Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    [Admin: The following claim has been made and refuted several times already, and is considered debunked. Details in the discussion below]

    The official "pancake theory" defies Newton's third law of motion and there for physically impossible ....
    I hope this the right thread.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2014
    • Disagree Disagree x 6
  2. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  3. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Not only is it a mostly hollow structure, the very act of the upper portion falling indicates conclusively that the columns of the upper and lower blocks are no longer aligned. The only possible way that they could be is if this were a verniage type collapse. There is no "jolt" so this is not verniage. Instead it is a failing of columnar support.
    THEREFORE, the impact forces of the falling block MUST be impinging primarily on the floorspace of the lower block which is a dynamic load orders of magnitude greater than anything they were designed for.

    The irony of the Chandler video is that Tony Szamboti of AE911T wrote a paper that outlined why Bazant's approximations are invalid while Chandler makes the same assumptions but uses a much less sophisticated approach top its analysis.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    There is no "official pancake" theory.
    The explanation for how the upper mass managed to destroy the tower (lower standing part) was that the mass of multiple floors crashed on a the top floor of the lower standing section destroying it and then the even larger mass crashed onto the floor below, destroy it and so on.. growing mass and only slight resistance of each floor. It's called ROOSD runaway open office destruction.
    Without the floor plates to brace the exterior wall.. it fell over... the core was destroyed because it lost most of its internal bracing and it too was unstable and toppled after the floors had collapsed.

    This is pretty much understood and has been for more than 6 years.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    It isn't really.

    Nor is the video about anything remotely related to actuality. Start a thread on it: "NIST's 'Pancake Theory' contradicts Newton's Third" and see what happens. First check it isn't somewhere on this site already.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member


    None of Newton's laws were broken by the collapse of the Towers, nor did the official theory break Newton's laws. There was a natural collapse of both Towers due to the effect of fire on both buildings. There were no demolition explosions seen moments before collapse, or anything one could even remotely claim was thermitic reaction, except one window on the northeast corner of Two World Trade. One column would not have caused Two World Trade to collapse.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  7. Ron J

    Ron J Active Member


    What is really physically impossible is the controlled demolition theory. There is no visual evidence that demonstrates that a controlled demolition occurred. Visually, the building simply gave way.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  8. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    You d
    It's a pretty big thing to deny the obvious evidence you can see with your own eyes. but it's another thing altogether to try and brush aside Newton's laws of motion which have been in existence for over 300 years and are the basis for scientists and physicists understanding of the world. Maybe I'm a bit naïve in posting about physics, I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty sure Mr Chandler knows exactly what he is talking about. Why would he possibly lie? How can anybody claim that these buildings were not blown up? Just watch the first bit of this video ....




    and watch the antenna move, now the antenna is on the core of the building which would have stayed up on it's own even if you had built nothing around it. It was the strongest part of the building. So for a controlled demolition to happen you would have had to take out the centre of the building first which you as can see is what happens.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  9. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    "The very act of an upper portion falling" what upper portion? It get's turned into dust before the second bit of the building starts to collapse. It's like with the second tower the top of it literally falls off and they claim that it then acted as a kind of pile driver because as you can observe the building goes down in like a straight line, straight down. As for the claim that building was mostly "hollow" that is just nonsense. I don't mean to sound aggressive but your comment is just ridiculous.
    The irony of the Chandler video is that Tony Szamboti of AE911T wrote a paper that outlined why Bazant's approximations are invalid while Chandler makes the same assumptions but uses a much less sophisticated approach top its analysis. He is not using the same assumptions he is showing that they are complete rubbish.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Please substantiate that claim, with actual numbers, before proceeding with your argument.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Untrue.

    The central core was not physicaly stable in the vertical axis without all the other structural components tied to it, primarily the exterior walls, which bore a great deal of downward compression loads (aka, gravity).

    Oh and BTW, re: the effect of fire and intense heat on steel...no, the steel doesn't 'melt', but its strength is sapped greatly. Example was a recent fire at a bridge construction site on Interstate 15 in Hesperia, California...blocking the major artery thoroughfare linking Los Angeles and Las Vegas for many days.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/all-lanes-i-15-reopened-after-bridge-fire

    (My bold emphasis added). Note that this fire was of "conventional" sort, merely burning wood, and it had significant effects on the steel beams.
    Compared to the WTC 1 & 2, where the jet fuel initiated a VERY intensely hot fire, fueled by multiple sources that generated more intense heat than mere wood.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    It doesn't get turned to dust. It is enveloped in a cloud of dust. The structure is still in there. Bent and probably broken, but the energy doesn't magically disappear when a thing breaks.

    As for the building being hollow, that is far from nonsense. Most of the volume is empty air - not just usable work space but the space above drop ceilings, beneath floors, and inside walls. And what isn't is not uniform density, the glass, floors, ceilings, and furniture are a tiny fraction compared to the structural members, which are dominated by the vertical columns that carry the weight.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  13. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I hesitate to even get involved here, but... The upper portion got supposedly turned into dust by what mechanism?
     
    • Like Like x 8
  14. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    "pretty sure"? Why? Did you do the math yourself to verify? Check Chandler's work? Or it that he just sounds authoritative and says things are inclined to believe anyway?

    He doesn't have to be lying, he could believe what he says...but perhaps he is simply wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    Well I don't know I'm only going by what I can see. It appears every other commenter has missed it. I think it's in this video.
    Just watch the top of the building disappear into dust. This alone should give anyone reason to question the official pancake theory. Because as far as I can see there is nothing to pancake the rest of the building.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  16. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    The top Antenna moves before anything else and then the walls collapse. That is sat on the core of the building. As for the fire thing, there was intense and I mean VERY VERY hot burning still going on for months after the collapse. When fire fighters dug up the rubble and bits of steel were exposed to oxygen they started burning fire again. Steel capped boots were being melted.
     
  17. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    Are you being serious?
    watch the beginning of the video where he explains why he became interested in 9/11 in the first place.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  18. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    Yes the floors "pancaked" but you just have to look at the buildings collapsing to know this is nonsense.
     
  19. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    Just watch the building collapse. I'd just to add you can't have "debunked" Newton's third law of motion. It's universal. I don't completely understand Mr Chandler's explanation on why the building defies Newton's third law, well, I do kind of but I don't understand it enough to put it in writing. I will get back to you on that.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The WTC1/2 building collapses look odd, because they were something unprecedented in human experience, not because they were impossible.

    You can't base your argument on something looking odd. You need actual math and physics.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  21. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Disappearing into dust does not mean it was turned into dust. Shake out a very old rug, and it (and you) will disappear into a cloud of dust in the same way. The rug is not destroyed, you just freed a great deal of material from it with a blast of air.

    A structural collapse also creates a blast of air, which frees an immense cloud of dust without actually destroying a great deal of the building itself. Light and fragile materials that like insulation, drywall ceiling tiles, cheap furniture, soot and smoke from the fires, stored dry goods (everything from paper to coffee in the break rooms) will all contribute to the dust cloud while comprising a small fraction of the building's weight.

    If the entire top few floors were turned into dust, the cloud would have been orders of magnitude larger and the energy needed would have been much, much greater. Even explosives and thermite could not have done that.


    Now, to the antenna: The antenna moved before the wall collapses because the buildings had a design that was called "tube in a tube." There was a strong central structure with most of the utilities (elevators, water, electricity) running through it, and a strong external structure bearing most of the weight, with structure between them for stability and to hold floors and such. At the time it was revolutionary, only a few buildings had been built this way before. Because the "guts" of the building are weaker, the external or internal structures won't necessarily collapse together, the structure between them offers little resistance if they move differently. Those guts also provided all the stability - neither structure could stand on its own without the connections to the other, meaning not only could they move independently, with their connections damaged they probably would move independently.

    Nobody's debunked Newton. They've debunked the grossly incorrect measurements in your expert's chart, and the gradeschool level of physics he applied to them. You can simplify the forces on a simulated building in a lot of ways, but breaking it down into a solid box of uniform density or worse yet a series of inelastic point masses is way below the bare minimum.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And speaking directly to the OP, Newton's laws of motion apply to point masses. They simply don't apply here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
    Since they don't apply here. They can't be violated. Case closed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Umm... yeah. It's BEHIND the dust(and smoke). That doesn't mean it BECAME dust. :rolleyes:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  24. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    What do you mean by rigid and deformed bodies? They apply to buildings. If the top part of a building which is weaker that the bottom part collapses then there must be a "jolt" just the same as when hit a hammer into a nail there is a jolt and you have to lift up the hammer and go again, this is Newton's third law, For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This "jolt" doesn't appear in the WTC 1 collapse or infact in any of the buildings collapses but that's on other threads. There being no jolt is mentioned by Mr Chandler aswell as some other things.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  25. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I suspect you would need to use MUCH finer increments of collapse to find such "jolts" and MUCH better photography in order to measure them. You're asking the impossible from the available footage.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    "neither structure could stand on its own without the connections to the other,"
    This is not true. You could build the middle on its own and it would stand all buy it's itself that's how strong it was. And you're comparing a huge skyscraper with a carpet? just silly. And are you trying to tell me that DUST contributed to this building coming down? These buildings were built to withstand planes crashing into them.
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A rigid body is something that is assumed not to change shape. A deformable body is something that does. Newton's laws don't apply perfectly to either of these.

    These are old arguments. Unless you can bring something new to them I suggest you spend more time reading the existing threads.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This is getting off topic. Please keep to the topic in the OP.
     
  29. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    If Newton's laws of motion are fundamental rules that engineers consider in the construction or design of these buildings, would or should one assume that these same laws can be applied to its demise. I know structural engineers have to consider Newton's third law when they design various parts of a superstructure for instance. So couldn't these very same laws help explain how the building(s) came down. In terms of single point mass, like an apple for instance or a satellite, that makes sense, but each structure is built with many single point masses that interact with each other. Certain points of interest throughout the buildings structure can be tested and evaluated using these laws of motion, but the building as a whole doesn't fit the definition, Right?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  30. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    "neither structure could stand on its own without the connections to the other,"
    This is not true. You could build the middle on its own and it would stand all buy it's itself that's how strong it was. And you're comparing a huge skyscraper with a carpet? just silly. And are you trying to tell me that DUST contributed to this building coming down? These buildings were built to withstand planes crashing into them.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
  31. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    What? Who said anything like that?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  32. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

     
  33. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    I'm saying I can observe the top of the building collapsing into dust. You don't need physics to explain this.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  34. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Newtons third law is being greatly abused by Chandler, who treats upper and lower blocks as if they are solid objects when the simply aren't.

    The portion of the structure above collapse initiation was, previous to collapse, being supported on an array of columns concentrated in the center and around the perimeter.
    Upon collapse initiation and absent any significant "jolt" it is patently obvious that at this point those columns have failed, or are in the process of failing. Therefore the lower structure is now incapable of exerting the upward force it previously exerted at the now failed column section junctures.
    Chandler is treating this as if it is a tree that fell through itself which is a ridiculous and wholly inapplicable exercise.

    As for turning to dust, have you, or Chandler explained a mechanism for such a process? Note that saying "Explosives did it" is slightly above saying "Magic did it". You would need to describe just how the explosives would be used, placed, timed. For instance, take a stick of dynamite and detonate it on top of a concrete slab and you might chip the concrete, maybe even crack it. Drill a hole and insert it into the slab and you will blast a hole in the slab, turning the missing concrete into chunks of various sizes.
    So, how much explosive, and divided up into how many charges, and distributed and installed how exactly, would be involved in turning the entire 10+ floors above the collapse zone, into dust?
    I take it you then are assuming the same was done to the remaining structure, so extrapolate that for the entire 110 storeys.

    Feel free to search for Chandler or Gage, or Szamboti explaining this. You should not have to do all the work yourself.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  35. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    You do, if you are trying to convince technically inclined persons that 110 storeys of steel and concrete was turned to dust. Otherwise you are expecting us to believe in magic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    How do you know that?

    They were built to withstand planes of that era, but they weren't designed to have a plane fully loaded with jet fuel run into that at full speed. They were designed to have a plane moving at approaching speed for landing to run into them. No one ever envisioned a plane being used as a missile when they built these structures.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    Not true. The exterior not only held up half the weight, but it was the lateral support. The core was for gravity loads and could not stand on it's own. The core had to be connected to the shell for lateral support, and the core can't stand on it's own. The WTC was a system, shell, floors and core - why it was so strong, and also why it collapsed the way it did.

    The shell was designed to essentially stop impacts from aircraft going 180 mph, not 470 knots and not 510 knots. The WTC did withstand aircraft impacts, it was the fire that destroyed the towers. But the design was for an impact at 180 mph, adn another study looked at impacts up to 280 mph or so, and those impacts would be stopped, with no major damage to the core, unlike on 911 when impacts were 7 and 11 times greater than what the shell was designed to stop - if we do the math, we can know.




    Who said the core could stand on it's own? The shell was the lateral support to hold up the towers in high winds.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  38. lemonlover

    lemonlover Member

    You would clearly be able to see a "jolt" from all the videos I have posted.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
  39. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    They were built to survive the type of plane strikes that had occasionally hit tall buildings in the past, and which presumably would continue in the future. Commercial flights were never considered because they were so heavily regulated it was assumed to be impossible - and they're mostly right, accidents like that just don't happen. Plane strikes were universally small planes, the largest such strike was a B-25 Mitchell weighing less than the fuel carried by a 767, and it caused massive damage to the building. The Empire State Building is also a stronger building than the towers, built when architects tried to make buildings rigid rather than letting them sway with forces, and its concrete encased steel protected it from fires better.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why would you? If the columns were not aligned, then it would be a continuous series of impacts, not bang bang bang.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.