". I used quotation marks because that seems to be how you are looking at this. In reality the upper section quickly became a blender, not the block of wood that you would make it out to be.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK

 

A structure designed to hold it's own weight many time over cannot

This is an assumption on your part.
Can you show us that this particular building was designed to hold 'many times its own weight'?

It's this particular design that designers are being taught not to ever use again. The tube in tube design is too vulnerable to a progressive collapse.

a simple analogy I use is the aluminum can experiment. empty it can hold a lot of weight, but put a dent in it and it crushes easily. You have to wonder how severely the upper load was redistributed after the portions of the exterior were sliced in two and especially if portions of the core were severed. It doesn't take much to doom a design like that sort of like the Titanic.

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by pteridine

 

besides don't cds happen from the bottom up? that would be obvious but we don't see it... at least I don't.

(Sigh). This was not a conventional controlled demolition in which everything collapses simultaneously because that manner of fall would have been inconsistent with the official scenario that a plane crash caused fires that weakened the building at the point of impact. So, although still controlled, the demolition of the towers had to start from the initial level of destruction in order to make it look like they collapsed merely under gravity.

so you're saying that they knew where the planes would impact and rigged explosives from that point down? do you have any evidence to support your "reverse" controlled demolition theory? why can we see large chunks, maybe twenty/thirty stories of the skin falling intact if each floor was sliced with rigged explosives? did they rig it so it would fall apart in large chunks?

Originally posted by micpsi
(Sigh). This was not a conventional controlled demolition in which everything collapses simultaneously because that manner of fall would have been inconsistent with the official scenario that a plane crash caused fires that weakened the building at the point of impact. So, although still controlled, the demolition of the towers had to start from the initial level of destruction in order to make it look like they collapsed merely under gravity.

Would you explain how a non-conventional demolition that looked exactly like a gravitational collapse was executed with no explosives.

Originally posted by samkent
This is an assumption on your part.

LOL no it isn't. You obviously know nothing about building design.

Have you never heard of factor of safety (FoS)?

The factor of safety also known as Safety Factor, is used to provide a design margin over the theoretical design capacity to allow for uncertainty in the design process. The uncertainty could be any one of a number of the components of the design process including calculations, material strengths, duty, manufacture quality. The value of the safety factor is related to the lack of confidence in the design process. The simplest interpretation of the Factor of Safety is

FoS = Strength of Component / Load on component

If a component needs to withstand a load of 100 Newtons and a FoS of 4 is selected then it is designed with strength to support 400 Newtons...

roymech.co.uk...

Factors of Safety - FOS - are a part of engineering design. Typical overall Factors of Safety - FOSs - are indicated below:

Structural steelwork in buildings (FoS) 4 - 6

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

I don't make things up mate. All components are designed to hold their own weight many times over, if they didn't the building would not stand, it would not be safe. It's no wonder you buy the OS so easily if you don't even understand the basics of structural design.

reply to post by ANOK


You certainly DON'T for example engineers are happy to use a fos of 2.5- 3 for metal structural fixings and 7 for fixings that use plastics you know the things that HOLD the building together.

They can also use partial safety factors when test data is available.



The factor of safety also pushes up building costs that why on many site tests are done to find the most cost effective way to match loading requirements.

As has been said many times to you DEBRIS could fall within the tower walls due to the floor design it really is that simple!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
All components are designed to hold their own weight many times over, if they didn't the building would not stand, it would not be safe. It's no wonder you buy the OS so easily if you don't even understand the basics of structural design.

and how does the FoS change when there is a big hole in the side? what does it have to say for the distribution of load when that happens?

Originally posted by wmd_2008


As has been said many times to you DEBRIS could fall within the tower walls due to the floor design it really is that simple!!!

that's why we see the skin falling away in large sections. It also says a lot for the construction of the core to be able to remain standing during that onslaught.