Why didn't the pancake collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 stop at the

[spooked911]

steel-beam reinforced floors at floor 75-76 and 41-42?

At least, the pancake collapse should have slowed there significantly.

http://www.gallerize.com/911_Science_Report_App_H.pdf

"It turns out that 18 floors have heavy steel beams instead of trusses. Consider the following quote from Engineering News-Record, January 1, 1970.

On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking. Typical office floors have 4-in. thick slabs of composite construction using top
chord knuckles of the joists (trusses), which extend into the slab, as shear connectors. On mechanical floors, composite action is provided by welded stud shear connectors.

So the first 8 + 6 = 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses. South tower was hit around the 80th and 81st floor, north tower around the 92nd floor. Floors pancakeing from the points of impact were blocked by a massive steel cage of I-beams at the 75th and 76th floor. There is no explanation why the alleged pancakeing would have broken through the steel cage barriers at the 75th and 76th floors and at the 41st and 42nd floors with the uniform collapse speed, i.e. nearly the speed of free fall."

[Informed Citizen]

1. Good point - What about it?

Spooked,

Interesting point. But what difference does it make. No one at DU9/11 such as yourself, who spends as much time as you do writing about the collapse of the Twin Towers, has ever explained to me why this matters. I think its irrelevant. At least from the standpoint of utilizing what we know to promote a response from our leaders, and encourage others to look at the evidence. The case has been made using evidence that does not so greatly rely upon speculation. More convincing evidence. As I said recently, we must principly seek answers from those are responsible for answering them. Will you tell me what you hope to accomplish with this line of inquiry. What can be gained? Are you just a researcher, or do you hope to do anything with all this info?

- I.C.

[pox americana]

2. Don't ya see? This blows the OCT out of the water!

More later.

[spooked911]

5. I am a researcher who is trying to get more people to realize about

the demolition of the towers and how this changes EVERYTHING about 9/11. If the towers were demolished, and I think they were, it measn all of 9/11 was a giant set-up, perpetrated by evil powers in the government or connected to the government.

I am trying to compile as many reasons as possible that the towers were brought down by demolition, then hopefully the weight of the evidence will be overwhelming for almost everybody.

So, YES, I would like to accomplish something with this info. I would like everyone to know the truth about 9/11 and the criminals in positions of power in this country.

[pox americana]

9. You're absolutely right.

This is BIG. Everything about the "pancake" theory is completely ridiculous. The idea that a steel-framed highrise would a) start collapsing in the first place and then b) continue collapsing straight down to the bedrock is so insanely preposterous it's almost funny. This is one more excellent reason why it could never, ever, EVER have fallen the way it did without explosives.

[Informed Citizen]

16. More complex

Spooked,

The tower collapses are what I like to call the secondary evidence of 9/11. Primary evidence would be that Dick Cheney was in command of the military and relatively unknown training exercises that day. Or that there were more than 20 warnings about a pending attack. Or that the identities of the hijackers are in question. These pieces of evidence are supported by mainstream reporting, and official documents, and can not be easily refuted. The secondary evidence of 9/11, which is most of what people talk about in here, is based on such things as eyewitness accounts, physical evidence that has been destroyed, and supposition that is open to interpretation. In other words, the secondary evidence is that which is less convincing. In my eyes, as an truth activist, your inquiry is very interesting, important assuming that we get lucky and find more specific evidence, but also distracting and possibly contributes to people stigmatizing the movement. How do I know this. I am currently a 9/11 educator of sorts. I talk to a lot of people about the issue, and know how the general public responds. When I introduce the subject I never mention any secondary evidence. That information is for insiders only. Which is why I can not say that what you are doing is not valuable in some respects. In here we should talk about everything, but always with the necessary skepticism. What you are looking at can be used against us. So don't stop what you are doing, but also keep this in mind. I wonder what you think will make the weight of this evidence overwhelming? We just heard new evidence that there were secondary explosions in the buildings. And even that the 22nd floor of one of the towers collapsed before the towers fell. But people don't accept this evidence even when its true. 9/11 truth is not just about what's true. Its also about finding the primary evidence that actually gets through to people. I hope very much that some form of evidence makes the collapse of the towers an open and shut case. I myself am certain that they were demolished. But that doesn't mean I tell people about this.

- I.C.

[pox americana]

17. Tell 'em. Demolition is the smoking gun.

The rest is a lot of ifs and maybes, IMHO. But to each his/her own.

[Informed Citizen]

18. ???

What you just said is exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting. Are you kidding? Do you really think that the demolition of the Twin Towers is central in explaining the alternative view of 9/11? It may be an important area of current inquiry within the movement, but it has not yet become primary evidence in the effort to educate others. Wait, you were kidding. ?

- I.C.

[pox americana]

19. No, not kidding.

9/11 is about 3,000 people dying in faked building collapses. My experience is that the WTC collapses can be pretty easily be shown to be produced by explosives.

The other stuff? If you find it persuasive, fine. Whatever works.

[spooked911]

21. Think of it this way-- 9/11 was probably designed around bringing

down the towers.

Then they merged in this Al Qaeda hijacking plan and NORAD exercises such as Amalgam Virgo and various other military and bioterorrism exercises.

But bringing down the towers was the FOCUS of 9/11, and I think many on the Bush and Giuliani administrations KNEW it would happen. The attack on the Pentagon and flight 93 were probably much more of a surprise.

Of course the biggest reason to concentrate on the tower collapses is THAT IS HOW MOST OF THE PEOPLE DIED ON 9/11.

[Informed Citizen]

28. Concerned

Spooked,

Now ya got me worried. I consider you to be one of the more rational people in here, but now you've gone and posted something that sounds a bit wonky. If you are just a research nerd like I have been for the past couple of years, then maybe its beneficial for the 9/11 truth movement to be all about the Twin Towers for you and your peers. But if you are trying to play a larger role in the educational agenda of the 9/11 truth movement, something I have recently begun to do, then your assertion is potentially damaging. In educating the public we must differentiate between solid primary evidence and speculative secondary evidence. Until you find the answers that you seek, the demolition will be secondary. I certainly hope that your work results in more primary evidence of governement complicity or cover-up.

Some smarmy comments:

<Think of it this way-- 9/11 was probably designed around bringing down the towers.>

9/11 was about geopolitical strategy. 9/11 was about imperial control.

<Then they merged in this Al Qaeda hijacking plan and NORAD exercises such as Amalgam Virgo and various other military and bioterorrism exercises.>

Certainly so. I like to view it as three levels. There was the Dick Cheney level, the patsie level, and the public level of the event. On top there was Cheney at the helm that day. He's a part of the Secret Government, and has the Sercret secrets related to overall strategic goals. Below him we have the "terrorists", government agents, and informed citizens who know secrets, but with an incomplete view are easily manipulated by the release of information meant to influence their perceptions and actions. And then at the bottam we have the unwitting public who know nothing but what they see on television, and generally don't understand government secrecy. This lack of understanding was the the genesis of the pejorative use of the term 'conspiracy theory'.

<But bringing down the towers was the FOCUS of 9/11, and I think many on the Bush and Giuliani administrations KNEW it would happen. The attack on the Pentagon and flight 93 were probably much more of a surprise.>

The FOCUS of 9/11? Geopolitics. Eurasia. Bringing down the Twin Towers was a means to and end. Of course they knew it would happen, and letting it happen IS making it happen. You can go to jail for being and accessory to murder. Your attitude about the Pentagon and flight 93 sounds confused. I've never heard anyone in here suggest that these events could be seperated from the others. Its just not logical.

<Of course the biggest reason to concentrate on the tower collapses is THAT IS HOW MOST OF THE PEOPLE DIED ON 9/11.>

I agree that people would most like to know how and why their loved ones died. If we really could prove that the towers were demolished, it would break the whole thing open. But until that happens, this line of inquiry is not an educational tool, but only a research consideration.

- I.C.

[spooked911]

29. You make good points. My point about the towers was that C.D.

was how the operation was planned at a tactical level. I know strategically, 9/11 was about geopolitics.

[Informed Citizen]

30. What's more important.

Good to hear from you. I think I disagree with you but it might be just a matter of semantics.

The towers were not 'how the operation was planned at a tactical level'. They were one part of a fairly intricate plan. The successful demolition of the towers was certainly the promotional centerpiece of the operation, but the last two planes, and the implication of their late takeoffs may in fact hold the stronger evidence of complicity. The events of Flight 77 and the Pentagon, only up to the point of impact, hold some of the strongest indirect evidence of government complicity . Rumsfeld simply must have been informed, during the forty minutes of time in which Cheney received regular reports of a plane headed for Washington. And Flight 93 had to have been terminated, either by missle or remote detonation, due to the large debree field. The government put no firm evidence forward demonstrating that the 'terrorist' brought a bomb on board, or that there was even an explosion. Strangely, both of these planes happen to be two of the only planes in history to largely disintigrate on implact. Most plane wrecks can be reconstructed to determine the cause of the crash. They got 90% of Flight 800 off the bottom of the ocean, and it was in thousands of peices.

So I'm saying that the towers aren't the most important point when it comes to promoting 9/11 truth. The issue may as some future time be relevant to a criminal case, and continues to develop, but its not yet primary evidence, like Cheneys responsibity for what was supposedly the biggest military failure in U.S. history.

- I.C.

[spooked911]

31. Sure, I agree.

Actually, there was no significant debris recovered from all four planes on 9/11. They might as well have all been ghost planes.

[vincent_vega_lives]

3. Slowing?

How exactly, like in slow motion? Either it collapses imediately or it doesn't.

You really think that reinforcement for the extra load of mechanical equipment would slow 250,000 tons of mass moving at what must be at least 16 meters/second.

250,000 tons = 226,244,344 Kg

KE=.5M(VV)

KE=(226,244,344*.5)*(16*16)

KE=113,122,172*256

KE= 33,59,276,032 Joules

1lb of TNT = aprox 2 MJ

KE= 1,679 lbs of TNT

[Ezlivin]

4. Even a piece of paper slows a bullet

Granted, the amount of velocity dropped is extremely small, but it is a measureable amount.

The WTC had to be slowed in its collapse by such strengthened floors.

Is the reduction in velocity enough to see with the unaided eye? Should it be?

This is left as an exercise for the mechanical engineers among us.

[vincent_vega_lives]

8. An appropriate analogy (n/t)

[spooked911]

6. Yes, I do think it would slow that mass moving downwards.

It might even stop it.

And your calculation is meaningless without knowing how much TNT it would take to crush the core of the towers.

Also, where do you get "16" from?

[vincent_vega_lives]

7. Slowing

Why do you think the floor would have been able to support over 100,000 tons falling 12' onto it? It's one thing to support that weight at rest, and another thing entirely when it is in motion.

The TNT example is just to portray the energy that is being released. I think a 1,500lb bomb would render the core structurally unsound.

If the 400m tall towers fell in 11 seconds 16m/s is close to half the mean velocity of the tower's collapse, and twice the velocity at 12', which the distance between any one floor.

[hack89]

11. Where are your calculations?

Can't you calculate the forces and resistance and actually prove something for once? What you think is irrelevant when it is possible to quantify the forces involved.

[pox americana]

12. Oh please. Let's pretend it would make any difference.

You've already said that you "cannot accept" any evidence that doesn't come with a big White House seal of approval on the cover.

[hack89]

14. Nice evasion..

why don't you let him speak for himself?

[pox americana]

15. He doesn't need to. The evidence is compelling

as you probably realize. Stick to Popular Mechanics if you want numerology.

[hack89]

22. Ahh .... a liberal creationist

get behind me Satan with that evil math! I know what I know science be damned!:sarcasm:

[pox americana]

23. Hilarious. Let me guess, your Bushbot boss/ coworker/ family member?

Tell me you didn't dream that one up yourself.

[spooked911]

20. I don't need calculations to know that the truss failure pancake collapse

theory doesn't hold up, when at the 75-76th floor, there were solid steel beams supporting the floor-- not just trusses.

In any case, Pox is right. You're just stalling, you're not really interested in understanding this. You just want to argue that it is impossible that the towers were brought down by explosives, presumably until we just give up.

I have an idea, why don't you build a scale model of one of the WTC towers, damage the columns as you think the plane and fires did, and then show how the whole fucking thing collapses down on itself. I would love to see that.

If you can do such a thing, I will give you $100. Honest injun.

[spooked911]

24. what, Hack, you don't think you could do it?

make a model that behaved as the WTC?

[hack89]

25. I have the same knowledge and skill you have..

so of course the answer is no. I am humble enough to know my own limitations.

[spooked911]

26. So, how on earth can you be so sure the towers were not brought down

by demolition?????????????????

Geez.

:banghead:

[philb]

10. It seems that several on lower floors survived the "pancake" in each tower

EMS DIVISION CHIEF JOHN PERUGGIA
WCT2
I looked up and saw this big gaping hole where the south tower used to be. That's the first point that I realized that the south tower had collapsed. Maybe ten or 15 stories high left of it.

BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN OFLAHERTY
Several survivors of WTC2 collapse:
I KNEW WHAT WAS COMING DOWN. THE BUILDING I WAS IN WAS COMING DOWN. I LOOKED REAL QUICK FORWARD DIDN’T LIKE THAT OPTION BECAUSE IT WAS BIG HIGH LOBBY LOT OF GLASS. I FIGURED IT WAS NOT THAT WELL SUPPORTED REMEMBER SEEING THOSE COLUMNS. I REMEMBER TAKING A FEW STEPS AND TRYING TO RUN AND YOURE EITHER THROWN OR BLOWN OFF YOUR FEET. I REMEMBER I ENDED UP MY FACE. I WAS RIGHT UP AGAINST THE WALL. A COLUMN WAS RIGHT NEAR MY LEFT SHOULDER. A BIG COLUMN.

IT WAS TERRIBLE NOISE BESIDES THE BUILDING SHUDDERING THE SOUND WAS HORRENDOUS TO ME IT SOUNDED LIKE STEEL CUTTING THROUGH STEEL. THATS HOW I EXPLAIN IT YOURE LAYING THERE THERES STUFF HITTING YOU HAD MY RIGHT HAND UP BEHIND MY HEAD AND NECK AND JUST SAID LET IT BE MERCIFUL BECAUSE YOU THINK ITS ALL OVER THERES STUFF HITTING YOU BUT NOTHING THE STUFF IS DEBRIS FLYING AROUND. ALL OF SUDDEN THE NOISE STOPS. THEN I HEAR SOMEBODY COUGH BEHIND. ITS MYERS. He helps me up to my knees. IT WAS FLOOR TO CEILING DEBRIS IT WAS JUST SOLID FROM AS HIGH UP AS CAN LOOK WHICH IS PRETTY HIGH AT THIS POINT. Then I THINK LARRY ANSWERED. WE START TO MOVE TOWARDS HIM. I COULD HEAR SOME GUY YELLING MAYDAY ON THE RADIO HANDY TALKY. THERES BEEN A COLLAPSE. WERE TRAPPED I LOOKED IT WAS EDDIE HENRY FROM THE 40 BATTALION. I RECOGNIZED HIM. I TURNED ANOTHER WAY AND THERE WAS LIEUTENANT THERE. BACK. THERES A CIVILIAN AND I DONT KNOW IF ITS THE SAME GUY MET THE FIRST TIME OR NOT AGAIN CIVILIAN CLOTHES. I SAID YOU STAY BY THIS FIRST DOOR. YOU KEEP THE DOOR OPEN IM GOING THROUGH THE SECOND DOOR. THERES ANOTHER DOOR IF START YELLING YOU JUST YELL. I DIDNT KNOW IF I WAS GOING THROUGH MAZE OR NOT. AS SOON AS I OPENED THE THIRD DOOR THERES HOLE IN THE WALL COULD SEE OUT ONTO WEST STREET.

FIREFIGHTER TIERNACH CASSIDY
In the rubble of WTC1: some firemen in the building survived the collapse

SO I TIE OFF AND GO DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE AND I STARTED COMING UP HE SAID HE FOUND HIM IT WAS THE GUYS FROM 36 THAT PORT AUTHORITY COP THREE CIVILIANS AND FRIEND OF MINE MICKEY CROSS.
Q. These guys were down in the big hole? Where were these guys? A. The fourth Floor of the north tower when it came down. HOW THEY SURVIVED I HAVE NO IDEA. I COULDNT BELIEVE IT.

FIREFIGHTER MICHAEL Morabito
Saving civilian on 7th floor of WTC1 after it fell:

We hooked up with a guy from Rescue 5 and a guy from Rescue 2 and we helped rescue one civilian who was trapped on the 6th floor and pulled him down there from – So we had to climb up and this guy is trapped at
probably about the 7th or 8th floor and he was just sitting on a piece of concrete when the whole building came down. I had shimmied out like a piece of conduit and he lowered him to me and I pulled him over, because we were over a big hole, I think it was the north tower.


LIEUTENANT JAMES MCGLYNN survivor of WTC1 collapse

WE YELLED ON THE FOURTH FLOOR I SAID OKAY HE MUST HAVE KEPT GOING. AT THAT POINT WE TURNED AROUND AND DECIDED TO EXIT WE SAID OKAY LETS GET OUT OF HERE. WHEN WE TURNED AROUND TO EXIT THE BUILDING CAME DOWN. I BELIEVE I WAS BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR ON THE HALF LANDING AND IT STARTED TO SHAKE AND VIBRATE THEN HEARD THE SOUND OF FLOORS IMPLODING ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER YOU HEARD IT COMING AND YOU HEARD IT GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER AND LOUDER AND LOUDER AND THINGS ARE COMING DOWN ON TOP OF YOU. I HIT THE FLOOR AND ROLLED TO THE WALL AND JUST KIND OF COVERED UP INTO FETAL POSITION AND I STARTED SAYING MY PRAYERS FINALLY THAT STOPPED AND THE DEBRIS STARTED COMING WHEN THE LOUD BANGING STOPPED I SAID OKAY AT LEAST IM NOT GOING TO GET CRUSHED OR IM NOT GOING TO GET CRUSHED ON IMPACT. THEN THE DEBRIS KEPT COMING AND IT STARTED COVERING ME UP AND THOUGHT OH GOD IM GOING TO DIE AND JUST GET BURIED ALIVE SAID WOULD JUST RATHER DIE QUICKLY THAN GET BURIED ALIVE THEN THAT STOPPED. IT WAS KIND OF LIKE TWILIGHT THERE WAS SOME VERY LITTLE LIGHT THEN ALL THAT THE SMOKE AND THE DUST AND EVERYTHING LIFTED AND YOU COULD SEE. AT SOME POINT PROBABLY MAYBE AN HOUR OR SO AFTER THAT DONT KNOW IF IT WAS CAPTAIN NOW CHIEF JONAS MADE CONTACT WITH SOME OUTSIDE UNITS OR MAYBE IT WAS CHIEF PICCIOTTO IM NOT 100 PERCENT SURE WHO MADE CONTACT.

WHEN WE CAME OUT RIGHT HERE THERE WAS THIS GULLY IT WENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS REMEMBER WHEN WE FINALLY CAME OUT WE HAD TO WALK DOWN INTO THIS CRATER.
Conclusion blanked out.

[philb]

27. First 3 floors of WTC2 survived pretty well- firefighter

PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
WTC2
When I saw the first building collapse I noticed that the first three or four floors , they were pretty good, that was on my mind. Wow, they were pretty good. THEN THEY SAID THERE WAS A Lot of people trapped inside. After both buildings collapsed there were several firefighters down there and batallian chiefs.

Q. WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE? A. It was a frigging noise at first. At first I thought it was a professional demolition, where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear Pop Pop Pop Pop. That’s exactly what I thought it was when I heard that frigging noise. That’s when I saw the building coming down. I ran as fast as I could maybe half a block and then hid between a building covered myself with a stretcher. That’s when every thing came down. It was very dark for a few minutes.

[philb]

13. The fireman and police statements and pictures/videos of the "collapses"

are not consistent with pancake failure imo.

pictures of explosions and squibs, explosions up and out at top,
and reports of witnesses who saw similar to what the videos show


http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
http://www.flcv.com/nypolice.html