Debunked: "Banana Peel" Demolitions

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Proponents of the "controlled demolition" theory of 9/11 like to point out that the collapse of WTC7 somewhat resembled a "normal" controlled demolition. But have been a little frustrated by the fact that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 looked nothing like this, and instead looked just like a localized collapse of some floors, followed by the upper mass of the building crashing down through the lower floors.

The group AE911 recently promoted a link to a Daily Paul story they wrote last year that tries to promote the idea that the way WTC1/2 collapsed was in fact a type of demolition technique called "banana peel demolition":

[bunk]WTC 7 differed from Towers One and Two in that WTC7 was a traditional "bottom-up" implosion. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, exhibited the more unfamiliar pattern of a "banana peel" demolition, which starts at the middle or the top of a building and progresses downward. The below demolition in China shows the pattern of streamers of arcing debris that we see coming from the Twin Towers, as the cutting of supports begins high above ground level and works its way down.

Banana peel demolitions are used for taller, narrower buildings, where there is danger of the building tipping over should the bottom be cut and the rest of the sequence not execute perfectly.[/bunk]

And now this is being repeated by supported on Facebook, etc:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/161415886170/permalink/10152392360801171/?stream_ref=1
[bunk]As public awareness grows about the truth about 9/11, it serves to point out that many features of the towers’ destruction fit perfectly with standard patterns of demolition. Evidence which at first seems puzzling is in fact consistent with known demolition techniques.[/bunk]

The first problem with this is that the term "banana peel demolition" is not a demolition industry term for any kind of demolition - not even informally. It's simply something that AE911 made up. You can verify this with a Google search, nothing that the ONLY results are from the AE911 and Daily Paul stories, blog posts about those stories, and this page here on Metabunk.
https://www.google.com/search?q="banana peel demolition"

The sole example they give of this supposed demolition technique is a building in China:

They claim this demonstrates the features of the WTC1/2 collapses, the peeling away of the sides of the building, a top down collapse, and the expulsion of building material as it collapses.

The problem here is that it really looks nothing alike. In fact it's actually a bottom up demolition. The only difference here that that there were three regions of larger explosions, at the base, and at about 1/3 and 2/3 the ways up. It was these explosions that expulsed material. The building collapse was not in fact a top down demolition, but a bottom up demolition.

http://english.sina.com/china/p/2009/0813/263056.html
http://bbs.wx.house365.com/showthread.php?threadid=69768


And there was no "peeling" of the sides of the building. It simply collapse in a downwards manner, disappearing into a cloud of dust at the base, as most buildings do when they collapse. The expulsion of material is clearly from the initial (very loud) explosions before the building starts to collapse. This expulsion is also only on one side - the side the larger explosives were place to make the building lean in that direction.





So this looks like a rather disingenuous attempt by AE911 to suggest that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 resembled some kind of controlled explosive demolition. In reality they were very different.

There's a (Chinese) Discussion of the technical challenges with this demolition here:
http://www.gd.xinhuanet.com/dishi/2009-08/13/content_17389017.htm
Notable points:
  • The sectioning of the building was done because of the proximity of other buildings.
  • It took 800 Kg of explosive, drilling 8,343 holes, all connected with detonation cord.
  • The blasting took 3.6 seconds.
  • Shear wall construction required specialized cutting equipment, and the remove of 350 cubic meters of walls before the explosions
  • The stages of explosion were from the bottom up, half a second apart.
  • To prevent damage to surrounding buildings, the main charges around supporting columns were wrapped in "barbed wire, quilts, bamboo, straw, etc. 6-8 layers for protection" which was likely the majority of the ejecta.
 
Last edited:

Major_Tom

Member
The first problem with this is that the term "banana peel demolition" is not a demolition industry term for any kind of demolition - not even informally. It's simply something that AE911 made up. You can verify this with a Google search, nothing that the ONLY results are from the AE911 and Daily Paul stories, blog posts about those stories, and this page here on Metabunk.

Hello, Mick.

Try googling "ROOSD" instead. It appears in your forum here, too. They didn't make up the idea. They stole it.


Please note the website www.sharpprintinginc.com/911 contains the most accurate and detailed mappings of the visible collapse processes of all 3 collapsed buildings.available within the public domain. The collapse progression mappings of WTC1 and WTC2 in section 2.1 of the book on that website.

Tony Szamboti for one is very aware of that website and similar information in The 9/11 Forum.for a few years now.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hello, Mick.

Try googling "ROOSD" instead. It appears in your forum here, too. They didn't make up the idea. They stole it.
Well, that's not an actual demolition term either, Runaway Open Office Space Destruction (ROOST) is a term you invented, right? While it's entered the lexicon of the few handfuls of people who still discuss this in depth, it's unfortunately not a very useful term for broader discussion.

What's wrong with "Progressive Collapse"?

And I'm assuming sharpprinting is your web site?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
Major Tom's technical work is good. Its when he forays into psychology and motivations of perpetrators that things get dicey.

What's wrong with describing the Chinese demolition as Verniage? There's a twist certainly, in that they blew out two sections rather than a single but it does more closely resemble Verniage than ROOSD or "banana peel".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Verinage" is French for "jacking", as in hydraulic jacking. Use of the word strongly implies not using explosives.

Also here the bottom floor is removed, and in Verinage it's the middle floor that is removed. There's very little crushing going on here.

The Chinese demolition was fairly standard, just with some larger sections removed to ensure there was as little possibility for sideways tipping as possible. It was quite similar to the 1515 tower demolition (although that was also structured to fall a particular pattern). See the "sectioning" here:

http://daek10d.zenfolio.com/p541732862/h203BF84B#h2c99f70d


 
Last edited:

Redwood

Active Member
I'm shocked at the amount of debris that they sent flying. I hope at least that everyone was inside during the demolition and no spectators were close by.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm shocked at the amount of debris that they sent flying. I hope at least that everyone was inside during the demolition and no spectators were close by.
I added a note to the OP, the explosive charges were wrapped in "barbed wire, quilts, bamboo, straw, etc. 6-8 layers for protection", so I suspect that largely accounts for the flying debris. They evacuated nearby buildings, but there were some damaged roofs.

And while it was very close to some buildings, it actually had a lot of open area behind it.
https://www.google.com/maps/search/ Shiqi District, zhongshan china/@22.5256986,113.3816731,583m/data=!3m1!1e3
 
Last edited:

Major_Tom

Member
What's wrong with "Progressive Collapse"?

The WTC twin towers were unique structural designs. The uniqueness of the designs are discussed in detail at this link at openbuildings,com

The visible collapses also took on unique patterns. There is obviously a direct connection between the distinct, unique geometrical designs of the buildings and the unique visible global features of the collapses.

The collapse propagation model described in detail in section 2.1 of the book is highly specific to match the unique features of the collapses and correspond to the unique architecture of the buildings. They fell the way they did because of their unique structural geometry. The generic term "progressive collapse" is not building specific.


You can call the unique collapse progression process anything you want but I prefer that the description matches the uniqueness of collapse events. Do you have any issues with the observations and measurements on which the described collapse progression mode is based or just with the choice of acronym?



And I'm assuming sharpprinting is your web site?
I am the author. I feature the work of a number of people who I consider to be some of the best independent researchers on the subject of the collapse mappings. I also include some of the work of OmeWhiteEye who I believe you have already met here.

Major Tom's technical work is good.
Thanks, but it isn't only my work. The website contains the best composite sets of mappings of visible collapse features available in the public domain, including peer reviewed papers on the subject and government reports. Would you agree?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You can call the unique collapse progression process anything you want but I prefer that the description matches the uniqueness of collapse events. Do you have any issues with the observations and measurements on which the described collapse progression mode is based or just with the choice of acronym?
Well you might as well call it "the WTC 1&2 collapses" then. I'm afraid that "Runaway Open Office Space Destruction" just conjures up images of a train plowing through an open plan office to me.

I think your technical discussion of how the buildings collapsed is generally pretty accurate, but this phrase (and the resultant acronym) is only useful for people like 911research talking amongst themselves. You can't describe the mechanism of collapse in five words, and you certainly can't with these five. Sorry.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
Well you might as well call it "the WTC 1&2 collapses" then. I'm afraid that "Runaway Open Office Space Destruction" just conjures up images of a train plowing through an open plan office to me.

I think your technical discussion of how the buildings collapsed is generally pretty accurate, but this phrase (and the resultant acronym) is only useful for people like 911research talking amongst themselves. You can't describe the mechanism of collapse in five words, and you certainly can't with these five. Sorry.
BFCC (Big fires Cause Chaotic Collapse) is the "correct mechanism", by using the "blind men and an elephant" algorithm, saves time on complex studies. Could it be, Aircraft Impact Initiate Big Fires Causing Chaotic Collapse - AIIBFCCC, the ROOSD leaves out the Core, which could be called:
Core Lateral Stability Collapse Caused By Lack Of Lateral Support Collapse - CLSCCBLOLSC - then we have Impacts And Fires Initiated Collapse By Terrorists (IAFCBT)
Or,
Skip the study and do what 911 truth does, make up something real stupid, a big time saver.


Was it? - Impact Area Weakness Caused By Massive Fires Leads To Top Of The Building Collapsing Onto Lower Part Of Building Resulting In Complete Collapse - IAWCBMFLTTOTBCOLPOBRICC
What level of abstraction shall we use. Boiling it down to Fire Did It (FDI), or Impacts Did It (IDI), saves letters. Or the big picture, Terrorists Did It (TDI).

Back to the OP...
The energy of the explosives used in the OP is trivial compared to the real energy used to destroy buildings in CD. The primary energy used in CD is the release of E=mgh. Thus, 911 truth followers fooled by simile.

Is it ROOSD, or BFCC, or E=mgh Release Destruction (EEMGHRD) - where do I add caused by impacts and fire?

Proponents of the "controlled demolition" theory of 9/11 like to point out that the collapse of WTC7 somewhat resembled a "normal" controlled demolition.
The CD theory used by 911 truth is correct for the E=mgh part, wrong for the explosives/thermite part, and leaves out the fires not fought part. What normal controlled demolitions have terrorists as the cause?
Oops, left out the massive preparation used in CD. oh man
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Oops, left out the massive preparation used in CD. oh man
Which in the case of the Chines building was the removal of 350 cubic meters of shear walls, the drilling of 8,343 holes for explosive charges, and a few km of det cord.

Radically different building though. A short span reinforced concrete grid.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The explosives used in the Chinese building were less than normal, is that what this means?
No, he means most of the destructive force (the "real energy") is from the potential energy in the building's height turning into kinetic energy (falling, and then breaking/crushing).
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member
Thanks, but it isn't only my work. The website contains the best composite sets of mappings of visible collapse gestured available in the public domain, including peer reviewed papers on the subject and government reports. Would you agree?
All of that is what I meant by "your work" including compiling what others had done.

The "pancaking" collapse description was obviously flawed IMHO, from the outset. Its a simplification of the collapse sequence. IMO, its obvious that while fast, the floors and columns did not fail floor by floor in lockstep and that sections failed separately, as you show in your description.

I do not agree with everything you put forth but I don't find much fault at all in your detailing of the collapse sequences. Similar applies to the poster known as femr2.
 

Redwood

Active Member
I am not an engineer, but it occurs to me that part of the reason for adding explosives farther up the building may be that the soil in the area is rather soggy rather than hard bedrock, so merely dropping the building a few stories from the bottom onto the ground may not provide enough of a jolt to completely disrupt & destroy the structure. Witness these failed demolitions (one in China):
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am not an engineer, but it occurs to me that part of the reason for adding explosives farther up the building may be that the soil in the area is rather soggy rather than hard bedrock, so merely dropping the building a few stories from the bottom onto the ground may not provide enough of a jolt to completely disrupt & destroy the structure. Witness these failed demolitions (one in China):
There are generally explosives all the way up a building anyway. They just claimed to need some extra oomph here due to the proximity of other buildings and roads. Very rigid short span structures like that can "tip over" (or develop excessive lateral motion) if things go wrong.
 
Last edited:

petral

New Member
The first problem with this is that the term "banana peel demolition" is not a demolition industry term for any kind of demolition - not even informally. It's simply something that AE911 made up. You can verify this with a Google search, nothing that the ONLY results are from the AE911 and Daily Paul stories, blog posts about those stories, and this page here on Metabunk.

The sole example they give of this supposed demolition technique is a building in China:

They claim this demonstrates the features of the WTC1/2 collapses, the peeling away of the sides of the building, a top down collapse, and the expulsion of building material as it collapses.

The problem here is that it really looks nothing alike. In fact it's actually a bottom up demolition. The only difference here that that there were three regions of larger explosions, at the base, and at about 1/3 and 2/3 the ways up. It was these explosions that expulsed material. The building collapse was not in fact a top down demolition, but a bottom up demolition.

And there was no "peeling" of the sides of the building. It simply collapse in a downwards manner, disappearing into a cloud of dust at the base, as most buildings do when they collapse. The expulsion of material is clearly from the initial (very loud) explosions before the building starts to collapse. This expulsion is also only on one side - the side the larger explosives were place to make the building lean in that direction.
I agree that "banana peel" doesn't seem to be an industry term and it is not found anywhere except in relation to AE9/11's coinage and it seems odd that there is only one example of the building in China. Nevertheless there is that one example at least. I do not believe that "banana peel" refers to "peeling of the sides of the building" but rather to the trajectories of the exploded material. Obviously, in the Chinese example the whole floor needs to be blasted out so that the floors on top will collapse straight down so peeling of the sides of the building makes no sense and is obviously not what happened.

While there is not an exact correlation between the two types of demolition there are similarities. Assuming the twin towers came down by controlled demolition, it looks as if each floor was exploded out one by one from the top where in the Chinese case strategically selected floors in timed sequence starting at the bottom were blown out in order that the floors above collapsed straight down on top, ensuring the entire building came down in its footprint. Thus even though the Chinese building started at the bottom and the twin towers started at the top, each involved floors exploding out (regardless of configuration) causing the "banana-peel" trajectories of the exploded material which to me look extremely similar.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I agree that "banana peel" doesn't seem to be an industry term and it is not found anywhere except in relation to AE9/11's coinage and it seems odd that there is only one example of the building in China. Nevertheless there is that one example at least. I do not believe that "banana peel" refers to "peeling of the sides of the building" but rather to the trajectories of the exploded material. Obviously, in the Chinese example the whole floor needs to be blasted out so that the floors on top will collapse straight down so peeling of the sides of the building makes no sense and is obviously not what happened.

While there is not an exact correlation between the two types of demolition there are similarities. Assuming the twin towers came down by controlled demolition, it looks as if each floor was exploded out one by one from the top where in the Chinese case strategically selected floors in timed sequence starting at the bottom were blown out in order that the floors above collapsed straight down on top, ensuring the entire building came down in its footprint. Thus even though the Chinese building started at the bottom and the twin towers started at the top, each involved floors exploding out (regardless of configuration) causing the "banana-peel" trajectories of the exploded material which to me look extremely similar.
The visuals reveal a rapid collapse of the floor slabs... not as entire floor plates... but as regions of materials.... some leading, some following. The collapsing floor material rapidly compresses the air on the floor below the one it is impacting. The air is rapidly compressed and everything in the floor is forced out of the window at speeds of well over a hundred miles an hr in some cases. This includes furniture, office documents, ceiling tiles, GWB everything not part of the structure.

The floor collapse has been measured at a speed of about 60mph or about 100 feet per second... so each floor collapsed in about a second.

What DIDN'T collapse were to core columns. The floors collapse raced past them and it severed most of the steel bracing in the core.

The remaining standing parts were the facade and some of the core columns. Most of the core columns made unstable by the loss of bracing collapsed from Euler buckling, The facade experienced the same instability and parts of the facade fell away in sections as high as 10 stories or more and as wide as more than half the building width. You can see those facade sections arrayed from the foot print outward in all directions. Some panels destroyed the adjacent building and some material fell as far as WTC7 and damaged its south facade and roof. Highest floor sections fell furthest from the tower. Some reached the 2WFC Winter Garden.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...the Chinese building ... and the twin towers ... each involved floors exploding out (regardless of configuration) causing the "banana-peel" trajectories of the exploded material which to me look extremely similar.
While these "streamers" (larger pieces of debris trailed by dust streams) look similar, they exhibit a fundamental difference that in IMHO trumps the superficial "looks like": The streamers emerge from the Chinese building before (or as) the building itself starts falling under gravity, while the streamers at the the WTC emerge after progressive collapse is already underway.
So in China, they are causally associated not with the collapse itself, but with the explosives that in turn also caused the collapse. At the WTC, the causality can not be limited to explosives in this way - and indeed it appears far more likely that the streamers are not caused by explosive charges but by features of the collapse progression.

I say that this distinction is fundamental, because the AE911T goal (this thread discusses a claim made by AE911T, hence the relevance) is to suggest that in both cases the streamers have the same cause - explosives.
 
Top