Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-12-2007, 01:53 AM   #1
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default Pancaking

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?
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2007, 02:06 AM   #2
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Look at this weight lifter:


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.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2007, 02:22 AM   #3
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
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

Quote:
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?
If you can see how the colums would bend, then it isn't a huge stretch to see them breaking, and thus collapsing.
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2007, 03:53 AM   #4
helloperator
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 163 (105 Posts)
Default

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.
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 11:52 AM   #5
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyince View Post
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.

Last edited by anders lindman; 13-12-2007 at 11:54 AM.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 12:17 PM   #6
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by helloperator View Post
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:



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.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 12:37 PM   #7
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
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.
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 12:39 PM   #8
john white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,244
Likes: 166 (116 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
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

Quote:
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?
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
__________________
Free your Self and Free the World

https://www.facebook.com/john.white.50596013

Last edited by john white; 13-12-2007 at 12:46 PM.
john white is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 12:53 PM   #9
john white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,244
Likes: 166 (116 Posts)
Default

Also, see here:

http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/20...nce-false.html
__________________
Free your Self and Free the World

https://www.facebook.com/john.white.50596013
john white is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 01:02 PM   #10
anders lindman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,506
Likes: 61 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyince View Post
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.
anders lindman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 01:11 PM   #11
john white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,244
Likes: 166 (116 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
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
__________________
Free your Self and Free the World

https://www.facebook.com/john.white.50596013

Last edited by john white; 13-12-2007 at 01:14 PM.
john white is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 02:03 PM   #12
helloperator
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 163 (105 Posts)
Default

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
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 02:05 PM   #13
sensimillia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: stockholm
Posts: 347
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

great site...
sensimillia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 05:23 PM   #14
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john white View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 05:29 PM   #15
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

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.
cyince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 06:24 PM   #16
john white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,244
Likes: 166 (116 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyince View Post
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?
__________________
Free your Self and Free the World

https://www.facebook.com/john.white.50596013
john white is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 06:53 PM   #17
snoopsnuffleopagus
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Alkashic Cocktail Lounge & Piano Bar
Posts: 4,446
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Points

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

Last edited by snoopsnuffleopagus; 13-12-2007 at 06:57 PM.
snoopsnuffleopagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 07:52 PM   #18
dark86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: where i feel like it :-)
Posts: 739
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

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.
__________________
When technology surpasses a civilization's spiritual wisdom, it is almost inevitable that its destruction will ensue

http://www.waykiwayki.com
dark86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 08:01 PM   #19
nuit
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,632
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

sorry to go off topic but the title of this thread "pancaking" sounds like some wierd fetish sex act
nuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2007, 09:59 PM   #20
cyince
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 299
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john white View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.