NIST says no pancake

www.youtube.com...

Watch the explanation above. Its only 2 minutes. But to remind skeptics, who argued in the past for a pancake. NIST says--NO.

NIST also says, the Towers were well built. No structural design flaws.

As you ponder the above. Here is a another clip where NIST simply lies about the Molten Metal, even claiming there were no eyewitnesses.

www.youtube.com...

And after that clip the next clip is the talk on the fire tests that were done on actual samples from WTC.
www.youtube.com...




The next clip is an actual demolition. The demolition expert is actually posting on the youtube thread. He says it is difficult to make a building do that.

The thing that is worth watching, is that this building falls similar to WTC-2. You will notice the similarity.

www.youtube.com...

Well, if the NIST doesn't think a pancake effect is at work here, what DO they think is at work here?

They (NIST) think the trusses pulled the outer columns inward and at a certain point 'it snapped' causing collapse.

Alright, I don't buy the official story, but nevertheless I want to read your take on why the NIST's current theory is unsound.

First of all, I want to know how are they supporting the 'warping' of the Steel? In the links I posted the 'failure' from heat on samples showed NO FAILURE under extreme loads.

So where is this major warping coming from?

OK, just bear with me, I'm playing devil's advocate. What if, the force of the impact or the explosive blast or both warped the steel?

Great find - the implications are huge that the story is changing

Pancakes had been the food of the goods, now we have... actually what? I'll need to look at this more.

Are they saying the outer shell really was the structure? Tehn what the hell were the core columns there for? Just for the elevators?

Sorry I'm actually not up to speed here...

For clarification, NIST only attempted to analyze the very first failure mechanism.


You guys are probably wondering about the global collapse, as in when it started moving downwards. The NIST team didn't even try to analyze that. Closest to a mechanism they got there was using the word "inevitable".

uberarcanist

I don't think NIST is even saying that the plane impact would 'warp' the steel. They are saying the HEAT was warping the Steel. Which of course has problems since people are seen in photographs standing in the gaping holes of the WTC.

I believe when they tested the Steel, the arrived at around 3 inches of warping, but I think they needed around 40 or so. Someone can correct this, if I am wrong. But the question is they have uniform warping, where is this coming from?

Put simply the Temps are not hot enough to achieve that type of warping.

And *IF* the temps were that hot, in so many different places, why?? Jet fuel is not going to do that.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by talisman]

bsbray11

This is true, they avoid the global collapse, they are only dealing with the 'starting point' if you like. The initiation.

Indeed, talisman, if the NIST is still trying to pin this on temperature-warped steel, they're pursuing a long-refuted theory. As a side note, I don't think aircraft impact or the explosion could have produced enough force to warp the steel that bad.

uberarcanist

Another thing that crossed my mind is that the NORTH TOWER was struck much higher then the South Tower yet we see almost the same speed of collapse? I want to know how is this possible?

Talis, are the major 9/11 alternative researchers aware of this fact as far as you know? If not, get to emailin'!

This is NOVA not NIST right? It did not pancake as shown but he explains tha the kenetic energy released was more than enough to bring it down and this is shown in some pictures as the tower tilts while collpasing. The entire show was actaully quite informative.

Okay - the towers fell - 100+ floor slabs fell.

Previously we hear most were pushed down in a pancake collapse, requiring longer time than free-fall speeds.

Some speculated they were knocked down from beneath the collapse area allowing free-fall speed.

They did fall at lest dmn close to free-fall

NOVA's (NIST?) scientists say no pancake - just vaguely inevitable from the plane crash? If they weren't pushed down in a pancaking style, how did they come down? Did the fires snap all framing free uniformly all the way down so the floors wouldn't touch? This makes no sense.

Isn't NOVA a science show? Isn't science supposed to make sense?
And why a drastic revision of the earlier science six years on?

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

It's NIST that says no pancake, not NOVA.

Look up NIST's FAQ from last August, it even says, explicitly NIST does not support the "pancake theory".

They simply didn't analyze the global collapses. Here we have another case of there being no official story, nothing to debunk.

Originally posted by esdad71
This is NOVA not NIST right? It did not pancake as shown but he explains tha the kenetic energy released was more than enough to bring it down

Someone please figure how much PE it would require to crush thousands of tons of steel and concrete, instead of just figuring half the problem (the PE of the block) and ASSUMING it was enough.

If someone actually did the calculation then present it. I want to see the work.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Okay - the towers fell - 100+ floor slabs fell.

Previously we hear most were pushed down in a pancake collapse, requiring longer time than free-fall speeds.

Previously heard, from whom?

Some speculated they were knocked down from beneath the collapse area allowing free-fall speed.

They did fall at lest dmn close to free-fall

NOVA's (NIST?) scientists say no pancake - just vaguely inevitable from the plane crash? If they weren't pushed down in a pancaking style, how did they come down? Did the fires snap all framing free uniformly all the way down so the floors wouldn't touch? This makes no sense.

You have a dynamic overload from a few of the top floors impacting the lower (already partially damaged structure). This sends a shockwave of overload down through the structure at the speed of sound in steel. This blows out supports all throughout the column, but especially nearer the bottom since the bottom has to hold up more weight. Or anywhere or any how you can get an overload on the higher end it can be transmitted. You get an immediate chain-reaction of cascading failure in many places.

Once you do that, you get nearly free fall because there is nothing holding it up.
Having free fall is characteristic of the physics of Earth, not controlled vs uncontrolled demolition. Everything fits the laws of physics as I know them.

All the specifics go over my head. What I'm wondering is how they explain the collapse? The way I see it, you'd need a global failure - like a CD - removing all floors individually or you're going to need a pancake collapse pushing down. Or am I misunderstanding the options?

And they say no pancake when the only (unstated) option is floors removed indivisually? Is there a third option I'm missing?

Originally posted by mbkennel
You have a dynamic overload from a few of the top floors impacting the lower (already partially damaged structure). This sends a shockwave of overload down through the structure at the speed of sound in steel.

Yes, and straight into the ground. At that point, the energy is spent and cannot ever be regained.

However, your assertion that everything then was destroyed and could no longer support loads is ridiculous. It's obvious to anyone watching the collapses that the buildings were still intact below the collapse waves.

And if you want to be realistic, the floors would only impact other floors, not columns. And the truss/perimeter connections would fail from the sheer force way before the columns themselves would. Thus we don't see any visible damage extended down until the collapse wave itself arrives.

NIST did say it wasn't a pankcake collapse - correct.

What they say it was was in fact the steel weakened due to "unusually large jet-fuel fed multi-floor fires" that caused the exterior columns to bow inwards under the weight of the floors, and then one floor fell on top of another (lots of times). But they are saying this is not a pancake collapse.

WHAT IS A PANCAKE COLLAPSE IF THAT ISN'T A PANCAKE COLLAPSE?!?!?!?!

It is just semantics.

Read my therad on the NIST Contradiction. In there I posted a link to the NIST FAQ. Interesting reading.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

wtc.nist.gov...

NIST definition of a pancake collapse:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).

So with that said......

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

In conclusion, because the perimeter structure bowed inwards, and the floors sagged, means that it did not pancake. The exterior columns merely failed due to the sagging floors, and the building collapsed, but it did not pancake.

(That last paragraph by me was loaded with sarcasm, if it got lost).

[edit on 2-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]