What really happened ....11 september
- Thread starter NickBarings
- Start date
Ok Rat - regarding pancaking, it's like I said...
The NIST and "Pancaking"
The massive weight easily caused a "Pancaking" effect but unlike the original hypothesis, the pancaking didn't cause the collapse. It was a result of the collapse.
Update:
Conspiracy theorists are taking the above out of context in an effort to mislead readers into thinking the NIST and I are in disagreement. We are not. As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. The NIST only studied the collapse until "Global collapse was inevitable". Any conspiracy theorist that tells you the NIST said the building NEVER pancaked is lying. The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable". Let me make this really easy for them...
1) The NIST said, the heat from the fires sagged the trusses which bowed the columns inward CAUSING the collapse. Pancaking did NOT cause the collapse. The evidence I see agrees with this conclusion.
2) The evidence on the ground strongly indicates, after the collapse began, the building pancaked spreading the debris as we see below. The NIST never studied this so how could we be in disagreement?
I recently E-mailed the NIST to verify this. Here is their response:
NIST did not describe the specific sequence of events after global collapse initiated. The progression of global collapse was induced by the failure of the supporting structure (columns carry vertical loads; floors hold columns together, they do not carry vertical loads). NIST's investigation focused on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse, rather than the sequence of events after the collapse initiated.
Sincerely,
WTC Investigation Team
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
You see Ratboy, your quote from NIST is accurate, but as always, taken out of context.
NIST has no opinion on the pancaking, since it happened after the collapse began. SO it's true, that NIST doesn't support pancaking, but only because they didn't write about. And neither do they debunk it.....
See my point?
The NIST and "Pancaking"
The massive weight easily caused a "Pancaking" effect but unlike the original hypothesis, the pancaking didn't cause the collapse. It was a result of the collapse.
Update:
Conspiracy theorists are taking the above out of context in an effort to mislead readers into thinking the NIST and I are in disagreement. We are not. As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. The NIST only studied the collapse until "Global collapse was inevitable". Any conspiracy theorist that tells you the NIST said the building NEVER pancaked is lying. The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable". Let me make this really easy for them...
1) The NIST said, the heat from the fires sagged the trusses which bowed the columns inward CAUSING the collapse. Pancaking did NOT cause the collapse. The evidence I see agrees with this conclusion.
2) The evidence on the ground strongly indicates, after the collapse began, the building pancaked spreading the debris as we see below. The NIST never studied this so how could we be in disagreement?
I recently E-mailed the NIST to verify this. Here is their response:
NIST did not describe the specific sequence of events after global collapse initiated. The progression of global collapse was induced by the failure of the supporting structure (columns carry vertical loads; floors hold columns together, they do not carry vertical loads). NIST's investigation focused on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse, rather than the sequence of events after the collapse initiated.
Sincerely,
WTC Investigation Team
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
You see Ratboy, your quote from NIST is accurate, but as always, taken out of context.
NIST has no opinion on the pancaking, since it happened after the collapse began. SO it's true, that NIST doesn't support pancaking, but only because they didn't write about. And neither do they debunk it.....
See my point?
lmaoooooooooooooo..... but wait.. you already admitted you "never said" they pancaked!!!!!!!!!! hiruooshi... come on.. i read this already.. it is old also. give it up.... you can find some douchebag to spout fantasies all you want... NIST abandoned the pancake theory just as everyone else has.
You're a liar Ratturd.... I never brought it up, Mav did. He asked something or other if pancaking made the transformers blow, and I said no. I guess you can't read for shit.
That's not what NIST says at all. You want to start over? Again, NIST has no opinion about the pancaking, neither positive or negative. Why is that so hard to understand?
DO you understand? Are you able to think for yourself? Can you read? and comprehend?
It sure doesn't look like it....
Here's the quote again.
Any conspiracy theorist that tells you the NIST said the building NEVER pancaked is lying. The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable". Let me make this really easy for them...
1) The NIST said, the heat from the fires sagged the trusses which bowed the columns inward CAUSING the collapse. Pancaking did NOT cause the collapse. The evidence I see agrees with this conclusion.
2) The evidence on the ground strongly indicates, after the collapse began, the building pancaked spreading the debris as we see below. The NIST never studied this so how could we be in disagreement?
I'll take another tack.....Ok, so in what way did NIST abandon the theory if they didn't rule on it?
What is your evidence for this estimate and what on earth kind of reasoning
are you using to determine how long the collapse should have taken?
I do, certainly, agree that this time scale is a critical parameter in
theorizing about the collapse. But your claim of 9 seconds seems highly
suspect to say the least.
The towers are reported to have been (approximately) 416m tall. This
corresponds to a collapse time to ground level, in free fall, of 9.21 s.
A collapse time equal to or less than free fall time seems neither possible
nor believable to me under any imaginable mechanism.
The shortest possible approach of the collapse time to free fall I imagine
could be achieved only in the case that all supporting structures are
cut simultaneously, in which case all parts of the building would begin
accelerating towards the ground at the same time. If then, there were no
further resistance at all to the downward force of gravity, which is
certainly not true in reality, then some material from the tops of the towers
could completely reach the ground in the free fall time, but certainly not
before.
My experience is that it is very hard to pinpoint total collapse times
either from the video evidence or from the seismic data.
I did in fact try to do it on my own several years ago, and came up with an
upper bound for the collapse of the dust cloud from the North tower (as seen
on the CNN video) to the ground of about 13 seconds, counting from the time
that the radio antenna appears from this vantage point to begin to
fall. The South tower is much harder to deal with.
The seismic data consist of spikes extending over many seconds and starting at
the earliest at least some 10 seconds after the putative initial points
of collapse.
NIST gives the following, rather more complex, and far more complete
discussion. Since you are talking about the official story in some of the
below, I think it would behoove us all to actually read the official story and
to get it straight, so I am going to quote at some length what is actually
said relative to the time scales of the collapse:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Summarizing:
[0] The first exterior panels from the towers hit the ground in 11
seconds (North Tower) and 9 seconds (South Tower).
[1] Large parts of the lower core structures remain standing for 15 to
25 seconds after the initiation of the collapses before these began finally to
collapse.
The reality seems a lot more complex than your summary, no?
`the near free fall speed of the towers, which should have taken much
longer than 9 seconds to collapse'
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
`As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a
[single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design
stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any
documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and,
therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that â⦠such collision
would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or
substantial damage to the building.â¦'
In fact, as we all know: the planes that crashed into the towers were 767s:
jumbo jets which did not exist -- had not even been conceived of -- when the
towers were designed in the 1960s.
A 707 flying at typical take off speeds near New York is not at all
equivalent to a 767 flying at near full power ... it's a different kettle
of fish entirely. The 767s had far greater kinetic energy than could have been
imagined for the 707, about 7 times greater in fact, due to the greater mass
and greater velocity, obviously. Correspondingly 767s would be expected to do
far greater damage on impact.
More importantly: there is also greater chemical energy carried in the fuel of
the 767 than there would have been in the fuel of the 707.
Chemical energy of the fuel is certainly the dominant factor in both cases.
This is not hard to calculate.
In the first place: `collapsed in under 10 seconds' is clearly a questionable
claim on your part.
In the second place, the design of these buildings was unique for the
time. The design does have a high fraction of empty internal space, much
higher than was typical in other high buildings of the time. All of this is
very well known.
This is why I, for one, can imagine that the structure, suitably
weakened can in principle collapse within a time that is on the order of
the free fall time, though certainly not a time which is equal to or less
than the free fall time, as it seems you claim actually happened.
This also looks like an incorrect version of the official story.
I'm not convinced by your arguments, given the errors that I believe are
present throughout your discussion above. One has to in the first place, get
the official version correct, in order to be able to question it, I think.
I look forward to your next response, and I promise to review the testimony of
the firefighters and respond later, although I think my opinion on it is not
very likely to change.
Thanks also to Bitstream and others who have posted additional interesting
evidence.
Cheers!
That is ... any mechanism short of a giant coming along and stomping really,
really hard on the towers
Sorry ... I should have said `lower bound,' here, not `upper bound.'
Parts of the dust cloud are clearly still settling in various places for an
indeterminate time, but I thought that I could first briefly see a view of the
ground where the tower stood, on the video, at a time of about 13 seconds.
What's really, really funny here is that the conspiracy theorist's will
not get the reward they want and need to be satisfied. A win.(Intellectual orgasm).
No matter how hard they try at this one they can't prove anything at all.
There is nothing but speculation here. Completely unprovable at that.
On one video you hear what sounds like a big firecracker. I guess
that one was big enough to bring those towers down... LOL...
And on another video you hear many low frequency sounding "booms".
Where is the proof that these low frequency "booms" even came from the WTC?
Where is the proof that these haven't been added to the video's
so you can be fooled by them?
Why isn't it possible that airplane fuel went down the elevator shafts
and pooled in certain places and then ignited and caused explosions?
Who can prove that EVEN IF BOMBS WENT OFF IN THE TOWERS
that it was Bush and company who put them there?
Maybe, just maybe, THERE WERE VANS WITH EXPLOSIVES in the towers.
Put there by the terrorists. It is not like they haven't done it before...
not get the reward they want and need to be satisfied. A win.(Intellectual orgasm).
No matter how hard they try at this one they can't prove anything at all.
There is nothing but speculation here. Completely unprovable at that.
On one video you hear what sounds like a big firecracker. I guess
that one was big enough to bring those towers down... LOL...
And on another video you hear many low frequency sounding "booms".
Where is the proof that these low frequency "booms" even came from the WTC?
Where is the proof that these haven't been added to the video's
so you can be fooled by them?
Why isn't it possible that airplane fuel went down the elevator shafts
and pooled in certain places and then ignited and caused explosions?
Who can prove that EVEN IF BOMBS WENT OFF IN THE TOWERS
that it was Bush and company who put them there?
Maybe, just maybe, THERE WERE VANS WITH EXPLOSIVES in the towers.
Put there by the terrorists. It is not like they haven't done it before...