The Pancake Theory
It's sort of startling really. I was watching a 9/11 video and they played a computer animation from a PBS special where an MIT professor is explaining how the World Trade Center pancaked down in just over free-fall speed. There are many problems with this theory, but the most obvious one is what happened to the 47 massive steel girders that formed the core of each tower. How did they pancake so easily as this dust cloud of debris proceeds. You know - the same dust cloud that was mysteriously ejecting tons of steel beams 100s of feet away from the buildings. How did the MIT guy handle that on his fancy computer animation?
Simple. He just shows the floors pancaking down but the solid core remains in place as the floors fall around it. There was literally no way to draw the core pancaking that would look like it made sense, so they just drew a different version. The only problem is we all saw that as the building dropped, the core columns were gone. So it was too obvious a problem even for a computer animation of the official version of the story. Get it yet?
posted by Bill McDonald @ 9:38 AM
33 comments
33 Comments:
Bill, there is no need to use persuasion and implication and circumstantial evidence to try to convince a jury or someone. Or yourself.
The actual physical fact is extra energy was in the event. Explosives, almost certainly.
No conjecture comes from knowing this -- as to who put the explosives there, when, how, and so forth. This only shows that it is a physical fact there was extra (explosive) energy supplied in the collapse. No matter what eye-witnesses recall or believe they saw, no matter why the air defenses were sent away, none of that none of that 'he said, she said'-bickering, testimony doubting, selective listening.
None of that is needed to prove the official story is false. The laws of physics don't care whether you believe them or not. Always the laws of physics apply, NO exceptions, ZERO tolerance.
What the true story is can't be known until the mass murderers confess. What is certain is the explanation given so far is a lie.
For those who don't understand the following physics, that don't matter. The physical energy analysis remains true, that the official Legend of Nine Eleven Op is false.
Energy IN always equals and exactly equals Energy OUT.
Equal and opposite reaction, as Isaac Newton stated the law.
In simplest terms this analysis says all the energy IN (one tower -- gravity, mass, airplane, kerosine) was about 111,000 kilowatt hours.
All of the energy OUT was more than 12,000,000 kilowatt hours.
Therefore, there was extra (hidden and unreported and explosive) energy involved in the event.
Absolutely. No question. The official story is lying.
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html
(The Version 3.1 of the document seems to be the most cogent work-up of the study.)
True but you imply the eye-witnesses support the official version. I've heard many of them discuss bombs that went off on floors far away from the impact zone.
I wondered why I've been on this topic so much, but listening to the 2 sides argue over who could have done more to stop 9/11 is the ultimate Cheney-style con: You get the public arguing over something so they don't look at the truth. When Cheney says it is no accident that there hasn't been another 9/11, he knows exactly what that means. Too bad his supporters don't.
Not to go all tinfoil helmet on you, but the one that really gets me is Building 7. Come on, just look at the tape and try to tell me that somebody didn't implode that thing.
I actually feel somewhat decietful chugging along as a normal-sounding person and then pulling this stuff out. But I'm over that aspect of it. Part of what's keeping this from being seen by more people is this exact point. It sounds so tinfoil helmet.
However, there's a lot at stake right now. I looked and I couldn't live with myself unless I gave my honest opinion. This thing stinks and building 7 is putting off one of the foulest of the smells.
I predict that this plot will be common knowledge 20 years from now. The only question is what America will look like then, especially if we don't respond to what's happened right in front of our eyes. There's 3,000 people who deserve an answer and this government has fought all the way against providing it. Why?
All right so you have all this evidence of a conspiracy but can you create a scenario that fits all the peices together? I still want to know why you implode buildings while planes are crashing in to them.
A bunch of us were labeled 'tinfoil hat types' when we questioned the Nixon administration and its involvement with a 'second rate buglary.'
Then there is Ronnies utter disregard of the law with Iran-Contra. And Bush the First's scandals in/with the CIA.
Ask the owner of building 7 - the guy who leased the towers 3 months before 9/11. I believe he made 4 billion. He's also the one who discusses "pulling" building 7 on camera.
That's a damn good question. Were they just going for dramatic effect? Did they want to destroy all the evidence? Wouldn't it be enough if the towers were merely damaged and repaired later?
It would have been pretty tough to bring the damaged towers down later. I know they repaired them after a 3-story fire before, and they fixed the Empire State building after a plane hit it.
Maybe they felt it would take the sight of the towers dropping to really horrify America.
I'll get on that though.
One other thing and I've been meaning to post on: Do you realize the government performed radiation experiments on American citizens after WW2? Imagine a pregnant woman in Ohio getting a shot of radiation without knowing it.
It happened and we didn't find out about this huge program till decades later, even though it involved thousands of people, and you'd figure someone would come forward for moral reasons.
I wish people who say this 9/11 plot could never happen would look into that. As with the history of false flag operations, they just sound uninformed when they try and argue that.
Interesting that none of your 'tinfoil' theories ever involve Democrat administrations.
Nothing about Pear Harbor, Vietnam, Cuba, dead people voting for JFK, our technology filtering out to China as campaigne contributions come in, etc etc.
Just really coincidental how all of the evil politicians wind up in the same party....regardless of which party is in power. Just an observation......
tr: I still want to know why you implode buildings ...
Let's take WHY you stage Nine Eleven Op: To scare the living bejeezuz out of TV-nation population that there is a communist, I mean, terrorist under every bed.
So people have to rely on "the government" to save them.
I think if a terrorist came in my house I'd simply shoot it, I don't need no stinking government.
When you are FEARFUL, you do what you are told. Give them all your money. So they can go steal all the oil in the world.
They are not going to bring it back and share it with you, by the way. You BUY their way. Into the lap of luxury. You yourself can die you got such a miserable life, they don't care. They got your money, they got the oil, you got squat.
Does that help, tr? You implode buildings as a fairly simple straightforward arrangement to control the world and do what you want and no one can touch you. That's WHY?
IF you are born sick-minded enough to give your life to be into that, selfish to a psychotic degree. Some are so born. Or bred.
So the motive is oil. The phenomenal developments of the XXth Century and the entire motive for most all the politics-business-crime in the last hundred years is ... wait for it ... OIL.
I know, it's a slippery concept and Bush-retard simple.
Work on it, tr or anyone, (and Bill, may I recommend checking portland.indymedia.org regularly -- it is a lot of local), HERE:
September 27th 2006 music/art/film
Time 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm
Title Robert Newman's "History of Oil" (& peak oil 101)
Portland, OR
Location St. Francis Church Dining Hall 1182 SE Pine
Topic / Issue Fascism & Imperialism
St. Francis Church Dining Hall (use North Entrance)
1182 SE Pine
Portland, OR
Portland Peak Oil will be showing Robert Newman's movie satirical History of Oil.
Robert Newman gets to grips with the wars and politics of the last hundred years - but rather than adhering to the history we were fed at school, the places oil centre stage as the cause of all commotion. This innovative history program is based around Robert Newman's stand-up act and supported by resourceful archive sequences and stills with satirical impersonations of historical figures from Mayan priests to Archduke Ferdinand. Quirky details such as a bicycle powered street lamp on the stage brings home the pertinent question of just how we are going to survive when the world's oil supplies are finally exhausted.
There will also be a 'peak oil 101' included after the hour long movie.
Butch,
You must not have caught my post about TWA 800 which happened during.....wait for it......the Clinton administration!
Bill, missed that one. But hey, you know what they say about blind sqirrels....
As everyone in the Love Bush No Matter What Horror He Sprews group is aware of this week, it's once again Clinton's falult for eveything wrong with the world.
That and 'cheap' gas. How much more does it take for the Foxies to figure out they are being used. Butch, are you even aware of the world outside of your news sources?
I find the scenario that a small group of American hating terrorists wishing to strike back at the U.S. as payback because they perceive us as the most depraved, self-obsessed civilization since the Unholy Rome Empire planned an attack that was almost effortless because of our bloated ego and our complacency born of 200 years of thinking we are better then the rest of the world and never letting anybody forget it. Yet the most powerful military machine in the history of the world was powerless to stop what amounted to a couple dozen college kids with box cutters. I wish we only had to worry about a few psychotic neo-conservative old white men in the highest levels of our government rather then the millions of suicidal psychotics who despise us all over the planet. 9/11 wasn't so much an attack as it was a trap that our government, run by a pack of total idiots, jumped right in to and dragged the rest of us in with them. I felt that in my guts minutes after I saw that jet liner fly in to one of the Twin Towers, and I also felt in my gut that we were totally screwed no matter who was sitting in the White House. I think people need these elaborate conspiracies because it makes what they fear more tangible. This is the world as I see it.
To 'TR',
Your observations were good. But may I say that they would have more impact it you had used paragraphs and better punctuation?
As we Vietnam era guys (who hate war, especially the wars of rich chicken hawks who don't fight them) say, RIGHT ON!
Are you reading, Butch?
Thanks, but may I say that you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction and its 'burglary' not 'buglary'.
I think I'm under an obligation to get the posts right but my comments often have errors. It's all good.
I love it when a comment accidentally says the opposite of what it was intended to say because of a screw-up. Frankly, I live for moments like that.
Well, not quite RIGHT ON!
There seems still some brain residue from mass media repetition, which thinks there were 'terrorists' and actual 'hijackers' on the planes.
Listen close: Those 19 faces 'they' showed you on TV? They never got on the planes. AND ... all 19 are documented Agency-confirmed former, ex-, one-time CIA employees and 'assets.' (Lee Harvey Oswald also was prior CIA employee, which is wherefor he followed 'handler' instructions to be at a place at a time -- but not for why he was told and believed. And that's what he said. And it only got him defamed. And murdered. Furthermore, Saddam was recruited -- co-opted, coerced, extorted or blackmailed, are usual 'recruiting' methods -- 'into' the CIA in 1959 while a college student in Cairo. Osama was CIA asset from 1982,83-ish, near as the reports agree.) There. Were/are. No. Terrorists. Get over it. Flick your fear.
Damn it, think. about. it. Slur it as a "few psychotic neo-conservative old white men in the highest levels of our government" all you like, the actual veritable fact remains 'highest levels' means highest levels, the REAL DEAL. If you ain't been there, it takes extra imagination to visualize, and feel it, but fer sure you. can. do it. Think, damn it, Think. It -- there -- is real people with actual human nature and The Button. You want 19 named patsies at some place at some time, set up to be framed? No problem. Done. Check the airline reservations records though, (which were published 9/12 and 9/13 and then seized as 'evidence in an on-going investigation,' and vanished), and not 1 of the 19 bought a ticket.
'Anything. Anywhere. Anytime.' That's the mission statement of the CIA.
There. Were. No. Terrorist. Hijackers.
(Forget box-cutter, it's a word for fear-put-er.)
You been lied to.
Think about it.
Hey Butch,
This is not about republicans or democrats. It is about HIGH TREASON, and Murder. Someone needs to be held accountable for 9/11 and the evidence is building against the current administration. I personally HATE all politicians. As far as i am concerned they are all corrupt.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
911security.html
Yes, all this may be bullshit But there are to many unanswered questions and no one in the government seems to want to answer these questions. Why?
Hey Tenskwatana,
Check this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/
middle_east/1559151.stm
The FBI has not bothered to update the list.
To 'Tr'
And you shouldn't change the subjct by correcting an obvious typo. But you must be a nice guy/gal, so I won't complain.
And thank you for not pointing out my use of "it" instead of "if".
But the subject is still 'Did the neocons start the wars?' Regardless of the physics of the NYC attacts, it's all too easy to show that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby et all benefited by 9/11.
You can't prove a negative, but you can see the obvious.
Cheney and his puppet need to be removed.
I didn't appreciate that of all the posts in this thread mine was singled out for it's grammatical errors afterall this is hardly an Algonquin round table but if my point is obscured by convoluted run on sentences then I'll try in the future to make my points with more simplicity and clarity that is if I can ever restore my tender, wounded pride to post again.
tr,
The worse feelings I get from blogging are when commenters hurt each others feelings for no good reason. Take some time to mend and return. Please.
Tenskwatawa,
What's your theory on how they got the planes to hit the buildings? I've always been suspicious of the behavior of these so-called devout fundamentalists, prior to the big day - strip clubs and drinking? Partying at casinos?
How did they get the planes to hit the buildings if nobody on them really wanted to die?
My favorite sentence from your first comment is "Explosives, almost certainly." What that says to me is, "I believe it was explosives but I'm not going to be smug about it." Since nobody I've read knows the whole story the best approach is to try and figure this out together and exchange information.
For example: I've read that the responders are turning up with a variety of cancers associated with radiation exposure. Do you think a couple of small nuclear devices were in the mix?
It's so weird seeing the buildings turn to dust before they hit the ground.
"The worse feelings are when commenters hurt each others feelings for no good reason."
Yes, certainly there's a preference here for "hurt feelings" if it makes your point.
Hurt feelings to make a point is another matter, but I didn't spend 7 years in high school English class just to relive it here.
Bill, I saw the idea nukes was used, too. It is possible, but it fell an ounce short so far of being plausible to me. For whatever reasons.
How the planes hit the buildings? I don't feel sure I know that one, either. Good evidence came out before the mass media was completely subverted, (the anthrax to NYT, NBC, even the Florida tabloids, shut up the few left that perhaps were thinking about doing investigative questioning efforts), in notice that transponder-controlled remote flight was installed on most commercial aviation. (In the '90s, a pilotless aircraft circled the globe by joystick control.) I was 'involved in' some of the computer programming design for pilotless flight by joystick, 'drone' design, during the front-half of the '80s, so the implementation timeline for installing them on commercial aviation by the end of the '90s seemed right to me, when I read it had been done. I don't know. It would be 'child's play' by 9/11/2001, and if they could, they probably did use it.
Overall, I don't care much How? it was done. I been there, I seen it, I know 'it' (Nine Eleven Op) can be done if a person took a mind to do it, I have personal 'scientist' friends who took those grants, cashed the checks, to do that mercenary science when they couldn't get or qualify for 'peacetime' research and applied studies grants. (Maybe used to have personal friends says it more.) How? There. Were. No. Terrorist. Hijackers. is no mystery to me.
I've been studying Why?
Why the hell in God's name would someone: a.) 'be of a mind' to do it, and b.) then DO it.
And that study leads directly into psychological considerations of human nature. Finding that alcohol or opiate addiction 'uses' the same neural paths as power addiction. Also money addiction and sex addiction. And certain people are born with those neural paths 'extra'-developed, hyperactive you might say, a k a 'an addictive personality.' Which particular stimulus they get involved in being addicted to, fairly much depends on random incidents, connections in their environment while growing up. Usually they fixate on the first thrill-type that comes along in their life.
So far, I see the Why? of Nine Eleven Op as being straightforward garden-variety rule-the-world megalomania, same category as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, to name the popularized ones. And you probably know some at work ... but they seem like such ordinary, nice people ... well, only one at a time can be POTUS though many may be equally as psycho, and what?, we can all have a network late-night talk show?
Just saying, some personalities are ambitious and addicted to the 'high' of ambition, but opportunity and energy supply to develop the personal 'talents,' kinda arbitrarily sorts the Fated from the Failed.
Have I mentioned I look at people's planet patterns a lot? I've seen several thousand (less than 10,000) of them. One of the most 'evil' patterns in all of those is June 12, 1924. GHWB's birthdate.
Giancomo Matteotti's death date. Look it up.
laurelhurstdad, I wish you wouldn't say "regardless of the physics." The physics is all the evidence so far that is going to be around a hundred years from now that PROVES every one who tells a 9/11 story with the words 'fanatic' or 'terrorist' or 'hijacker' in it, tells a lie.
Bill, this came bouncing along coincidently after you asked 'How?'
www.newdawnmagazine.com
/Article/Interrogating_9-11_Five_Years_On.html
Remote Hijacking of Hijackers?
In any case, the Pentagon debate appears less easy to resolve than another line of inquiry, the role of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The best research on the subject is by Jay Kolar, in yet another stellar contribution to the “Hidden History” REP volume.
Reviewing credible reports from the BBC, CNN, and other mainstream sources around the world, he concludes that “at least ten of those named on the FBI’s second and final list of 19 have turned up and been verified to be alive, with proof positive that at least one other ‘hijacker’, Ziad Jarrah, had his identity doubled, and therefore fabricated.” Kolar, who has expertise in film analysis, examines the visual evidence furnished by the government to support its narrative – including alleged footage of the hijackers at Dulles Airport and the infamous Osama bin Laden confession tape. He finds them to be riddled with impossibilities and anomalies, and concludes that they are utterly unreliable at best, and downright forgeries at worst.23
This leaves us, however, with another problem. If there were no hijackers, then what happened on 9/11? In the same volume, professor Paul Zarembka notes that the available evidence from the FAA and elsewhere tends to support the conclusion that there were hijackings of the four flights that morning.24 So if the planes were hijacked, who did it?
In my view, this is where Kolar’s ‘doubles’ theory comes in. Kolar argues that as many of the alleged hijackers are now alive, they must have had ‘doubles’ who were using their identities as aliases. In my own research, I’ve noted that the alleged hijackers had trained in US military installations in the 1990s, had connections to the CIA and DEA, and worse still, displayed patently non-Islamic behaviour in the form of drinking alcohol, snorting cocaine, and frolicking with women at lap-dancing clubs and illicit parties – behaviour not commensurate with that of normal practising Muslims, let alone Islamist al-Qaeda fanatics about to conduct the most spectacular martyrdom operation in history. At the forefront of this line of inquiry is former PBS and NBC journalist Daniel Hopsicker.
Kolar’s ‘doubles’ theory can perhaps begin to explain how the 9/11 cell was in fact made up of double agents who could have gone on to carry out the hijacking operations on the morning of 9/11.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett39.htm
Okay, I'm a believer. All it took was that one credible source.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Read Michael Ruppert's book: Crossing the Rubicon, if you want to know more. His offices in Ashland were broken into and he fled America fearing for his life. But you can still get the book.
Tenskwatawa,
Yes, physics is all we will have soon, after the Cheney crowd completely obliterates the facts with their lies.
Here's another physical point of view I don't hear very often:
I'm a pilot (or was years ago). I never flew a 757, but I did fly 4-engine freighters for years. They don't go as fast as a 747, but they still take time to turn. I watch the films of the jets hitting the towers at 400+ mph, and they didn't turn, they flew directly into them. That implies they were on course well before they came into camera range. I just don't believe anyone who had as little experience as these guys are claimed to have had could hit those buildings (all three) with such accuracy.
Ask other pilots and you get the same befuddlement. Whoever was at the controls knew what they were doing and had done it many times before.
Before I get a barage of responses, let me clarify that I don't think the 9/11 pilots had flown into buildings 'many times before.' But they were more skilled than we were led to believe.
Post a Comment
<< Home