Pancake Collaspe Theory (revisited?)

[Lightdemon]

Not sure if there was already a thread about this topic. Most likely yes, however I couldn't find one within the first 3 pages, so I gave up searching (yea, i know lazy :3oops: ). If there already is a thread, can someone please link it for me? That would be very helpful.

In case there is no thread, allow me to dive right into the topic.


The pancake theory is basically the idea that the WTC collapsed in sections of the buildings, and as the sections fell each time, it destroys the lower floors, and eventually results in the rubble that we see when the dust clears.

There are a couple of things wrong with this theory.

1. Inertia. The force or energy that is exerted into the tower in a downward motion deminishes as each of the sections hit the following lower floor. Each hit pushes back the top floor, in other words, slowing down the fall. This means that with each falling section, the following fall should be slower than the last. We do not see this because the building fell at freefall speed. Several sources that I have seen, say that the falling speed ranges from 12.5 secs to about 15 secs, but nothing over 20 secs. The time it takes a tennis ball to fall to the floor from the top of the empire state building is 15 secs. The empire state building has 102 floors, where both the WTC each had 110 floors. If the building fell as fast as the tennis ball, plus another 10 floors....where's the principle of inertia?

[I'm actually giving the best case scenario to the pancake thoery supporters by using 12.5 to 15 secs. There are many other sources that say the towers fell from 8 to 11 secs. But no matter the numbers, it still does not measure up.]

2. On top of the previous point, basic engineering and architecture uses stronger metals and alloys at the lower levels of buildings so that they can hold more weight. As the level rises, lighter metals and alloys are used because generally they do not have to hold as much weight as the lower floors. As well, the lighter the metals of the upper floors, the higher you can build (the more metal you can stack). This means that every time a section would hit the next floor down, it would be hitting stronger metal and alloys that are more reinforced than the upper floors. Thus as the sections are going further down, more force is being pushed back. There is more resistance at the lower floors than at the above floors.

3. Some supporters of the pancake theory claim that fire weakened the metal and frame of the building, which allowed it to collapse easier. For this to be plausible however, the fire must have reached the lower floors. Fire burns upwards, not downwards. Yes it does burn downwards, but not at the same speed. One only needs a peice of a fallen branch from any tree, stand it up straight and light a fire in the middle of it. Fire will travel up faster than it would down. However, the supporters of the pancake thoery say that the jet fuel poured into the elevator shafts and was ignited, that's how the fire was started at the lower floors. This claim cannot be true, since there is no smoke coming out of the windows of the lower floors, as compared to the 80th-90th floors. Even if there was a fire, it was minimal because of the lack of smoke. Furthermore, jet fuel that burns in open air can only achieve a maximum of 600 degrees fahrenheit. Steel begins to become brittle at 900 degrees fahrenheit, when it begins to turn red. There is no way jet fuel could have weakened the steel inside the WTC to the point of collapse.

4. Expounding on point 3, one can be skeptical of the amount of jet fuel that the plane contained will be enough to burn and weaken the majority, if not all of the floors, steel frames. Although I do not have numbers to support this, I remain skeptical that even at full tank the plane probably don't have enough fuel to continuously burn down the elevator shaft, then pour it's way towards the steel frames of the critical floors of the towers. And I seriously doubt that all, or even most of the jet fuel made its way down the elevator shaft. The fuel would have to make its way past the flames, and avoid being ignighted before it reached the shaft.


I have a feeling that I may be missing another specific point in disproving the pancake collapse thoery, but I guess that'll have to do for now.

Again, if there is already a thread for this topic, it would do me a great service if you provided a link or at least the whereabouts of that thread. Thank you much!

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Not sure if there was already a thread about this topic. Most likely yes, however I couldn't find one within the first 3 pages, so I gave up searching (yea, i know lazy :3oops: ). If there already is a thread, can someone please link it for me? That would be very helpful.

In case there is no thread, allow me to dive right into the topic.


The pancake theory is basically the idea that the WTC collapsed in sections of the buildings, and as the sections fell each time, it destroys the lower floors, and eventually results in the rubble that we see when the dust clears.

There are a couple of things wrong with this theory.

1. Inertia. The force or energy that is exerted into the tower in a downward motion deminishes as each of the sections hit the following lower floor. Each hit pushes back the top floor, in other words, slowing down the fall. This means that with each falling section, the following fall should be slower than the last. We do not see this because the building fell at freefall speed. Several sources that I have seen, say that the falling speed ranges from 12.5 secs to about 15 secs, but nothing over 20 secs. The time it takes a tennis ball to fall to the floor from the top of the empire state building is 15 secs. The empire state building has 102 floors, where both the WTC each had 110 floors. If the building fell as fast as the tennis ball, plus another 10 floors....where's the principle of inertia?

[I'm actually giving the best case scenario to the pancake thoery supporters by using 12.5 to 15 secs. There are many other sources that say the towers fell from 8 to 11 secs. But no matter the numbers, it still does not measure up.]

2. On top of the previous point, basic engineering and architecture uses stronger metals and alloys at the lower levels of buildings so that they can hold more weight. As the level rises, lighter metals and alloys are used because generally they do not have to hold as much weight as the lower floors. As well, the lighter the metals of the upper floors, the higher you can build (the more metal you can stack). This means that every time a section would hit the next floor down, it would be hitting stronger metal and alloys that are more reinforced than the upper floors. Thus as the sections are going further down, more force is being pushed back. There is more resistance at the lower floors than at the above floors.

3. Some supporters of the pancake theory claim that fire weakened the metal and frame of the building, which allowed it to collapse easier. For this to be plausible however, the fire must have reached the lower floors. Fire burns upwards, not downwards. Yes it does burn downwards, but not at the same speed. One only needs a peice of a fallen branch from any tree, stand it up straight and light a fire in the middle of it. Fire will travel up faster than it would down. However, the supporters of the pancake thoery say that the jet fuel poured into the elevator shafts and was ignited, that's how the fire was started at the lower floors. This claim cannot be true, since there is no smoke coming out of the windows of the lower floors, as compared to the 80th-90th floors. Even if there was a fire, it was minimal because of the lack of smoke. Furthermore, jet fuel that burns in open air can only achieve a maximum of 600 degrees fahrenheit. Steel begins to become brittle at 900 degrees fahrenheit, when it begins to turn red. There is no way jet fuel could have weakened the steel inside the WTC to the point of collapse.

4. Expounding on point 3, one can be skeptical of the amount of jet fuel that the plane contained will be enough to burn and weaken the majority, if not all of the floors, steel frames. Although I do not have numbers to support this, I remain skeptical that even at full tank the plane probably don't have enough fuel to continuously burn down the elevator shaft, then pour it's way towards the steel frames of the critical floors of the towers. And I seriously doubt that all, or even most of the jet fuel made its way down the elevator shaft. The fuel would have to make its way past the flames, and avoid being ignighted before it reached the shaft.


I have a feeling that I may be missing another specific point in disproving the pancake collapse thoery, but I guess that'll have to do for now.

Again, if there is already a thread for this topic, it would do me a great service if you provided a link or at least the whereabouts of that thread. Thank you much!

1. Massive assumption.

2. Utter boil pish! Do you have any evidence to demonstrate this point. I.e specifically show that the WTC used denser/stronger matrerials at the base, and lighter at the top. This point is utter crap, because it proves F-all.

3 +4. Utter pish. Have you ever done enginering? Engineers use equations to work out the load bearing strength of a metal proportional to it's temperature. Secondly the fire that we could see, was at the point of impact. Let's assume that the fire weakened the steel of the truss floor, enough that the securring point could no longer bear the weight of the damaged floor. Answer this, where is this floor going to go? Up or down?

Next point, now that this floor has collapsed onto the next floor, how on earth is the intact floor going to bear the weight of the debris from the collapsed floor?..... It too collapses. Since the floors held up the exo skeleton of the WTC, where is the exoskeleton going to go without the support of the floors.

If you think that the WTC collapsed nice and neatly, you realy need help. If you look at the footage of the world trade centre collapse you can see very large sections falling outward. If the collapse was so perfect why was the real damage caused to the smaller surrounding buildings of the world trade centre? If you don't believe me Google it.

 

[americanwoman]

oh thank God, I thought this was about IHOP going out of business. Whew, just another WTC conspiracy.

 

[Lightdemon]

1. Massive assumption.

How bout arguing your point? Shed some light on the topic. After all, inertia is a very simple and basic concept. If it is more complicated than what I made it to be, show me.

2. Utter boil pish! Do you have any evidence to demonstrate this point. I.e specifically show that the WTC used denser/stronger matrerials at the base, and lighter at the top. This point is utter crap, because it proves F-all.

World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The thickness of the plates and grade of steel were varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36 ksi to 100 ksi, with the steel strength and plate thickness decreasing with height."

Any more questions regarding this point?

3 +4. Utter pish. Have you ever done enginering? Engineers use equations to work out the load bearing strength of a metal proportional to it's temperature. Secondly the fire that we could see, was at the point of impact. Let's assume that the fire weakened the steel of the truss floor, enough that the securring point could no longer bear the weight of the damaged floor. Answer this, where is this floor going to go? Up or down?

Ok, but the fire was still on the top floors. Fire had not reached the bottom floors, and are not weakened. The bottom floors maintained its integrity. So it should only have collapsed half way and not all the way down.

Next point, now that this floor has collapsed onto the next floor, how on earth is the intact floor going to bear the weight of the debris from the collapsed floor?..... It too collapses. Since the floors held up the exo skeleton of the WTC, where is the exoskeleton going to go without the support of the floors.

tyvm! This was the point that I had forgotten. Let's say floor 50 is built so that it can withstand the weight (or force) of the upper floors. Regardless of the debris or weakening of the frames of the building, no additional weight had been added except by the weight of the plane.

So, your assertion that the lower floors could not had withstand the falling weight is not plausible because the weight was fairly constant (only varying when the plane hit and when people were jumping out of buildings). Again, drawing from basic engineering and architecture, buildings are built to withstand much more than they are used for, it's a requirement by law. An example of this is the threshold of weight an elevator is suppose to withstand. In most elevators, there are maximum weight placards that say either 2000 lbs or 3000 lbs. But going over this limit does not cause the elevator to not work, or even break. The actual limit is set at 15,000 lbs - 20,000 lbs. This is a requirement by law.

The added weight of the plane to the tower could not have been sufficient enough to cause it to collapse. Again, the tower is built to withstand more than it is used for.

In short, floor 50 that should have supported all the floors above it, floor 70 that should have supported all the floors above it, these floors should have maintained the weight forced upon them regardless because there is no added weight to the falling debris. Debris falling doesn't make it heavier. A falling bowling ball weighs just as much as it does before, during, and after the fall. So why would the floor that is collapsing weigh more than it did before it collapsed?

If you think that the WTC collapsed nice and neatly, you realy need help. If you look at the footage of the world trade centre collapse you can see very large sections falling outward. If the collapse was so perfect why was the real damage caused to the smaller surrounding buildings of the world trade centre? If you don't believe me Google it.

I never claimed that it did. If I did, where did I say so?

But lets take your point, that there were sections that fell outward. Isn't that removing weight from the tower? Removing pressure from the collapse?And thus stop the rest of the tower from collapsing? I don't understand how the fact that sections were falling outward helps the pancake collapse theory. Can you explain a little better?

 

[Lightdemon]

oh thank God, I thought this was about IHOP going out of business. Whew, just another WTC conspiracy.

Well, gee....This is the conspiracy theory forum isn't it?

 

[Gill]

Debris falling doesn't make it heavier. A falling bowling ball weighs just as much as it does before, during, and after the fall. So why would the floor that is collapsing weigh more than it did before it collapsed?

You obviously know absolutely nothing about construction or engineering....

Take your bowling ball and lay it on top of your car hood. It won't hurt a thing will it?? Now pick it up and drop it on the hood from 5'. I guarantee you some damage will happen.

Building are designed to withstand a lot of static loading, but not a lot of dynamic loading. Floors pancaking are a dynamic load causing the lower floors to collapse easier and faster than the ones above.

 

[Lightdemon]

You obviously know absolutely nothing about construction or engineering....

Take your bowling ball and lay it on top of your car hood. It won't hurt a thing will it?? Now pick it up and drop it on the hood from 5'. I guarantee you some damage will happen.

Building are designed to withstand a lot of static loading, but not a lot of dynamic loading. Floors pancaking are a dynamic load causing the lower floors to collapse easier and faster than the ones above.

Good point. However, that still leaves us with the fact that the building fell at freefall speed. If each section fell, and its weight broke the following floor, the lower floor is then assumed to have been broken and then continues the collapse. Doesn't this constitute a factor of time? How long does it take for each floor to break? But lets not say each floor, lets say every 5 floors breaks and continues the downward collapse. Does it not take time for these floors to break first and then collapse?

If this was the case, the collapse of the tower should have been much longer than 15 secs. Considering the plane hit the tower between floors 80-90, there should have been 16 sections to break (if we assume the break was 5 floors each). Are you saying that the breaking of the steel frame is less than 1 sec for each section? That is a little bit hard to swallow friend.

So why did the tower fall so fast? Did the lower floors not need to be broken before it collapses?

 

[Lightdemon]

After re-reading my last post, I realized that I didn't say what I had wanted to say. Kind of like a situation where I know what I'm talking about, but readers may not know what I'm talking about -sort of thing.

I'm referring to inertia in my last post.

I understand that a falling bowling ball provides impact, that's part of inertia. But lets take a better example. Lets take an example of a karate master who is attempting to break 20 bricks with one blow. When the karate master first strikes the bricks, the first one breaks. Following the first one, the added weight of the broken brick and the force of the master's fist, should break the second one. The third one then is the same but plus the weight of the second broken brick. With this logic, it should get easier to break the next brick....isn't it?

But then how do you explain the fact that many times when karate masters try to break bricks, they only break them half way, and sometimes break all of them but not the last one? Isn't that the easiest one to break?

This is because of inertia. Each time the fist hits the next brick, force is being pushed back up, so the total force coming down from the fist is lessened each time it hits the next brick. This is the case with the floors in the WTC. However, on top of this, the lower floors are more reinforced than the above floors. So to put it in perspective, the bricks at the bottom are denser and harder to break.

So again I ask, why did the tower fall at freefall speed, as if the principle of inertia didn't apply to this collapse?

 

[Lightdemon]

So to the two gentlemen who tried to come up with a rebuttal for my proposal, which is the Pancake Collapse Theory is a conspiracy theory in itself, where is your follow-up post? Are there any more holes in my explanations? Can you explain the pancake theory better than I have in the original post? I'd appreciate it if you would.

However, as of now there is no evidence to suggest that the weight of the falling debris can actually cause the entire tower to fall. We talk about these different kinds of conspiracies, such as the government set up 9/11 and that the twin towers were brought down by demolition style explosions, these are in fact conspiracy theories. However, on the flip side, the "accepted" story that the buildings fell according to the logic of the Pancake Collapse Theory is ALSO a conspiracy theory.

So the question I ought to ask is why do people believe one conspiracy theory over the other? Could it be that it is influenced by popular culture? That we see it on the news/TV, so it must be true? Or is the logic of one conspiracy more "accepted" than the other conspiracy? But then again, they are BOTH conspiracy thoeries, so what difference does it make? We shouldn't accept either explanation then, right?