The WTC towers did undergo a pancake collapse!
After they blew out the core structure with explosives, that is!
The floors then started progressively falling and piling on each other, in a progressive pancaking fashion, leading to the overall collapse.
Seriously, I think there is some basis to the pancake collapse model. This may be why so many scientists have been able to put the pancake collapse model out as an explanation for what happened on 9/11 and then not feel like they are totally
lying. But the key is that the pancake collapse just doesn't work unless the core is demolished.
Once you watch the 9/11 eyewitness DVD
, you will see that all three WTC towers underwent essentially a conventional controlled demolition-- where there was an initial powerful explosion that took out the key support columns in the core. Afyter this, the structure started pancaking by natural gravity-- the outer walls couldn't hold the weight of the floors, and the whole thing gave way. The slowish early initial collapses of the top sections in the beginning of the WTC1 and WTC7 collapses was probably just the pancake collapse starting to gain momentum. Perhaps the first set of charges weakened the core, starting some downward movement, then the final set of charges took it out for good.Conventional demolition
is very similar-- there is an initial set of charges that weakens the structure and then the "killer" charges that cause the structure to collapse at near free-fall speed.
WTC2 was done a little differently-- maybe by mistake or maybe they were testing out the demolitions to see what they needed for WTC1, and thus only did some at a time. The 9/11 eyewitness DVD reveals there were eight or nine explosions right before the WTC2 collapse.
Jones Goes Public
I posted about Steven Jones, Professor of Physics, who says the WTCs were taken down by Controlled Demolition a couple of months back.Well, he is in the mainstream news!
(picked up via Raw Story
Here's are some key excertps from the article:
• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
9/11 Eyewitness-- Evidence for Demolition
9/11 Eyewitness, a must watch DVD.
It has some really interesting analyses of the demolition of WTC1, 2 and 7. Most striking are the series of explosions that can be heard right before the south tower and the north tower come down.
Also, right before the south tower goes down, a chopper flies over the north tower and flashes light: it is totally bizarre.
Initial Moments of the Collapse of WTC1
You can watch the first few seconds in slow motion here.
Load this movie:
shows the same scene from a slightly different angle (northwest).
About a week ago, I posted a long article by Wayne Trumpman who analyzed the initial collapse of WTC1.
I'm really not clear how he could measure the collapse of the first few floors, when the whole thing seems very different to me.
What I see is, right before the rapid global collapse of WTC1 begins, is a slower phase where the very top of the tower starts sinking down several floors. This is not clearly accompanied by large puffs of smoke until the very end.
What is most odd about this is the way the top ten or so floors of the building simply shrink down without any obvious crumpling of the outer facade. There is hardly even any significant bowing of the outer walls to account for the approximately fifty feet of height lost! It is the damndest thing. I can't quite figure what this means, in terms of how the demolition was done. It certainly is not what you would expect for a fire-induced collapse. It is more like the early stages of the demolition, much like the penthouse of WTC7 starts sinking a few seconds before the whole building goes down.
But this "melting of the top of WTC1 isn't even really like that. It simply makes no sense.