Pancaking

[Anders Lindman]

It just hit me that if I take a steel rod, say a hollow rod one inch think and one yard in length, then I would be able bend it using my muscles if the steel was thin enough, but I would never ever be able to 'pancake' the rod by using my muscles unless the steel in the rod was extremely thin.

If we take this analogy and expand it to the 47 steel columns in the WTC buildings, I can see how they could be bent, but for them to 'pancake' without a controlled demolition would have required an enormous pressure from above; thousands and thousands of times more pressure than they were exposed to in the collapses. Or? :confused:

[Anders Lindman]

Look at this weight lifter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBtQ4zX3cEc

He is able to slightly bend the steel rod by lifting it together with the heavy weights, but would he be able to 'pancake' the steel rod? Not likely.

Similarly hurricanes and minor earth quakes were able to bend and shake the 47 steel columns in the WTC buildings. But for the steel columns to pancake? That would have required a much, much bigger weight than the buildings themselves is my guess.

[cyince]

It just hit me that if I take a steel rod, say a hollow rod one inch think and one yard in length, then I would be able bend it using my muscles if the steel was thin enough, but I would never ever be able to 'pancake' the rod by using my muscles unless the steel in the rod was extremely thin.:

Pancaking doesn't refer literally to the steel colums being flattened to a pancake, but the progressive collapse of the structure as the floors pile on one and other

If we take this analogy and expand it to the 47 steel columns in the WTC buildings, I can see how they could be bent, but for them to 'pancake' without a controlled demolition would have required an enormous pressure from above; thousands and thousands of times more pressure than they were exposed to in the collapses. Or? :confused:

If you can see how the colums would bend, then it isn't a huge stretch to see them breaking, and thus collapsing.

[helloperator]

Pancaking is an absolute joke.

I've heard that the official story has disengaged itself from this term...and now they embrace some other theory.

[Anders Lindman]

Pancaking doesn't refer literally to the steel colums being flattened to a pancake, but the progressive collapse of the structure as the floors pile on one and other



If you can see how the colums would bend, then it isn't a huge stretch to see them breaking, and thus collapsing.

It was the steel columns that were supporting the weight of the WTC floors. I can't see how a steel structure like that could pancake. Without knowing the details or having expert knowledge, at least I am certain that huge skyscrapers like that were built to hold for many, many years and withstand onslaught after onslaught of extreme hurricanes. Sure the steel structure could bend (in fact, in severe storms the steel structure should bend), but pancake? Not very likely as I see it.

[Anders Lindman]

Pancaking is an absolute joke.

I've heard that the official story has disengaged itself from this term...and now they embrace some other theory.

When I first saw the collapses on television 9/11 2001 then I actually believed that the fire had caused that. But later, when people began describing how the WTC buildings were constructed, the idea of pancaking did indeed seem absurd.

The fire in WTC 1 was on floors 93-99 and in WTC 2 on floors 77-85, as shown in this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locat ions.svg/250px-World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locat ions.svg.png

So the weight on WTC 1's steel columns were less, coming from from on average floor 96 and above, and the steel columns collapsing in WTC 2 come approximately from floor 79 and above which means a much heavier load, and yet both towers collapsed very much in the same way.

[cyince]

It was the steel columns that were supporting the weight of the WTC floors. I can't see how a steel structure like that could pancake. Without knowing the details or having expert knowledge, at least I am certain that huge skyscrapers like that were built to hold for many, many years and withstand onslaught after onslaught of extreme hurricanes. Sure the steel structure could bend (in fact, in severe storms the steel structure should bend), but pancake? Not very likely as I see it.


Indeed the structure was designed to withstand hurricanes, and other natural disasters. It was even designed to withstand a 707 impact. The 707 impact thought was a low speed collision, the idea being if a plane was lost in fog similar to the b52 that hit the empire state. The factor that wasn't designed for was the immense fires that raved the structure. Here is a segment from the PBS Nova special that addresses the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_8upRD8gQI

[john white]

It just hit me that if I take a steel rod, say a hollow rod one inch think and one yard in length, then I would be able bend it using my muscles if the steel was thin enough, but I would never ever be able to 'pancake' the rod by using my muscles unless the steel in the rod was extremely thin.:

Pancaking doesn't refer literally to the steel colums being flattened to a pancake, but the progressive collapse of the structure as the floors pile on one and other

If we take this analogy and expand it to the 47 steel columns in the WTC buildings, I can see how they could be bent, but for them to 'pancake' without a controlled demolition would have required an enormous pressure from above; thousands and thousands of times more pressure than they were exposed to in the collapses. Or? :confused:

If you can see how the colums would bend, then it isn't a huge stretch to see them breaking, and thus collapsing.

That's very true: but first it must be established that the conditions within the towers were sufficient to cause the columns to bend in sufficient numbers to instigate the collapse, which can only be the result of heat and time: in the case of WTC2, in only 45 minutes: that in itself is one hell of a stretch considering we are talking max temperature of 500 C even in the short time the fire was at its most extreme

But THEN we have to reconcile the pancake collapse theory with the observable evidence of the collapse, which showed no discernable sign of the collapse slowing as each floor resisted the force of the floor above coming down upon it: the sheer speed of the collapses in themselves debunk "pancake theory" as anything else than an act of faith

On September 11th this year the BBC reported a Cambridge Proffesor had published a paper proving the pancake collapse theory:

The facts? The paper is not even due to be published until Feb 2008, and even that by grudging admission of Cambridge U!: fake news story, classic example of

The reason? The maths to prove pancake collapse cannot be done, becuase its simply untrue: the data simply does not add up

For more on establishment stooge Dr Seffon and his invisible paper, see here:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12067

[john white]

Also, see here:

http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/11/no-detectable-respect-for-science-false.html

[Anders Lindman]

Indeed the structure was designed to withstand hurricanes, and other natural disasters. It was even designed to withstand a 707 impact. The 707 impact thought was a low speed collision, the idea being if a plane was lost in fog similar to the b52 that hit the empire state. The factor that wasn't designed for was the immense fires that raved the structure. Here is a segment from the PBS Nova special that addresses the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_8upRD8gQI

Even if the fires would have melted the entire floors like a snowball in a hot stove, the fire could not possible have melted the entire steel structure going all the way down to the ground. Let's say that the steel structure at the floors where the fire was going on was really weakened to the point of a collapse, that would still NOT have weakened the steel structure further down the buildings. I think it's highly improbable that the steel structures could have pancaked as they did.

[john white]

Even if the fires would have melted the entire floors like a snowball in a hot stove, the fire could not possible have melted the entire steel structure going all the way down to the ground. Let's say that the steel structure at the floors where the fire was going on was really weakened to the point of a collapse, that would still NOT have weakened the steel structure further down the buildings. I think it's highly improbable that the steel structures could have pancaked as they did.

The current idea is that the floor trusses sagged and deformed the columns supporting them until collapse started... but this is a non-sense in itself, becuase it has to be shown that the columns were also vunerable to "bending" due to heat: the only energy able to account for any theory of collapse from plane impact to the collapse starting without extra energy by way of explosives or some other means

Earlier attempts to make pancake theory work suggested the floors trusses broke away from the columns and thus started pancaking... to make this work, one report claimed the floors were only welded, another only bolted, until the facts emerged that the trusses were bolted AND welded (and btw each of the core columns were welded into a contigous column 100 stories high, so pancake theory also depends on the sudden failure of every weld in 48 core colums 100 stories high....). Thats on top of the famous attempt to claim there wernt any core columns and the inside of the towers was open space

All in all pancake collapse has become a very saggy story

[helloperator]

Even if it did begin to pancake, deliciously, there is no way that anyone can piss down my back and tell me it's raining and that they pancaked all the way down to the ground. It's just crap...here's some links, quotes and scientists to prove it:

www.blahblahblah.com

[sensimillia]

www.blahblahblah.com

:D great site...

[cyince]

That's very true: but first it must be established that the conditions within the towers were sufficient to cause the columns to bend in sufficient numbers to instigate the collapse, which can only be the result of heat and time: in the case of WTC2, in only 45 minutes: that in itself is one hell of a stretch considering we are talking max temperature of 500 C even in the short time the fire was at its most extreme

We must not also forget that planes traveling at full speed struck the buildings damaging much of the supporting structure, this when coupled with the heat from the fires and time factor created a highly plausible collapse initiation theory, even with out calculations and collapse models.

But THEN we have to reconcile the pancake collapse theory with the observable evidence of the collapse, which showed no discernable sign of the collapse slowing as each floor resisted the force of the floor above coming down upon it: the sheer speed of the collapses in themselves debunk "pancake theory" as anything else than an act of faith

The reconciliation of the theory cannot be done by simply examining the visual record or making assumptions. Which leads to the work of scientists and engineers which I believe is ongoing.

On September 11th this year the BBC reported a Cambridge Proffesor had published a paper proving the pancake collapse theory:

The facts? The paper is not even due to be published until Feb 2008, and even that by grudging admission of Cambridge U!: fake news story, classic example of

The reason? The maths to prove pancake collapse cannot be done, becuase its simply untrue: the data simply does not add up

For more on establishment stooge Dr Seffon and his invisible paper, see here:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12067
Academic papers are routinely delayed, and i don't see how a delay in the publishing of the paper signals anything a miss. Take for example something as pedestrian as an Honors Thesis, these often take months longer than planed, and the data sets and scope is much less than that of the magnitude of the paper described here.

[cyince]

I guess my questions to this thread would be, If the building collapsed from 'natural causes' How would you have expected it to fall, and at what speed? What do you then base your theory on?

Or do you believe the towers should not have collapsed from the impacts.

[john white]

I guess my questions to this thread would be, If the building collapsed from 'natural causes' How would you have expected it to fall, and at what speed? What do you then base your theory on?

Or do you believe the towers should not have collapsed from the impacts.

Well I'm happy to answer that, but what are your thoughts?

How woudl you expect the towers to fall?

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations:


The Verticle Columns were connected together with 100s of Horizontal Beams. The Core had enormous Structural Integrity.


As a Labourer I have cut Hundreds of Beams & Columns with Liquid Oxygen & Propane Torches, much more powerful than Oxy-Acetylene.

The Steel acts as a HeatSink.

All of the Flames(fires) Energy is drawn into the Mass of Steel.

So if 500c is applied to an area, the surrounding Steel is 'wicking' off the Temperature.


For the Pancake theory to be true: Most of the Core would have to remain standing, like a spindle on a Turntable.


But who has read Karl Kochs III Book? 'Men of Steel' by the people who erected the Steel.


Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[dark86]

the builders of the twin towz designed it to withstand a plane attack.

tho my tent is being unpegged from the drone planes camp and i am slowly moving to the no-planes camp (there is hot water in that camping field).

the CNN footage clearly shows the building rebuild itself for half a second and no plane parts fall off the plane. now that is impossible. wings are flimsy and steel is pretty tough. also the explosion looks like a bomb and the collapse like controlled demolition.


thats my 2pence.

[nuit]

sorry to go off topic but the title of this thread "pancaking" sounds like some wierd fetish sex act :eek:

[cyince]

Well I'm happy to answer that, but what are your thoughts?

How woudl you expect the towers to fall?

I am one of the sheep. I believe the so called 'official story'

[cyince]

Cordial Felicitations:


The Verticle Columns were connected together with 100s of Horizontal Beams. The Core had enormous Structural Integrity.


As a Labourer I have cut Hundreds of Beams & Columns with Liquid Oxygen & Propane Torches, much more powerful than Oxy-Acetylene.

The Steel acts as a HeatSink.

All of the Flames(fires) Energy is drawn into the Mass of Steel.

So if 500c is applied to an area, the surrounding Steel is 'wicking' off the Temperature.

This fact alone though ignores the fact that there was localized heat, on specific beams for and extened period of time. So even though the steels inherent characteristic to act as a heat sink, that alone would not negate the factor of duration of exposure to high heat.


For the Pancake theory to be true: Most of the Core would have to remain standing, like a spindle on a Turntable.


But who has read Karl Kochs III Book? 'Men of Steel' by the people who erected the Steel.


Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

In some videos, (specifically the one I linked), you can see the core still standing after the collapse had already initiated.

[cyince]

the builders of the twin towz designed it to withstand a plane attack.

The buildings were designed to withstand a plane impact, not attack. More over the velocity of the plane was assumed to be below full speed. The idea being a plane lost in fog, similar to the B-52 which his the empire state building. Also and this is still debatable, but apparently in the calculations there was no measure of the jet fuel or the subsequent fires. And remember at the time of design modern sprinkler systems, nor spray on fire proofing existed.

[Anders Lindman]

I am one of the sheep. I believe the so called 'official story'

But could the steel structures really have collapsed like that? As I understand it, in a controlled demolition they use shape charges to cut off steel columns at an angle at strategic positions in order for the building to collapse. The steel columns must be chopped off at many locations and each 'chopping off' must slightly displace the horizontal position of the columns so that they no longer hold any vertical support. I can't see how fire at some top floors could have produced the same effect.

[cyince]

But could the steel structures really have collapsed like that? As I understand it, in a controlled demolition they use shape charges to cut off steel columns at an angle at strategic positions in order for the building to collapse. The steel columns must be chopped off at many locations and each 'chopping off' must slightly displace the horizontal position of the columns so that they no longer hold any vertical support. I can't see how fire at some top floors could have produced the same effect.

Well the NIST report details the pre-collapse state of the towers, as well as the collapse initiation. It does not say 100% that this is exactly how the towers collapse, it does however say that this is the most likely way it happened. (THe fact that they don't say with 100% absolute certainty that this is how the towers collapsed has become fodder for people who believe it was a demolition)

The reason i believe that the towers collapsed because of the impact and resulting fires, is because in 6 years following the the tragedy there has been NO EVIDENCE that explosives were used. Simply none of the clean up crew, first responders, investigators, witnesses or anyone else has said there were bombs, saw bombs, installed bombs etc. In addition the logistics of such a plan (controlled demolition) simply make the idea preposterous.

Basically I as a layman have no idea how the tower should have collapsed. I have to rely on people who have been trained is such things to relay them to me. From what i have seen/researched the towers fell the only way they could.

[veritas2007]

The buildings were designed to withstand a plane impact, not attack. More over the velocity of the plane was assumed to be below full speed. The idea being a plane lost in fog, similar to the B-52 which his the empire state building. Also and this is still debatable, but apparently in the calculations there was no measure of the jet fuel or the subsequent fires. And remember at the time of design modern sprinkler systems, nor spray on fire proofing existed.

Can you identify where you get this information from please?

I have researched the analysis carried out by structural engineers in the '60s and quote a white paper released February 3, 1964:

“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.”

[cyince]

Here are a few

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf...ks/CGOZ-58NLCB
That from Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the WTC
From the same link
To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
A good discussion was had at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100489

[john white]

JREF = any straw will do! ;)

[armoured_amazon]

The towers were brought down by hijacked planes. In an hour. Bullsh*t.

[Anders Lindman]

in 6 years following the the tragedy there has been NO EVIDENCE that explosives were used.

I have heard descriptions of molten steel found at ground zero. I don't know how accurate that information is though. Molten steel sounds very much like a result of explosives. The fire could not even have softened the steel, much less have melted the steel, the fire could only have weakened the steel, and only weakened the steel at the floors where the fire was going on.

I have heard mainstream experts talking about the fire weakening the steel by 50%. My guess is that the steel was dimensioned to hold at least 10 times the strength needed to support the buildings because the WTC buildings must have been dimensioned to withstand many years of aging and to take the enormous extra pressure caused by severe hurricanes. A weakening of 50% - as the experts claim - means half the strength would have remained, which means 5 times the needed strength of the steel would still have remained if my guess is correct. So how then could the steel have collapsed if it was only weakened by 50%?

[cyince]

I have heard descriptions of molten steel found at ground zero. I don't know how accurate that information is though. Molten steel sounds very much like a result of explosives. The fire could not even have softened the steel, much less have melted the steel, the fire could only have weakened the steel, and only weakened the steel at the floors where the fire was going on.

Here is a fairly comprehensive description
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

I have heard mainstream experts talking about the fire weakening the steel by 50%. My guess is that the steel was dimensioned to hold at least 10 times the strength needed to support the buildings because the WTC buildings must have been dimensioned to withstand many years of aging and to take the enormous extra pressure caused by severe hurricanes. A weakening of 50% - as the experts claim - means half the strength would have remained, which means 5 times the needed strength of the steel would still have remained if my guess is correct. So how then could the steel have collapsed if it was only weakened by 50%?

The supporting steel of a few floors was weakened by up to 50%, add that to the fact that several of the supporting columns were damaged, or destroyed as a result of the impact. So the load that those columns would have bared was transfered to the remaining columns. So the weakened steel had to bear additional loads, so even with a remaining safety factor, it was simply too much.

[Anders Lindman]

The supporting steel of a few floors was weakened by up to 50%, add that to the fact that several of the supporting columns were damaged, or destroyed as a result of the impact. So the load that those columns would have bared was transfered to the remaining columns. So the weakened steel had to bear additional loads, so even with a remaining safety factor, it was simply too much.

I find it strange that both collapses were so symmetrical. The planes could only have hit the columns from one direction, hence the damage caused by the impacts must have been highly unsymmetrical.

But ok, let's say that the steel construction was such that the collapse would have been symmetrical even if the damage was unsymmetrical, and let's say that the damage from the impact together with the fire caused the floors where the fire was going on to collapse, I still can't see how the entire steel structure further down, which was intact, not hit by a plane nor damaged by fire, could pancake so catastrophically.

[Anders Lindman]

This is a crude analogy, but imagine starting a fire in a tree near the top of the tree. After a while the fire has weakened the trunk near the top of the tree so that part of the trunk collapses. Are we supposed to believe that the rest of the tree would pancake because of that?

The steel core structure, with 47 steel columns were indeed very much like an enormous tree trunk, and surely much have been able to take a titanic vertical load. I can't see how anything could have pancaked that except a controlled demolition or something like a whole mountain falling from the sky and hitting the WTC buildings from above!

In fact, the steel columns must have been much stronger than a tree trunk, and 47 columns together in an interlocked(?) steel structure is even stronger. So the question is: How can one pancake a tree without using a chainsaw or explosives?

[Anders Lindman]

A monumental construction flaw in the WTC buildings could explain the collapses without controlled demolition. But such systemic and catastrophic flaw should have been revealed by now if that was the case. The construction flaw would have been such that a collapse at some floors would propagate down through the entire building resulting in a catastrophic pancaking of the entire structure.

[helloperator]

The tree analogy doesn't seem so bad. This whole pancaking theory requires some astronomical chance and fluke...for it to travel, domino like all the way to the ground. In my mind, logic suggests that maybe, only maybe a couple of pancakes could be made...but then, the random and catasrophic and chaotic collapse would have sheered one way, to one direction, to have sheered off....but the core did nothing. It gave in like a retracting Inspector Gadget arm...all the damn way to the ground. Bullshit.

[Anders Lindman]

The tree analogy doesn't seem so bad. This whole pancaking theory requires some astronomical chance and fluke...for it to travel, domino like all the way to the ground. In my mind, logic suggests that maybe, only maybe a couple of pancakes could be made...but then, the random and catasrophic and chaotic collapse would have sheered one way, to one direction, to have sheered off....but the core did nothing. It gave in like a retracting Inspector Gadget arm...all the damn way to the ground. Bullshit.

Another possibility, perhaps far-fetched, is that the WTC buildings were constructed to pancake like that because of safety reason so that they would come straight down exactly into their own footprints in order not to fall to the sides. But that doesn't seem reasonable because what would have happened if the planes had hit floors much further down the buildings? Then the top of each building would surely have toppled over and fallen down to the side like... TIMBER!!!

[helloperator]

That's a great theory. I'm surprised this hasn't been made law by the official story.

[armoured_amazon]

I only have to remember how security were pulled out in the weeks before, and pulled out completely the day before...how the squibs in floors below went off...how the collapse defied physics...and that's before looking at the Pentagon and the vanishing plane debris in PA....how when I watched WTC collapse live on TV I knew this was more than an 'act of terrorism'...I just knew it in my gut.

Sickos. They'll stop at nothing.

[helloperator]

Not to mention wtc7 and the whole passport story...plus choice audio such as 'Hi this is Mark bingham your son' and footage such as...'mainly due to massive structural failure because the heat was too intense'

etc

[cyince]

The biggest factor the both of you are overlooking is that the first phase of the collapse isn't symmetrical. The tops of both buildings do sort of topple. As well in one of the towers collapses you can see the core still standing briefly as collapse has already commenced.

I'm not an engineer/physicist so I feel that any inferences I'm making are invalidated by my ignorance. Like I've said before, tens of thousands of people were involved in the investigation, and none of them think anything is amiss. I trust their reasoned opinions, over my mine.

I guess people think the towers should have fallen over above the impact point. Remember gravity is downward, not lateral.

EDIT: Upon re reading Anders tree analogy i would say this. That over simplifies things too much. Its more like a tree with branches. The branches are supporting say 50% of their theoretical maximum, and there are several layers (say platforms for a tress house). If for some reason some of the branches on one level are damaged and the platforms above it were to fall onto a lower platform, would you then expect the tree fall over, or the platforms to progressivley fall on to one and other at their weight,momentum and energy potential increase?

[cyince]

I only have to remember how security were pulled out in the weeks before, and pulled out completely the day before...how the squibs in floors below went off...how the collapse defied physics...and that's before looking at the Pentagon and the vanishing plane debris in PA....how when I watched WTC collapse live on TV I knew this was more than an 'act of terrorism'...I just knew it in my gut.

Sickos. They'll stop at nothing.

Security wasn't pulled weeks before. There was heightened security in the weeks before, because since the 93 bombing whenever there was anything suspicious there was increased level of security. In the weeks before the security was being reduced to normal levels.

Not to mention wtc7 and the whole passport story...plus choice audio such as 'Hi this is Mark bingham your son' and footage such as...'mainly due to massive structural failure because the heat was too intense'

etc
A well spoken witness is suspect? A man making the last call of his life in a situation none of us can imagine? 1 of 2 pieces of evidence out of millions? These are details that make you question the official story.

[veritas2007]

Security wasn't pulled weeks before. There was heightened security in the weeks before, because since the 93 bombing whenever there was anything suspicious there was increased level of security. In the weeks before the security was being reduced to normal levels.

There is testimony to suggest that security systems were offline during the power downs which occurred prior to 9/11 (Scott Forbes, Fiduciary Trust). I have come across references to sniffer dogs being removed although I can't remember where that was however; I've not been able to establish whether those sniffer dogs were posted throughout the building, only that they were used to check incoming vehicles.

A well spoken witness is suspect? A man making the last call of his life in a situation none of us can imagine? 1 of 2 pieces of evidence out of millions? These are details that make you question the official story.

I wouldn't say the guy in the interview which helloperator is referring to is "well spoken". At the time of the attacks, his interview sounded very well thought out and scripted in comparison to the many other witness interviews which should raise anyone's suspicions. There is evidence of FBI agents being on the scene seconds after the first impact [Naudet brothers]. It deserves critical analysis and shouldn't be brushed off as irrelevant.

The calls from flight 93 should also be afforded the same critical analysis and it would be wrong to dismiss them by speculating on the mood of the callers.

Back to pancaking; many people make comparison to other multi-storey building fires. I'm not a structural expert so maybe I'm wrong, but I think that there are too many variables to make a practical comparison. I've spoken to my Dad on the towers falling a few times and he always says 'there is no precedent so how can we be sure the towers would have behaved differently?'. Good point. What we do know is that two identical towers (near enough) did collapse on the same day and in the same way. Both were seen to be subject to the same MO.

Question is: scientifically, would you expect the same results?

I think the construction of the towers deserves a much closer inspection. I believe that is the key to why they fell the way they did [free fall, 10 floors per second etc, etc.]

[armoured_amazon]

And let's not forget that wonderful passport belonging to Atta floating down to the ground unsinged while thousands of people, concrete and steel were obliterated.

[veritas2007]

And let's not forget that wonderful passport belonging to Atta floating down to the ground unsinged while thousands of people, concrete and steel were obliterated.

I read somewhere that his passport was found in two different locations. The intimation was that there were in fact two separate passports found. I'll have to review my bookmarks to find that one. From memory I believe one was found by a policeman and the other by an FBI Special Agent.

Whether one or two though, its hard to imagine that a paper document from the cockpit would be found undamaged.

Didn't Loose Change 1 (or maybe two) establish that he was still alive? My memory isn't too good today - information overload.

[armoured_amazon]

I read somewhere that his passport was found in two different locations. The intimation was that there were in fact two separate passports found. I'll have to review my bookmarks to find that one. From memory I believe one was found by a policeman and the other by an FBI Special Agent.

Whether one or two though, its hard to imagine that a paper document from the cockpit would be found undamaged.

Didn't Loose Change 1 (or maybe two) establish that he was still alive? My memory isn't too good today - information overload.

From what I can remember there's footage of him working in another country and his identity has been verified (likewise, I'll have to review my bookmarks!)

It's always uncanny how 'terrorist' threats to our countries always have a past of working with our secret services...

[veritas2007]

From what I can remember there's footage of him working in another country and his identity has been verified (likewise, I'll have to review my bookmarks!)

It's always uncanny how 'terrorist' threats to our countries always have a past of working with our secret services...

I agree, although 'uncanny' I think is only suitable for those that haven't rubbed the sleep for their eyes yet (but I fully understand the context you are using it in and don't include you in that bracket).

The pointers are all there for everyone to see but it takes some effort to break free of the propaganda and tie it all up. Its like the the ol' WMD rubbish which, incidentally is being revived by Israel with regard to Iran. Where do people think these middle eastern countries get the majority of their weapons and training from? It beggars belief.

Still searching those bookmarks!!! Will post back soon.

[veritas2007]

Just to clarify, I may have been confusing my "terrorists" when I posted that it was found twice. Atta's passport was reported to be found on the street after the attack:

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html

In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.

Suqami’s passport also found on the street:

From http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf

109 The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001.

[helloperator]

cyince...I'm just gonna say wtc7....that is my main concern.

What do you make of it's uniform collapse?

Is it a case of 'move along...nothing to see here'?

[armoured_amazon]

"Pull it."

[helloperator]

Well there was so much loss of life already...

But this 'pull it' has been debunked to its eyeballs I think.

Like every aspect of this 911 debate it just depends on which post you hitch your horse to...which scientists you believe...etc.

[armoured_amazon]

I agree, although 'uncanny' I think is only suitable for those that haven't rubbed the sleep for their eyes yet (but I fully understand the context you are using it in and don't include you in that bracket).

LOL true dat. It's like the pink elephant in the room, except instead of not mentioning it, some people REALLY DON'T SEE IT. :D

The pointers are all there for everyone to see but it takes some effort to break free of the propaganda and tie it all up. Its like the the ol' WMD rubbish which, incidentally is being revived by Israel with regard to Iran. Where do people think these middle eastern countries get the majority of their weapons and training from? It beggars belief.

Still searching those bookmarks!!! Will post back soon.

Ah, yes...those Weapons of Mass Distraction. :rolleyes:

[shredmasteruk]

It just hit me that if I take a steel rod, say a hollow rod one inch think and one yard in length, then I would be able bend it using my muscles if the steel was thin enough, but I would never ever be able to 'pancake' the rod by using my muscles unless the steel in the rod was extremely thin.

If we take this analogy and expand it to the 47 steel columns in the WTC buildings, I can see how they could be bent, but for them to 'pancake' without a controlled demolition would have required an enormous pressure from above; thousands and thousands of times more pressure than they were exposed to in the collapses. Or? :confused:

We are talking the floors above the impact region falling on the floors below the impact region. The pressure, is phenomenal, and exceeds the pressures of controlled demolitions - which use delays between explosions destroying structural integrity to control the collapse and prevent overpressure, because overpressure would cause damage to surroundings.

There is plenty of evidence of pancaking btw, for instance:
http://www.debunking911.com/pancake.jpg
Three floors squashed together with contents, including paper with legible type still visible on the surface.

A more logical approach than attacking an established consensus amongst engineers over the mechanics of what happened to the building, would be to ask, what was done to 19 men, to make them want to hijack aeroplanes and kill ?

Because what was done to those 19 men to turn them into murderers ?

[helloperator]

Maybe they were the bullets, but who held the gun?

That's what we wanna find out right?

[Anders Lindman]

We are talking the floors above the impact region falling on the floors below the impact region. The pressure, is phenomenal, and exceeds the pressures of controlled demolitions

But shouldn't the pressure have been very different between the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

WTC 1 had much less weight above the fire to cause that pressure as shown in this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locat ions.svg/250px-World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locat ions.svg.png

Yet both buildings collapsed in equally forceful ways, even when the pressure on WTC 2 must have been much higher as it had many more floors above the fire to cause that pressure. But I haven't examined the collapses closely regarding this. Maybe the two collapses were different in force.

[shredmasteruk]

But shouldn't the pressure have been very different between the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

WTC 1 had much less weight above the fire to cause that pressure as shown in this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locat ions.svg/250px-World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locat ions.svg.png

Yet both buildings collapsed in equally forceful ways, even when the pressure on WTC 2 must have been much higher as it had many more floors above the fire to cause that pressure. But I haven't examined the collapses closely regarding this. Maybe the two collapses were different in force.

Yes WTC 1 had much less weight pressing down on the impact region, which is why it stood longer, but there was still a load above steel which had softened; and once that load it fell, it reached the same velocity as that of WTC 2, and struck the floors below with sufficient force to shatter joints, bend bolts, shear bolts, bend I beams, and bring everything crashing down.

Zdenek Bazant wrote a paper about the collapses of those towers which has been peer reviewed by the american society of civil engineers in their journal.

Keith Seffen has written another paper, which has been submitted for peer review to the american society of civil engineers.

[shredmasteruk]

Maybe they were the bullets, but who held the gun?

That's what we wanna find out right?

And who sold the one with the 'gun' the bullets, and the motive to use it ?

[Anders Lindman]

it reached the same velocity as that of WTC 2

Same velocity perhaps, but not the same momentum. The plume of pulverized concrete that stretched far out to the sides ought to have been much bigger for WTC 2 than for WTC 1 is my guess.

[shredmasteruk]

The plume of pulverized concrete that stretched far out to the sides ought to have been much bigger for WTC 2 than for WTC 1 is my guess

Why ?

Once the bending moment occured stuff fell, it broke the ties between the inner core and the outer skeleton, the core was too heavy to stop, and too heavy to deflect, so it plunged downwards, breaking joints, piledriving the structure below and even causing pneumatic compression of the air in the building, breaking windows in the process. But the stuff on the outsides, the outer skeleton, that broke in a different way, and splintered outwards, and caused damage to the surrounding buildings, because its ties to the inner core were being severed, and the joints to the parts below were snapping too, so it falls, and pieces are deflected outwards because there is less resistance outwards.

[Anders Lindman]

Why ?


Because at the start of the collapses, WTC 2 was hit by a much bigger momentum which means more energy. Wouldn't that larger energy have resulted in a different initial phase of collapse for WTC 2 than for WTC 1?

[helloperator]

Piledriving is the wrong word...because it implies direct downward pressure on a consistent specific spot. The collapse should have been chaotic...not systematic the whole way to the ground in 10 seconds.

[Anders Lindman]

Piledriving is the wrong word...because it implies direct downward pressure on a consistent specific spot. The collapse should have been chaotic...not systematic the whole way to the ground in 10 seconds.

One speculations is that the WTC buildings were built to collapse like that as a sort of safety function so that the very high towers would not come crashing down sideways into Manhattan if a severe support failure happened on some floor. Not a safety for the people working in the buildings though (who were a necessary sacrifice), so they cannot tell the public about this.

[helloperator]

Maybe, but I doubt it Anders. One of the planes hit a much more glancing blow...so probably not as much impact damage to the core steel....yet it still came down. The fuel was mostly fireballed in the impact...and if you believe some people, a shit load of it flew down the elevator shafts to land and destroy the lobby and basement areas...people were standing in impact area windows, the fires weren't as intense as the official story would have us think. Down they came...not with the pristine uniformity of wtc7...but still...

[Anders Lindman]

Down they came...not with the pristine uniformity of wtc7...

It's striking how the WTC buildings 1 and 2 came down with a huge plume of pulverized concrete reaching far out to the sides. The collapse of WTC 7 had no such plume and looked more like a conventional controlled demolition.

My speculation about the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 goes like this: The steel core could easily have been built to never have pancaked like that. Yet the whole buildings came down exactly straight down, even though the damage caused by the planes must have been unsymmetrical. The way for the towers to come crashing down so exactly straight down must have been either because of a controlled demolition or because the buildings were on purpose designed to pancake like that, including the steel core columns, and straight down the whole shebang came.

[helloperator]

I guess noone will ever say if the buildings were designed like that or not. If it is so, it would have been one of those hushed clauses...very hushed. But I think that theory is valid, you know.

I agree that it is very peculiar how the whole lot came down....never sheering to a side, never diverting from the flush, square impact that would have been required to 'pancake' as they say.

The building someone posted earlier that collapsed in a pancake style in the 60's due to an exploded gas leak, was only a compartment....a section, boardered and framed by the rest of the building, like balconies coming down not an entire building like the trade towers.

wtc7 was different....there was apparently a massive gauge on one side, plus an exploded fuel facility or a gas tank or something...so it collapse from the bottom...very much like someone pulled a rug from under it. But that's a whole other matter

[shredmasteruk]

Most of the dust which was ejected was actually powdered gypsum from plasterboard drywall.

[bigus_dickus]

so... any major fire of any cause on any of the floors would have brought them down the same way?

do we mean that anyone would be able to bring down a 110 story building with just one bomb?

also.. we would have seen tons and tons of bent steel columns, yet all steel removed from the site was straight?

[shredmasteruk]

The things which brought about the bending moments and progressive collapses in the twin towers are structural damage; including damage to fireproofing, extensive fire, and the effect of load upon a weakened structure, which had already been overloaded due to damage.

What is interesting though, is that 19 men (who were already on fbi wanted lists) managed to get onboard aeroplanes carrying knives. What is also interesting, is that a plot to carry out kamikaze hijackings was thwarted in 1996... Why weren't lessons learned ?

[helloperator]

Because the official story is bogus?

[shredmasteruk]

Try again.

[helloperator]

Why won't the government release the oodles of video that would have captured the plane flying into the pentagon?

I see where you're coming from. Your reasoning is very attractive...but there are lots of questions remaining as far as I'm concerned.

[weston white]

Pancaking of a steel reinforced structure is an oxymoron. It simply does not apply as it is not possible, (unless of course all connecting bolts, rivets, inserts, and welds, were all broken, removed, and disconnected simultaneously).

[shredmasteruk]

What about the effect of load ? What about shear force exerted by the load above falling on the structure below applying shear force to bolts ?

[helloperator]

How does the load maintain a perfect (in its ability to impact squarely and true) centre of gravity so that it continuously impacts lower floors all the way to the ground?

[weston white]

What load bearing force? We are not talking about something massive (say another building) that fell from the sky and on top of the towers (this was a massive structure that was built to withstand excessive forces as well as large commercial aircraft crashes), the floors were already there, they have been there for over 30 years.

Besides you will note that during the initial collapse the supposed pile-driver was in fact actually blown up and send around a 600 foot diameter, so the above damage weight was removed, thus there should have been no below damage failure.

Another interesting thing to note is how about 15 floors above the damaged area all collapse prior to the below area of impact collapses and the roof antenna falls about .5 seconds before the above damage floors collapse. Also the building is not imploding it is exploding, for something to explode you need an appropriate energy source, i.e. explosives.

Besides even if the floors did cause joints and bolts to break apart below them you would still have entangling and enmeshed steel columns and cross joins that would press against each other under load and would twist, warp, and infuse from the pressure and heat forming and would still obtain much support from the still stable below structure and core skeleton. So by all means the building should have tittered around like an accordion and began tilting over as a solid structural mass; it should have not been obliterated into molecular dust blanketing four inches for thousands of feet in all directions.

Have you ever had to build something that required you to slide something onto a long straight shaft, say a sliding a weight onto a bar to workout, you have to keep that weight perfectly vertical otherwise it will lock up on the shaft and will no longer move (if you slide it even a slight angle to the bar), or even sliding in those tent supports through the sleeve to erect a tent, if you do not keep the sleep straight the rod will not want to move any longer. Now image 100+ floors falling down 47 massive steel columns over a total distance of 1000 feet, floors that are not perfectly counter weighted to begin with... see how what happened to these building on 9/11 defies logic and natural law?