Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

The cores of both towers survived.

The spires are the hole hole in the os and conventional cd theories.

More info in this thread I hijacked a while back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
and how does the FoS change when there is a big hole in the side? what does it have to say for the distribution of load when that happens?

A big hole in the side is not going to cause global collapse. Nothing bellow the "hole" was damaged, so you still have the resistance of undamaged structure.

You are obviously unfamiliar with the NIST report that you are trying to defend, because even they said the plane impacts, and the damage it created, was not the cause of the collapse. Trusses sagging from heat is their hypothesis for collapse initiation, they didn't even bother to explain what happened after initiation.

Asymmetrical damage does not cause symmetrical collapses.

Can you explain how sagging trusses can pull in the much more massive columns? Also explain how the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first. Do you really except that the columns were the weak point? Do you even understand what I'm talking about?

Originally posted by Another_Nut
The cores of both towers survived.

The spires are the hole hole in the os and conventional cd theories.

More info in this thread I hijacked a while back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They DIDN'T survive because they were NOT still standing after the event

The spire was not a complete core was it, you people watch events with your eyes shut!!!

The problem with the WTC Towers was the fact that the floors could FALL within the outer walls of the building.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
and how does the FoS change when there is a big hole in the side? what does it have to say for the distribution of load when that happens?

A big hole in the side is not going to cause global collapse. Nothing bellow the "hole" was damaged, so you still have the resistance of undamaged structure.

IT did! the collapse started at the impact point on both towers and can be seen on video, and BECAUSE of the HUGE floor area debris could fall internally is that still not obvious to you

Also the collapse did not start the same on both towers because of the location of the impact points again that can be see on video and stills!!!

reply to post by ANOK

"symmetrical collapse" that's just a lot of nonsense

Originally posted by wmd_2008
They DIDN'T survive because they were NOT still standing after the event

they did survive because the video clearly shows them standing there swaying. oh you mean they didn't remain standing after the event was over? I think the important point here is that they did survive the upper section falling down around them and that shows they weren't cut with shaped charges nor that the building pancaked as a unit.

reply to post by ANOK

Can you explain how sagging trusses can pull in the much more massive columns?

This has been explained to you many times.
Including links to professional data concerning this type of failure.

The rest of the world seems to understand it.
Perhaps the only way you will be able to understand it is for you to embark on some engineering courses.

reply to post by samkent

the last time he and I went around on this subject and got to this same point he actually said something to the effect of, "the floors wouldn't have sagged because steel expands when it is heated".

If you call a bunch of anonymous people on the internet claim it was CD a "theory", then indeed it is now nullified. Though I wouldn't have gone as far as calling it a theory. More like an internet meme.

reply to post by -PLB-
how 'bout "fantasy"? I don't know why they go to such lengths, government complacency in my opinion is bad enough

Originally posted by samkent
This has been explained to you many times.
Including links to professional data concerning this type of failure.

No it hasn't, you obviously didn't read my replies. You nor anyone else has explained anything.

Why don't you post what you claim explains it?

PLB posted a PDF claiming it proves NISTS claims, it didn't and I explained why it didn't.

If you have anything else then let's see it, I am not too proud to change my mind if I see real evidence, not empty and false claims.

The rest of the world seems to understand it.
Perhaps the only way you will be able to understand it is for you to embark on some engineering courses.

Oh, so you know how the rest of the world thinks?

You don't even understand it yourself, I very much doubt many do.

As usual I supply evidence of my claims, and all you supply is words that claim something you can't provide evidence for.

reply to post by ANOK

watch the video and stop it at the times I mention and tell me I'm seeing pancaked floors. forget all the reports and Issac Newton and tell me what you see

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
watch the video and stop it at the times I mention and tell me I'm seeing pancaked floors. forget all the reports and Issac Newton and tell me what you see

Sorry but you can watch it all day, and ignore physics, and tell yourself anything.

I have watched the collapses many times in my 10 years of debating this.

IF you watch the collapses, and see the top tilting, doesn't that tell you something? How can a tilting mass put a symmetrical downward force in order for pancake collapse to happen?

Oh and BTW you have no idea what you're talking about, for someone who wants to tell me I'm wrong you have very little understanding of what you're arguing. This is from the NIST WTC FAQ...

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). 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.

www.nist.gov...

So you're saying NIST is wrong? Maybe you're on the wrong side because you sure ain't helping the argument for the NIST hypothesis. NIST didn't even attempt to explain the collapses, because they couldn't without sounding like idiots. Pancake collapse does not happen to steel framed buildings, and even if they did the collapse could not be global because there is more resistance in the structure than there is weight to overcome that resistance. That is how high rise buildings are designed, yet you all ignore that also.

Originally posted by ANOK
PLB posted a PDF claiming it proves NISTS claims, it didn't and I explained why it didn't.

Show the quote where I claim this or retract this lie. I understand that you ignore my posts where your nonsense is being exposed, but then going to another thread and keep posting the same lies is a bit low even for you.

See this post you completely ignored for reference: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ANOK


It is the same old semantics trick you are pulling here. Floors smashing into floor as initiation didn't happen. Floors smashing into floors after initiation of course did happen. What else should have smash into each other?

Whether you call it a pancake or not is such a dull and misleading discussion.

reply to post by ANOK

I'm not talking about that report. I'm talking about the people who think the outer columns and inner core columns had to be cut with shaped charged in order for the buildings to fall the way they did. There didn't need to be any more damage to the structures. They were like two Titanics that had reach their tipping points.

reply to post by -PLB-

you destroyed him with that.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Whether you call it a pancake or not is such a dull and misleading discussion.

I know, I just think seeing the actual core standing there swaying in the video is amazing.

Originally posted by ANOK

Oh and BTW you have no idea what you're talking about, for someone who wants to tell me I'm wrong you have very little understanding of what you're arguing. This is from the NIST WTC FAQ...

NIST also said this:

Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerat- ing mass on the floors directly below led to
overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subse- quent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mecha- nism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the collapsing towers.

www.aws.org...

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK

 

A structure designed to hold it's own weight many time over cannot

This is an assumption on your part.
Can you show us that this particular building was designed to hold 'many times its own weight'?

It's this particular design that designers are being taught not to ever use again. The tube in tube design is too vulnerable to a progressive collapse.

It wasn't a tube-in-tube design. The center was a very dense matrix of heavy steel beams. Also, each tower was actually constructed as three distinct and architecturally isolated "boxes" stacked one on top of the other. Look it up. The possibility of progressive collapse was zero. The top 1/3 could not compromise the structural integrity of the 3rd that remained completely intact beneath it. Not at all. It took explosives powerful enough to throw mulit-ton steel beams hundreds of feet through the air (and deep into nearby buildings - as proven by many photographs and video clips of the after collapse damage) to make it possible for all three isolated structures to collapse in proper sequence once the collapse event had been initiated.

Your tube-in-tube claim was thoroughly dismissed and fell into widespread disrepute back in 2004.