NIST says no pancake

Originally posted by mbkennelYou 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.

So, if the towers were to have been brought down in a controlled manner without having been hit by a plane, could the same global collapse sequence have been achieved by blowing out the core columns between floors 75-80, thus allowing the upper floors to slam down onto the structure below?

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
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...

[edit on 2-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Thanks, that's what I was getting at. Thanks for the insights, I feel bad now for missing that thread. I'll check it...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
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?

Well science does make sense and I truely agree with the member who said this is a matter of semantics.

Whats the big deal with the revisions happening to previous reports? Science is all about change. In fact, it is encouraged. That is the only way it can progress. If new information and theories come up which explain the facts better shouldn't the report change? Whats wrong with admitting science made a mistake in the first place? (mistake might be the wrong word here actually; better explanation might suit the phrase better)

Casting doubt on a theory does not prove another. Saying the NIST theory doesnt make sense doesnt exactly prove a CD happened. It merely casts a doubt to the NIST version and that is all, nothing more.

Just how is a building supposed to fall after bieng hit by a plane?

Where are the tests showing it shouldnt have fallen the way it did?

Should it have fallen from the impact point in a sicoring motion?

no previous test have ever concluded this scenerio, what proof do you have?

Well it couldn't be a 'pancake' also considering this following example.

There are things that people should notice. Obviously the Top Weight here is now seperating from the bottom. So it isn't the weight and force of the top coming down anymore. The top is coming off.

So what exactly is driving the collapse in the South Tower?

The next question here is, why is the top not continuing to Rotate?

So NIST says that it was a progressive failure of floors, they just don't say how.

And they specifically renounce "pancake theory".


It isn't just semantics. Read their report. They don't tell you how the buildings collapse. They didn't even try to analyze the global collapses. They got up until they STARTED to collapse -- no further.

Thus they cannot possibly back any progressive collapse theories, because their research did not involve studies of such phenomena.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by bsbray11]

bsbray11

That almost sounds like they are trying to cover themselves. So if something pops up in the future, they are safe.

Originally posted by redseal
no previous test have ever concluded this scenerio, what proof do you have?

I suggest looking into material science and see how many billions of tests that have been done on materials. Somewhere in those biliions, you'll get your answer. Physical objects (and fluids and gasses) by their very nature follow the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance for a physical object will NOT be through another physical object.

Originally posted by talisman

Nice picture. One thing I have noticed about it. Look at the cap on the very left. The corner column appears to be bent (buckled). I'm assumming that this visual is from the heat and an optical illusion. I say this because it has been said before that the NIST photos of bowing columns could actually be refraction of light due to the heat. This photo doesn't prove that the NIST photos contain this annomally but it does prove that it is a possibility.

I hope that is not too far off topic. We are discussing NIST.

I have always assumed that that is a photographic anomaly too Griff... I wonder now if I am wrong.

I think you're right. It would make sense that if one picture contains it, then more would. Especially of the same building....i.e. same heat.

Originally posted by Griff
I think you're right. It would make sense that if one picture contains it, then more would. Especially of the same building....i.e. same heat.

Sorry for the derail here... I will stop after this...

THAT PICTURE... THE ONE RIGHT THERE is all I ever needed to see to know that the towers did not collapse naturally. That photo is like the old "How many things Can you Find Worng With this Picture" page in Boy's Life.

That photo ALONE raises so many questions regarding the physics of the collapse and the NIST story it is ridiculous.

Really, in my mind all you need is that picture.

"How the hell do you explain this NIST?" No need to even go into the million details.

Yeah... there is no way that building pancaked upon it self because that tiny % of the building started to tip off........ this is madness to believe that tiny portion of the building top can cause this gigantic building to PANCAKE.........

I think we are on topic here, since the thread is about the pancake and NIST.

I agree on the picture, this alone makes me doubt the official version of what happened.

So if we look at the picture, it shows that it twisted to a point and then it started to fall, correct? This shows what initiated the collapse.

Now, why is it so hard to understand that the large portion that is ready to collapse would not be held up and would basically 'crush' what is underneath. If it shifted at all it would then not be held and supported as designed causing the internal buckle and complete failure.

Is this a fair assessment, then yes, it was not a pancake collapse but it was not caused by explosives either.

Link

this shows the size of the buildings and basic shape. WTC 2 was hit on the 75th floor, so that is 35 floors above it that it suddenly had to hold/. It slammed into floor 74 and the buckling you see in the picute would have occured. How many buildings could withstand that?

I think the correct word would be that the upper floors sheared the towers as they collapsed.




[edit on 3-5-2007 by esdad71]

No pancakes today

[edit on 3-5-2007 by esdad71]

I wonder if anyone has figures on how many tonnes of steel and concrete the towers were? I'd like to figure out the rough volume of 'stuff' the towers were made of, inc. furnishings etc too.. and then I'd like to estimate the volume of debris left directly underneath the towers, say with a margin of error around the site..

That way, we could estimate the volume of dust and other debris that fell anywhere *BUT* on top of the other floors, giving us some kind of idea of the force that was falling on the floors, due to the ones above collapsing..

Combined mass of the towers was estimated at 1000000 tons. they were each 110 stories so if we divide 1000000 tons/2 we get each tower, and then divide by 110 and get roughly 4500 tons for each floor. 4500*35 to find the weight of the upper floors is 157000 tons.

Anyone want to take over...

ESDAD is 100% WRONG in his analysis...

The building is acting like the top of a Zippo lighter in that photo... it should have continued to open like a Zippo. The rotational inertia should have been maintained.

It did not SLIDE OFF TO THE SIDE like in DADS horribly crappy drawings. That is not how rotation works.

The only way it could have rotated like that is IF ALL CORE COLUMNS WERE SEVERED and ALL of the exterior columns, except on the face it is tilting towards were severed freeing it to rotate. That being the case there would be NOTHING to stop the rotation. No elasticity, nothing.

This also begs the question how did the rotation begin?
What stopped the rotation (better be something BIG or you have not conserved momentum)?
Why are materials being ejected so far?
Why the NEW clouds of WHITE SMOKE?
Why did the upper "block" not fall into the street leaving the rest of the building mostly intact?

I could go on all day with all of the things wrong in that photo.


[edit on 3-5-2007 by Pootie]

And MOST OF ALL... HOW is the BIGGEST cloud of debris coming out of the RIGHT side when the vector force of the falling block would be focused on the LEFT side in a BEST CASE SCENARIO for the NIST?

In a WORST CASE for them, the rotation provides virtually NO DOWNWARD "CRUSHING" force... the vector would be shifted WAY to the left if the force was not almost ALL IN THE ROTATION as it should be since the rotation was obviously strong enough to break ALL of the columns, free itself and continue to rotate... then disintegrate.

WHY DID IT ROTATE AWAY FROM THE DAMAGE per dad's drawing? EVER CUT A TREE?

[edit on 3-5-2007 by Pootie]