"The pancaking was a designed feature of the construction of those buildings. "
I didn't say this without a source, I just provided the source from one of the original architects that says it isn't possible. Because to me it didn't make sense. So I looked.
"the best demo men in the world would be near supermen to coordinate one, 1,000 foot tower to drop into it's own footprint with explosives "
I didn't say this either, I just provided a video of one falling that was 500ft showing it is possible, and it isn't even the record for the highest controlled demo. Nothing superman just the demo business. You always ask for sources I provided them, your acceptance of them is up to you. If you had read the whole post I really don't buy the demo either.
Okay... Semantics are a quick way to get derailed.
Pancaking....is a term *I* chose to use. It isn't scientific, or meant to describe some technical process of named failure.
Floors failed, first, directly below the floors on fire. They then failed, by visual evidence, in the order of gravity and falling mass above. I imagine that to be like a PANCAKE. Therefore, the term I chose to use, in describing what my eyes are seeing.
Now..we can have 1,000 experts tell me that what I watched happen in those videos....is impossible. I'll tell those experts to get a refund from wherever they got that education, because we are WATCHING and people LIVED what they say "is impossible". It isn't an event we hear 3rd person about .... We can watch, in as bloody a detail as we wish, every second of the catastrophic failure for those two buildings. ...and from multiple angles, at that.
In watching, never, at any point, does a floor more than a couple directly below the one failing at the moment being watched..show failure outside that by what is falling from above. Windows (those left) blow out in rough sequence to the collapse over taking them. (* If you have a video that does show failure, anywhere on either tower, which is more than a couple floors away from the falling bulk? I'd LOVE to see what would truly BE a smoking gun sequence)
The video of a controlled demotilion of a 500 foot building had THE WHOLE VERTICAL STACK sustaining explosions at roughly the same time, from floor 1 to roof level. Nothing remotely like that happened, was heard, or was recorded by seismic devices in Manhattan ..which would record the explosions needed to drop 1000 foot of well constructed concrete building.
So..my bad for choosing a term that, itself, has apparently become a point to fight over. I'll call it 'gravity assisted catastrophic failure', if that sounds better than 'pancaking'.
---
I didn't claim you had said one thing or another about the ability of professional demo companies.
Again.. *I* chose to point out, it would be superhuman skill, bordering on near GOD LIKE...to drop not one, but TWO 1,000 foot towers, amid total chaos and enormous structural damage, in progress at the time of the controlled detonations, to land within their OWN footprint and with almost no debris thrown more than a city block in any direction. (Some was thrown further...but for thousands of tons of loose crap in those towers? 99.9% dropped inside the footprint).
So.. How did an unrehearsed, unprecedented and near impossible feat of structural demolition get done, perfectly, the first try? Twice in a row? Some see intention here...I see freak of physics coupled with very well designed failure within the buildings.
This is where I really do come to see the "controlled" anything idea, more fantastic and requiring more suspension of disbelief than 19 fanatic murderers pulling a very unexpected tactic to sucker punch us right in the teeth .....to then see a little scumbag in the White House run a marathon with the police state tactics that made tolerable to a public that was just scared.
@wrabbit2000, as much as I want to buy into this was a freak accident it was not these terrorists practiced years on years also buildings simply do not pancake they were never designed to do this and if it was I'm sure it was not on display at the local library,
pre-9/11 no one knew anything about plans for 9/11 so who the hell knew what they were up to or planing so it could have been planned under the nose without a trace.
9/11 was an inside job planned by a bunch of Cape wearing sickos that wanted to enslave the world by bringing down the one thing that kept it in check.
As I've stated, I may have used poor terminology..but something to support the alternate theories, beyond 'that must be how it happened', or media sourcing a few times over to write a general story, would be helpful.
Popular Mechanics, among others, took independent looks at some of the theories vs the known evidence. I admit, they put it far better than I have, but they do pretty much sum up what I was trying to explain as what I feel we watched happen.
Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Another more technical site explains the same general thing, this way:
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
I don't claim to be a scientist or engineer to say I fully understand all of that, but what I do understand tends to make sense to the vertical, cascading failure I watched with everyone else. It may be that it was something other than it appeared to be.
It'll take more than theory, for me anyway, to convince me the parts of 9/11 we can review in direct evidence isn't what it looks like, though.
Having said that, there is plenty that no evidence either way ever showed or showed clearly, but that was far more the back stage power playing that may have happened before, and of course, became War Incorporated starting Sept. 12th. (Who were those very special Saudi's and where did they get very special transport out to, anyway? A question with partial answers, but nothing like complete)
We all have our opinions though, and this topic sure is as contentious as any.
This is a site I generally also share when I come into 9/11 debates. Its the best repository of physical, photographic and witness evidence in the public record that I know of.
The following web pages link to all 1,202 exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial of U.S. v. Moussaoui, with the exception of seven that are classified or otherwise remain under seal. This is the first criminal case for which a federal court has provided access to all exhibits online. The exhibits were posted on July 31, 2006.
There is a handful of evidence which was withheld. A few specific items. Everything else is there, including very extensive photography of the WTC, Pentagon and PA crash scenes...and the casualties, in some cases.
@wrabbit2000, okay and thank you for the input i greatly appreciate it in the nicest way , but it doesn't matter at the end of the day you have these problems as follows
1) a lot of innocent people lost their lives 2) our government lied to us about withheld information?? 3) gold went missing from under buildings?? 4) wtc building 7?? 5) insurance policy upgraded right before towers collapsed. 6) one of wtc housed vital documents to majority of homeowners is now missing 7) patriot act... 8) increased NSA spying
I mean wrabbit we are all paying grave consequences because of this whether it was inside job or not we are still getting screwed we can't argue the statistics of the attack which is what they want to keep your eyes off the shackles and ball and chain that they put on your leg while you were screaming in horror..
@wrabbit2000, okay and thank you for the input i greatly appreciate it in the nicest way , but it doesn't matter at the end of the day you have these problems as follows
1) a lot of innocent people lost their lives 2) our government lied to us about withheld information?? 3) gold went missing from under buildings?? 4) wtc building 7?? 5) insurance policy upgraded right before towers collapsed. 6) one of wtc housed vital documents to majority of homeowners is now missing 7) patriot act... 8) increased NSA spying
I mean wrabbit we are all paying grave consequences because of this whether it was inside job or not we are still getting screwed we can't argue the statistics of the attack which is what they want to keep your eyes off the shackles and ball and chain that they put on your leg while you were screaming in horror..
Fair enough, and we don't disagree on everything to be accurate on things.
1. Yes, they did...and we have never gotten an investigation worthy of the name. Even the people involved with the one we did get, admit not everyone with something worth hearing were allowed to say it.
2. Yes.. They seem to have, and part of what bothers me so much about that day. It isn't a matter of stink, but just what stinks, and how much came before, during and after the trigger event.
3. Below Ground Zero; Silver and Gold Who suggested a significant amount went missing? Short of being atomized, nothing much was lost in that mess. Fishkills sifted for remains, what wasn't sorted in Manhattan. (There were some embarrassing, if that is the word, cases of ...opportunism... which were covered up for the good names of the guys who died in the commission of it ..but every disaster has its truly ugly sides)
4. I'm not sure... I honestly haven't looked that hard at the one to collapse separate from the two main ones. Has Uncle never pulled a quick add-on to an event already in progress?
5. The ownership and lease of the towers had just changed too. All things being equal, I don't think the new owner got the better end of that one. He did prove himself to be a special kind of scumbag afterward though. Mercenary as hell, like almost everything to touch the WTC since that day. (The full story of the current memorial is disgusting)
6. Really? I'd think the idea any Corp had a single set of hard copies to such critical documents as home ownership papers would be as much or more a scandal than the fact it was lost. Either point there is disgraceful though.
7. Yup....and FDR didn't JUST start planning reinforcement deployments on Dec. 8th. He'd had all that planned out as much as a President could in isolation, and I'd almost bet anything on it. Bush and Co. very obviously had the Patriot Act in a drawer well before Sept 11th, and to be realistic about it? It was apparent when Bush built his Cabinet that he intended to go to war somewhere. Everything about his cabinet screamed war time, and I recall conversations I had with people at the time on that point. Bush may really have hated Saddam SO badly, he'd have allowed this to happen, to have the free shot into finishing Daddy's war.
8. See Above ^^ This perpetual war mentality has been the ultimate boon in everything for intelligence and security services. They are among the only people who actually came out of 9/11 better, almost from the day after it happened. I have no problem believing they didn't work 'too hard' at detecting what they were being paid to stop.
-----
Indeed... Whatever the truth of that day's events, we are in a worse position for a big brother state, with the ability to turn police state by choice alone at this stage. They have become all they professed to fight.