WTC1 and WTC2 and the Pancaking Model
Here is where *I* have always had trouble with the pancake collapse model.I could see that a couple of floors, due to fire-induced weakening, could buckle and collapse, and that could conceivably start causing floors below to start dropping as well. I still think having a complete floor drop ten feet symmetrically is extremely unlikely, and that is the only way you would get enough momentum to start a progressive pancaking. Much more likely would be that the floor sagged on one side, where the trusses were weakened, and then that part gave way, pulling down the other side slowly (IE, the floor would not drop all at once). But I don't see how that floor collapse starts a global collapse or even the collapse of the next floor. But let's go with the assumption that one whole floor dropped ten feet, smashing into the floor below and knocking it loose, starting a cascading collapse.
I think it is clear that this floor collapse would pull the floors AWAY from the outer columns and the inner core, certainly leaving those INTACT early on.
So what would I expect to see then?
Floors would collapse, say ten floors, leaving the outer walls more or less intact and the core intact. The outer walls would go first as they were weaker columns than the core columns. Unsupported, the outer walls would buckle, wave about and give way. This should still leave the core intact though!
So the sequence should be:
1) floors collapsing
2) outer walls start weakening, eventually starting to wobble and break apart,
3) this would leave the core structure still standing-- you would see something like the Windsor building fire in Madrid, where there was an outer partial collapse, but the core would remain intact.
4) the floor pancaking might conceivably stop at the mechanical floors on floors 75-76, where there were thick steel beams supporting the floors instead of trusses.
But let's say the momentum was so great, the pancaking floors broke through these beams--
5) the floor pancaking would continue unabated for perhaps the height of the building as the momentum got too great to stop.
6) the complete outer walls of the tower would peel away
7) the core should STILL REMAIN INTACT! Now this might not be the most stable structure, and this might wobble and tip over at some point due to the stresses of the floors falling from it, but for a complete pancake collapse, I would expect to see some point where the complete core is left standing.
Did we see this?
No.
Therefore, there was NO PANCAKE FLOOR COLLAPSE.
So, how on earth does floor pancaking lead to complete global collapse including the core within 16 seconds (that is the maximal time that each tower could have collapsed in)?
I just can't see it.
It honestly makes no sense.
A related point, I think it is, for all intents and purposes, IMPOSSIBLE for hydrocarbon fires to significantly weaken the core columns. I also seriously doubt the airplane crashes (assuming there WERE planes, which I also doubt) would significantly damage the core columns. So I can't see how the core is significantly weakened by the "planes" or the fires. Thus, I think the tipping of the top of WTC2 BY ITSELF is evidence of demolition.
Then there is the further point that the top of WTC2 disintegrated in mid-air fall, which is also impossible without demolition.
Finally, the falling top of WTC2 should have fallen to the side-- not driven the collapse straight down.
So WTC2 was clearly not a pancake collapse, and the overall pattern is for all intents and purposes PROOF of demolition.
I defy anyone to make a case otherwise.
On the other hand, one can make a much better argument for pancake collapse for WTC1-- but I still think the overall pattern indicates demolition, because of what I outlined above. That is, there was never any point where there were clearly floors collapsing leaving the core intact. Rather, the core dropped rapidly along with the floors. And I think the only way this could happen is with demolition.
<< Home