| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:49 am Post subject: Pancake Collapse |
 |
|
I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
Is somebody going to have the balls to admit they said it?
| Quote: | while other companies descended past them and reminded them that they were
supposed to evacuate. Some firefighters were determined not to leave the building
while other FDNY personnel remained inside and, in one case, convinced
others to remain with them. In another case, firefighters had successfully
descended to the lobby,where another firefighter then persuaded them to reascend
in order to look for specific FDNY personnel.168
Other FDNY personnel did not hear the evacuation order on their radio
but were advised orally to leave the building by other firefighters and police
who were themselves evacuating.169
By 10:24,approximately five FDNY companies reached the bottom of stairwell
B and entered the North Tower lobby.They stood in the lobby for more
than a minute, not certain what to do, as no chiefs were present. Finally, one
firefighter—who had earlier seen from a window that the South Tower had collapsed—
urged that they all leave, as this tower could fall as well.The units then
proceeded to exit onto West Street.While they were doing so, the North Tower
began its pancake collapse, killing some of these men.170
Other FDNY Personnel. The Marriott Hotel suffered significant damage in
the collapse of the South Tower.Those in the lobby were knocked down and
enveloped in the darkness of a debris cloud. Some were hurt but could walk.
Others were more severely injured, and some were trapped. Several firefighters
came across a group of about 50 civilians who had been taking shelter in
the restaurant and assisted them in evacuating. Up above, at the time of the
South Tower’s collapse four companies were descending the stairs single file in
a line of approximately 20 men. Four survived.171
At the time of the South Tower’s collapse, two FDNY companies were either
at the eastern side of the North Tower lobby, near the mall concourse, or actually
in the mall concourse, trying to reach the South Tower.Many of these men
were thrown off their feet by the collapse of the South Tower; they then
attempted to regroup in the darkness of the debris cloud and evacuate civilians
and themselves, not knowing that the South Tower had collapsed. Several
of these firefighters subsequently searched the PATH station below the concourse—
unaware that the PAPD had cleared the area of all civilians by 9:19.172
At about 10:15, the FDNY Chief of Department and the Chief of Safety,
who had returned to West Street from the parking garage, confirmed that the
South Tower had collapsed.The Chief of Department issued a radio order for
all units to evacuate the North Tower, repeating it about five times. He then
directed that the FDNY command post be moved further north on West Street
and told FDNY units in the area to proceed north on West Street toward
Chambers Street. At approximately 10:25, he radioed for two ladder companies
to respond to the Marriott, where he was aware that both FDNY personnel
and civilians were trapped.173
Many chiefs, including several of those who had been in the North Tower
lobby, did not learn that the South Tower had collapsed until 30 minutes or |
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
i also been told numerous times by critics that ive been reading to many conspiracy websites and it is them that told me about pancake collapse because they offical version dosnt mention it, yet the offical version is where i got it from before they reamended the story and as NIST didnt bother to explain in any detail and admit them selves they were only charged with compiling a report upto the point of collapse and didnt look at anything after it only leaves the pancake theory to try and explain the full collapse no matter how it is worded.
floors either piledriving downward or just simpling one falling on the other is the only explainations to date and they are both theorys that are pancaking or something very close to it that were banded about by the offical version or those in support of the offical version, it only proves what critics are like to try to deny either ever being mention when everyone who has been into this subject for a while will remember many a debate about how it could be possible for floors to pancake in 10-11 seconds or there abouts plus previous reports like fema's.
how it can all be denied by certain critics tells us one of two things.
1. they are lieing and know it.
2. they dont have a clue about what they claim to know.
the simple fact is the pancake theory was created by the offical version and now denied by some because they realise it was impossible for this to happen in the time of the collapse and the debris piles show little evidence of any pancaking so it was changed to piledriving and smashing each floor to pieces, this bring complications to but thats another debate the point is pancake theory is said to of happened by the offical version as there is no other reports that say otherwise without speculation or in any depth after the point of collapse. so it was either pancaking or an offical investigastion is needed to test the piledriving that is speculated or there is no explaination on record for future generations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No pancaking. No piledriving. Pulverisation into dust took place from near the apex of each tower, where the weight of its top floors would have been insufficient to piledrive those below them into the observed clouds of dust. Mere piledriving would have left the 47 core columns intact. Instead, what we really see is floor after floor being BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS by pre-planted explosives, with plumes from some prematurely detonated charges clearly visible many floors below the level of destruction. But, as Dr Judy Wood has controversially asked, could high-explosives alone have achieved the degree of pulverisation into fine dust that was displayed in both towers? My answer is: no! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most critic's pull the "you got it from a conspiracy nut website" card when they're cornered and don't have an answer. It's a common tactic when they have nothing to say, its the easy way out for them. It does, however, display a lack of knowledge on their part. It shows that they haven't even read the official report they put so much faith in (blind faith apparently). If they haven't read it I can only assume they are trusting the official report solely on what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc tell them to think. That is a dangerous thing to do. It seems some of them cannot think for themselves. Another theory is that some Critic's are intelligence agents who are here for a specific purpose and that is to cause unrest within the movement, I don't think anybody would disgaree that this is a possibility. I have no problem with Critic's who are open minded and will admit when they are wrong and then re-evaluate their position, it's the ones who are clearly not open to anything other than the official theory that make me wonder why they are even here. Also interesting is that none of them have commented on this thread, nobody wants to admit they said anything about "pancake collapse" so it appears they are hoping this thread will just go away.
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain. |
The floors in WTC1 and WTC2 did NOT collapse. All the video evidence proves incontrovertibly (unless, of course, you don't want to believe your own eyes) that each floor was successively blown to smithereens, starting from near the top. There is NO video evidence of intact floors dropping. But please go on making it up. It's very amusing to see people pretending to lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | no you said pancake theory is not the offical version and keep stalling to show me what the offical version is. you dont know yourself do you? |
Well, "pancake" is not the official version. You were wrong about to call it the official version. |
Hmmm 
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: |
The floors in WTC1 and WTC2 did NOT collapse. All the video evidence proves incontrovertibly (unless, of course, you don't want to believe your own eyes) that each floor was successively blown to smithereens, starting from near the top. There is NO video evidence of intact floors dropping. But please go on making it up. It's very amusing to see people pretending to lie. |
No, there is no video evidence of intact floors dropping, there is photographic evidence of intact floors having dropped.
If you are prepared to give Judy Wood's theories serious credence, then there is no hope of convincing you of anything by rational argument, I am afraid.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain. |
NO i dont, im pointing out that before the story changed pancaking WAS the offical version and still is untill an investigastion is carried out to prove another theory rather than just speculating it was piledriving. thats was hardly getting excited now was it.
NIST didnt look into what happened after the point of collapse they just speculate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain. |
NO i dont, im pointing out that before the story changed pancaking WAS the offical version and still is untill an investigastion is carried out to prove another theory rather than just speculating it was piledriving. thats was hardly getting excited now was it.
NIST didnt look into what happened after the point of collapse they just speculate. |
NIST say:
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
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). 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.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:39 am Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain. |
NO i dont, im pointing out that before the story changed pancaking WAS the offical version and still is untill an investigastion is carried out to prove another theory rather than just speculating it was piledriving. thats was hardly getting excited now was it.
NIST didnt look into what happened after the point of collapse they just speculate. |
NIST say:
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
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). 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. |
so did NIST look into how the towers collapsed after the point of collapse by researching it?
does what NIST say prove the offical theory prior to it was pancaking? meaning other critics were wrong to say that the pancake theory didnt come from the offical version.
how likely are they to be correct about the point after the collapse initiated? when they admit they didnt look into anything after the point of collapse, meaning anything they do say is just speculation regarding the point after the collapse.
do we just beileve speculation when no reasearch was carried out? i thought that was what conspiracy theorists did? well maybe you(critics) are who knows.
no research was done into how the towers fell after collapse had initiated, it was only done upto the point of collapse meaning anything seen after it was not looked into and any offer of an explaination is just speculation which means the only explaination left is pancaking which those who didnt research that part and only speculate disagree with, namely NIST.
NIST didnt research how the towers crumbled to ground level, you keep mentioning how the collapse started and refering to it but its the point after collapse pancaking covers, therefore isnt the point in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:40 am Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain. |
NO i dont, im pointing out that before the story changed pancaking WAS the offical version and still is untill an investigastion is carried out to prove another theory rather than just speculating it was piledriving. thats was hardly getting excited now was it.
NIST didnt look into what happened after the point of collapse they just speculate. |
NIST say:
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
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). 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. |
so did NIST look into how the towers collapsed after the point of collapse by researching it?
does what NIST say prove the offical theory prior to it was pancaking? meaning other critics were wrong to say that the pancake theory didnt come from the offical version.
how likely are they to be correct about the point after the collapse initiated? when they admit they didnt look into anything after the point of collapse, meaning anything they do say is just speculation regarding the point after the collapse.
do we just beileve speculation when no reasearch was carried out? i thought that was what conspiracy theorists did? well maybe you(critics) are who knows.
no research was done into how the towers fell after collapse had initiated, it was only done upto the point of collapse meaning anything seen after it was not looked into and any offer of an explaination is just speculation which means the only explaination left is pancaking which those who didnt research that part and only speculate disagree with, namely NIST.
NIST didnt research how the towers crumbled to ground level, you keep mentioning how the collapse started and refering to it but its the point after collapse pancaking covers, therefore isnt the point in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain. |
NO i dont, im pointing out that before the story changed pancaking WAS the offical version and still is untill an investigastion is carried out to prove another theory rather than just speculating it was piledriving. thats was hardly getting excited now was it.
NIST didnt look into what happened after the point of collapse they just speculate. |
NIST say:
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
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). 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. |
so did NIST look into how the towers collapsed after the point of collapse by researching it?
does what NIST say prove the offical theory prior to it was pancaking? meaning other critics were wrong to say that the pancake theory didnt come from the offical version.
how likely are they to be correct about the point after the collapse initiated? when they admit they didnt look into anything after the point of collapse, meaning anything they do say is just speculation regarding the point after the collapse.
do we just beileve speculation when no reasearch was carried out? i thought that was what conspiracy theorists did? well maybe you(critics) are who knows.
no research was done into how the towers fell after collapse had initiated, it was only done upto the point of collapse meaning anything seen after it was not looked into and any offer of an explaination is just speculation which means the only explaination left is pancaking which those who didnt research that part and only speculate disagree with, namely NIST.
NIST didnt research how the towers crumbled to ground level, you keep mentioning how the collapse started and refering to it but its the point after collapse pancaking covers, therefore isnt the point in question. |
Let us try to avoid getting confused by taking things one step at a time:
1. There is no "official theory" as such, there is the original ASCE/FEMA report, and the subsequent NIST reports.
2. The ASCE/FEMA report put forward the theory that the attachments between the floors and the support columns gave way on the fire floors, the floors fell on to the floor below and the consequent overload caused those floors in turn to give way, and so on. This is called a pancake collapse.
3. The NIST research rejected that theory in favour of one which had the floors remaining attached to the support columns and pulling them in, which brought the top portion of the building crashing down on the remainder. Thus there was no pancaking to start the collapse, or at any other time. The remainder of the building collapsed through the enormous overload placed on it by the falling top section of the building. No research is necessary to prove that, if they are correct in that the support columns gave way and the top of the building dropped on the remainder, it would inevitably collapse.
What NIST say:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain. |
NO i dont, im pointing out that before the story changed pancaking WAS the offical version and still is untill an investigastion is carried out to prove another theory rather than just speculating it was piledriving. thats was hardly getting excited now was it.
NIST didnt look into what happened after the point of collapse they just speculate. |
NIST say:
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
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). 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. |
so did NIST look into how the towers collapsed after the point of collapse by researching it?
does what NIST say prove the offical theory prior to it was pancaking? meaning other critics were wrong to say that the pancake theory didnt come from the offical version.
how likely are they to be correct about the point after the collapse initiated? when they admit they didnt look into anything after the point of collapse, meaning anything they do say is just speculation regarding the point after the collapse.
do we just beileve speculation when no reasearch was carried out? i thought that was what conspiracy theorists did? well maybe you(critics) are who knows.
no research was done into how the towers fell after collapse had initiated, it was only done upto the point of collapse meaning anything seen after it was not looked into and any offer of an explaination is just speculation which means the only explaination left is pancaking which those who didnt research that part and only speculate disagree with, namely NIST.
NIST didnt research how the towers crumbled to ground level, you keep mentioning how the collapse started and refering to it but its the point after collapse pancaking covers, therefore isnt the point in question. |
Let us try to avoid getting confused by taking things one step at a time:
1. There is no "official theory" as such, there is the original ASCE/FEMA report, and the subsequent NIST reports.
2. The ASCE/FEMA report put forward the theory that the attachments between the floors and the support columns gave way on the fire floors, the floors fell on to the floor below and the consequent overload caused those floors in turn to give way, and so on. This is called a pancake collapse.
3. The NIST research rejected that theory in favour of one which had the floors remaining attached to the support columns and pulling them in, which brought the top portion of the building crashing down on the remainder. Thus there was no pancaking to start the collapse, or at any other time. The remainder of the building collapsed through the enormous overload placed on it by the falling top section of the building. No research is necessary to prove that, if they are correct in that the support columns gave way and the top of the building dropped on the remainder, it would inevitably collapse.
What NIST say:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass." |
IT DOSNT MATTER WHAT NIST SAY! they did not research the point after the collapse started, therefore only speculate as to how the whole building managed to disappear into rubble down to ground level.
the only explaination left that does cover that part of the collapse is the fema report.
do you just believe NIST even though they did no research into that part of the collapse? are WE the general public just meant to take speculation as fact? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | I remember one of your lot telling me last week that the 9/11 commission report makes no mention of a "pancake collapse", I can't remember who said it and I can't find the specific post, but I've found that page 308 of the 9/11 commission report DOES mention "pancake collapse"
|
Congratulations, you have proved whoever said it to be wrong. It was not me, by the way.
marky gets very excited that the "official" theory has changed, but what is strange about that? The alternative theories are constantly multiplying. The original ASCE/FEMA report thought that the floor trusses had become detached from the support columns leading the floors in the fire area to drop on to the floor below,causing it to drop in turn, a pancaking collapse. The NIST reports reject that theory, although some floors did indeed fall like that, their theory is that the trusses sagged but mostly remained attached to the support columns, pulling them in and initiating progressive collapse as the upper parts of the building fell with devastating force on to the remainder. This is supported by photos that actually show the perimeter columns distorting prior to collapse, something that no CD theory can explain. |
NO i dont, im pointing out that before the story changed pancaking WAS the offical version and still is untill an investigastion is carried out to prove another theory rather than just speculating it was piledriving. thats was hardly getting excited now was it.
NIST didnt look into what happened after the point of collapse they just speculate. |
NIST say:
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
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). 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. |
so did NIST look into how the towers collapsed after the point of collapse by researching it?
does what NIST say prove the offical theory prior to it was pancaking? meaning other critics were wrong to say that the pancake theory didnt come from the offical version.
how likely are they to be correct about the point after the collapse initiated? when they admit they didnt look into anything after the point of collapse, meaning anything they do say is just speculation regarding the point after the collapse.
do we just beileve speculation when no reasearch was carried out? i thought that was what conspiracy theorists did? well maybe you(critics) are who knows.
no research was done into how the towers fell after collapse had initiated, it was only done upto the point of collapse meaning anything seen after it was not looked into and any offer of an explaination is just speculation which means the only explaination left is pancaking which those who didnt research that part and only speculate disagree with, namely NIST.
NIST didnt research how the towers crumbled to ground level, you keep mentioning how the collapse started and refering to it but its the point after collapse pancaking covers, therefore isnt the point in question. |
Let us try to avoid getting confused by taking things one step at a time:
1. There is no "official theory" as such, there is the original ASCE/FEMA report, and the subsequent NIST reports.
2. The ASCE/FEMA report put forward the theory that the attachments between the floors and the support columns gave way on the fire floors, the floors fell on to the floor below and the consequent overload caused those floors in turn to give way, and so on. This is called a pancake collapse.
3. The NIST research rejected that theory in favour of one which had the floors remaining attached to the support columns and pulling them in, which brought the top portion of the building crashing down on the remainder. Thus there was no pancaking to start the collapse, or at any other time. The remainder of the building collapsed through the enormous overload placed on it by the falling top section of the building. No research is necessary to prove that, if they are correct in that the support columns gave way and the top of the building dropped on the remainder, it would inevitably collapse.
What NIST say:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass." |
IT DOSNT MATTER WHAT NIST SAY! they did not research the point after the collapse started, therefore only speculate as to how the whole building managed to disappear into rubble down to ground level.
the only explaination left that does cover that part of the collapse is the fema report.
do you just believe NIST even though they did no research into that part of the collapse? are WE the general public just meant to take speculation as fact? |
It does not need to be researched, the lower part of the buildings could not withstand having 12 or 28 stories dropped on top of them, that is the simple calculation that shows they would collapse. That is not speculation.
If you place a hammer on a glass-topped table it will carry the load easily, but if you swing the hammer at the table, the glass will shatter. The lower part of the buildings were designed to carry the static weight of the upper stories, but if the upper stories were dropped on them, as the NIST theory has it, they would collapse.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
hammer and glass is a very good comparsion of course 
so no research is needed to show how the building fell to ground level in 10-12 seconds and turned to rubble?
instead we can just come up with what we think happened without testing it and thats not speculation?
i dont know why you try to hide the obvious or argue the obvious, NIST didnt research ANYTHING after the point of collapse so anything they say has not been tested or proved to be true, therefore it is just speculation as proper investigastion work was not carried out on this portion of the collapse. therefore a new investigastion must surely be needed that dosnt forget to mention things or decide to leave out parts of the event they cannot explain or show how it happened without verging on the ludicrous.
remember if what NIST says is true and there is every chance it isnt as the investigastion work wasnt done on this part of the collapse then everything they said happened, happened in 10 seconds ish over 80 or so floors, just 0.5 seconds per floor would = 40 seconds which dosnt sound possible, therefore they need to beable to show there speculation to be true.
what NIST tells us about the point after the collapse started is no differant to what we do on here when speculating "the how" when most here can only speculate on what they think the evidence fits but without really knowing because they have no access to actual raw evidence they can see other than over the net or lack qualifaction to carry out that investigastion work themselves. most here do not know 100% the how but do know and can tell when things dont add up when told things that dont match or contridict or is stretching the boudries of possibilities.
NIST have done nothing differant to what happens here on that part of the collapse therefore is speculation and isnt proper ivestigastion work, therefore is meaningless other than to palm people of with an explaination that do not think for themselves or DON'T know they didnt research this part.
now after all the fuss critics cause about conspiracy websites speculating i am shocked to see you accepting it when it fits your storey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
infact 80 floors collapsing in 12 seconds and each floor being pulverised would need to happen in 0.15 seconds per floor and thats allowing an extra few seconds.
NIST need to prove this to be possible but didnt as they avoided this part of the research and only speculated about what they think caused it without testing it.
i may be wrong but 0.15 seconds per floor sounds absolutly impossible unless it was in freefall speed and dosnt sound like a collapse causing each floor to pulverise as that would = resistance which would surely = a longer time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: Re: Pancake Collapse |
|
|
Maybe someone would be so kind to explain the following from the New York Times article from 1975 regarding a 700 deg c fire in the North Tower:
| Quote: | | "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced" |
_________________
Currently working on a new website |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are missing the point completely, marky. It is not speculation and no research is needed, even if any were possible, because the lower part of the buildings could not possibly have withstood the vast energy of the top stories dropping on them. That is just a straightforward calculation. The imbalance between the energy the lower stories could absorb and the energy applied to them was so huge that they offered minimal resistance and the building collapsed at close to freefall speed, as you say.
You do not need to research or speculate about whether the hammer will break the table top, you can calculate the momentum of the hammer and the resistance of the glass and work it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | You are missing the point completely, marky. It is not speculation and no research is needed, even if any were possible, because the lower part of the buildings could not possibly have withstood the vast energy of the top stories dropping on them. That is just a straightforward calculation. The imbalance between the energy the lower stories could absorb and the energy applied to them was so huge that they offered minimal resistance and the building collapsed at close to freefall speed, as you say.
You do not need to research or speculate about whether the hammer will break the table top, you can calculate the momentum of the hammer and the resistance of the glass and work it out. |
you talk utter rubbish.
to say we dont need research into something that NIST claims that is impossible to of happened in the time it did is ludicrous.
where are there calculations of the whole collapse that account for 10 seconds of time and show it is very feesible for all that took place in that time frame?
or do they just waffle for a few paragraphs and thats good enough? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
80 floors crushed to piecesat 0.15 seconds per floor is this possible? did nist show this to be possible?
if not then they have shown nothing and have not tested there opinon to be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | You are missing the point completely, marky. It is not speculation and no research is needed, even if any were possible, because the lower part of the buildings could not possibly have withstood the vast energy of the top stories dropping on them. That is just a straightforward calculation. The imbalance between the energy the lower stories could absorb and the energy applied to them was so huge that they offered minimal resistance and the building collapsed at close to freefall speed, as you say.
You do not need to research or speculate about whether the hammer will break the table top, you can calculate the momentum of the hammer and the resistance of the glass and work it out. |
you talk utter rubbish.
to say we dont need research into something that NIST claims that is impossible to of happened in the time it did is ludicrous.
where are there calculations of the whole collapse that account for 10 seconds of time and show it is very feesible for all that took place in that time frame?
or do they just waffle for a few paragraphs and thats good enough? |
I think the utter rubbish is actually your statement that "it is impossible to of happened in the time it did"!!
If you want calculations, they are here and they are proper calculations, not like Judy Wood with her assumption that each floor fell on to the one below without any transfer of momentum, so that at each floor the falling mass stopped and then started again.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | You are missing the point completely, marky. It is not speculation and no research is needed, even if any were possible, because the lower part of the buildings could not possibly have withstood the vast energy of the top stories dropping on them. That is just a straightforward calculation. The imbalance between the energy the lower stories could absorb and the energy applied to them was so huge that they offered minimal resistance and the building collapsed at close to freefall speed, as you say.
You do not need to research or speculate about whether the hammer will break the table top, you can calculate the momentum of the hammer and the resistance of the glass and work it out. |
you talk utter rubbish.
to say we dont need research into something that NIST claims that is impossible to of happened in the time it did is ludicrous.
where are there calculations of the whole collapse that account for 10 seconds of time and show it is very feesible for all that took place in that time frame?
or do they just waffle for a few paragraphs and thats good enough? |
I think the utter rubbish is actually your statement that "it is impossible to of happened in the time it did"!!
If you want calculations, they are here and they are proper calculations, not like Judy Wood with her assumption that each floor fell on to the one below without any transfer of momentum, so that at each floor the falling mass stopped and then started again. |
Or you could try watching the collapse of WTC2 again and then you may wonder why the top stories do not drive straight down but appear to be toppling over. You may also wonder how people survived on the 4th floor of one tower with that huge mass supposedly crashing onto them. In fact you may wonder where the huge mass went to? Lots of things to wonder about if only you would actually examine the evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | You are missing the point completely, marky. It is not speculation and no research is needed, even if any were possible, because the lower part of the buildings could not possibly have withstood the vast energy of the top stories dropping on them. That is just a straightforward calculation. The imbalance between the energy the lower stories could absorb and the energy applied to them was so huge that they offered minimal resistance and the building collapsed at close to freefall speed, as you say.
You do not need to research or speculate about whether the hammer will break the table top, you can calculate the momentum of the hammer and the resistance of the glass and work it out. |
you talk utter rubbish.
to say we dont need research into something that NIST claims that is impossible to of happened in the time it did is ludicrous.
where are there calculations of the whole collapse that account for 10 seconds of time and show it is very feesible for all that took place in that time frame?
or do they just waffle for a few paragraphs and thats good enough? |
I think the utter rubbish is actually your statement that "it is impossible to of happened in the time it did"!!
If you want calculations, they are here and they are proper calculations, not like Judy Wood with her assumption that each floor fell on to the one below without any transfer of momentum, so that at each floor the falling mass stopped and then started again. |
do you have any idea how fast 0.15 seconds is per floor? each floor would have had to of shattered in that time obviously the first floor to go would take longer then get quicker down the pack but on average it works out at 0.15 seconds for 80 floors to collapse in 12 seconds as a estimate, what ever the accurate amount of floors compared to time collapse it will be a simular time per floor for at least one tower. if NIST had done any serious proper research into this part they would beable to show why the SOLID UNAFFECTED OVERDESIGNED portion of the tower crumbled so quickly in 10 seconds or there abouts making it appear there was no resistance what so ever even though it was designed to take the weight and was overdesigned as are most buildings(for saftey) yet no resistance is apparent visually or in the time it took.
so nist need to show this and how this is possible, untill then they have not explained the full collapse of the towers, but admit they didnt anyway, which means what they do say is speculation, however i know you deny this.
to not test their theory or do the research to prove they are right means they pre decided the reasons before doing any research not that they did any where FULL collapse is involved just upto the point of the collapse.
its wrong to assume the reasons why something happened even when you think you know, thats why people do investigastions and research even when the cause is obvious incase some UNKNOWN factors were also involved or played a part that you didnt know about.
but no, they say they didnt research anything after the point of collapse yet any reasons they give for it should be taken as true? thats a conspiracy theorists mentality isnt it?
how can you say its utter rubbish to say its impossible? no "offical" research has been done to prove or disprove what i say. therefore its just about what you think. i however tend to use logic and say if it collapsed how nist said it would of took longer due to resistance, however the research hasnt been done to prove otherwise by NIST, the time of collapse is important as it allows us tell if what the offical version claims is true, maybe the reason why the didnt do that research? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I make pretty good pancakes. The trick is to be generous with the butter. As for the pancake collapse theory WTC - The upper core section went down first as evidenced by descent videos.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | its wrong to assume the reasons why something happened even when you think you know, thats why people do investigastions and research even when the cause is obvious incase some UNKNOWN factors were also involved or played a part that you didnt know about. |
That's why the troof movement lets professors of philosophy use hearsay arguments to "prove" CD. Give me a break, the infinite scepticism of the official story turns into infinite laziness when it comes to producing real science to back up any alternate theory.
That's why I find it very hard to get interested when people who reject everything else NIST did (and every other aspect of the OT) claim there is something incredibly important about the fact that NIST didn't model the collapse after initiation. Who cares, its just one more thing for you to reject five seconds after they publish it.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | its wrong to assume the reasons why something happened even when you think you know, thats why people do investigastions and research even when the cause is obvious incase some UNKNOWN factors were also involved or played a part that you didnt know about. |
That's why the troof movement lets professors of philosophy use hearsay arguments to "prove" CD. Give me a break, the infinite scepticism of the official story turns into infinite laziness when it comes to producing real science to back up any alternate theory.
That's why I find it very hard to get interested when people who reject everything else NIST did (and every other aspect of the OT) claim there is something incredibly important about the fact that NIST didn't model the collapse after initiation. Who cares, its just one more thing for you to reject five seconds after they publish it. |
people dont do things on my say so so its not me letting them do it, and why should'nt they do it anyway? if the offical story added up people would'nt do it especially if they were listened to about their concerns, but they are not therefore do their own research etc.
NIST didnt explain the full collapse, its impossible to explain and sound credible and fit the rest of the storey, so i would of thought it was easier to leave that part out so you dont have to explain it. how buildings fall into the path of resistance and end up at near freefall speed is very very puzzling to say the least and hasnt been offically looked into or researched, sure you debunkers come up with excuses or the reason you think it is possible but you lot are the exact same as a conspiracy theorists yes the wacky tinfoil hat type, only rather than thinking everything is a conspiracy with no evidence, you think everything isnt a conspiracy with no evidence.
evidence is all thats important and a big portion of it was missed out by NIST ie:the actual collapse of the towers being looked into proberly, of course it matters, but others obviously know it either cannot be explained without contridicting previous statements or it is damning evidence, if it is or was explainable why didnt the look into properly?
anyway we obviously will never agree on this so let others decide, if there is nothing wrong there they will come to your conclusion so dont worry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | if the offical story added up people would'nt do it |
If a conspiracy theory exists, it must be valid otherwise why would anyone have created it? That's some interesting logic.
And I was never worried. I don't feel the NIST has any duty to be on call for the infinite questions movement. The lack of an official paper doesn't mean the world's structural engineers are completely mystified or stumped, it means they didn't think it was worth looking into. By the same logic you could say they "can't explain" the color of the smoke since they didn't build a model to determine where on the grey spectrum the smoke should have been. Then you create a complete hearsay argument saying the smoke should have been a different color, post it on a web forum and consider that your troof work for the day. Tomorrow, you'll decide the smoke is too smoky and the NIST "can't explain why". Etc.
Who cares? Troof is not a movement, its more like a hobby. Nobody actually cares enough to hire real scientists and do a real study.
Remember, you reject everthing else the NIST ever did and consider them to be liars and shills. Who care about your need to add one more thing to the list of official studies you reject in favor of google video analysis and speculation by amateurs? I don't.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Last edited by pepik on Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | if the offical story added up people would'nt do it |
If a conspiracy theory exists, it must be valid otherwise why would anyone have created it? That's some interesting logic.
And I was never worried. I don't feel the NIST has any duty to be on call for the infinite questions movement. The lack of an official paper doesn't mean the world's structural engineers are completely mystified or stumped, it means they didn't think it was worth looking into. By the same logic you could say they "can't explain" the color of the smoke since they didn't build a model to determine where on the grey spectrum the smoke should have been. Then you create a complete hearsay argument saying the smoke should have been a different color, post it on a web forum and consider that your troof work for the day. Tomorrow, you'll decide the smoke is to smoky and the NIST "can't explain why". Etc.
Who cares? Troof is not a movement, its more like a hobby. Nobody actually cares enough to hire real scientists and do a real study.
Remember, you reject everthing else the NIST ever did and consider them to be liars and shills. Who care about your need to add one more thing to the list of official studies you reject in favor of google video analysis and speculation by amateurs? I don't. |
so why you here if you dont care?
so in any future disasters that familys want answers to they will just cherry pick what to explain and leave the rest out because they cannot be bothered to look at everything and find out all the reasons something happened even though it was an innocent event and there is nothing to hide by doing so?
so you think evidence isnt important then try to say the truth movement are wrong when nist didnt even look into it properly to know that 100% or at least prove it.
alot of your talk is about how this cannot be true with no evidence just because you think so, just like what i said above your a CT'ist, at least give a reason why you think anything ive said or others have is wrong based on discussion of evidence rather than avoiding that and just going straight for the character discrediting to avoid it.
there must be a reason you think my points above are wrong other than just waffling about truth movement this truth movement that, what evidence leads you to believe anything ive said in this thread is wrong for example, im always willing to look at things and admit when im wrong, you can assume what ever you please about people here it dosnt point out where people are wrong, only evidence can do that.
i dont dismiss everything NIST say either thats just you telling me that as usual. i dont agree with somethings as evidence points elsewhere however if they had an explaination for those things i'd gladly accept them if they address everyones concerns as im sure lots of others would, but again people are just ignored and then people like you turn up with no evidence and just try to prove people wrong by using ridicule or discrediting the movement etc rather than proving wrong any evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The real question is why are you here if you really believe this stuff? Why aren't you down at your nearest university or structural engineering firm asking people these questions? Because you don't really want answers, that's why. | Quote: | | so in any future disasters that familys want answers to they will just cherry pick what to explain and leave the rest out because they cannot be bothered to look at everything and find out all the reasons something happened even though it was an innocent event and there is nothing to hide by doing so? |
Nobody is stopping you from asking or hiring engineers to study this if you don't want to accept the common sense explanations. While you're at it, build a model to explain why the Titantic sank. At the moment, historians "can't explain" why the Titantic kept sinking once it went below the surface. | Quote: | | so you think evidence isnt important then try to say the truth movement are wrong when nist didnt even look into it properly to know that 100% or at least prove it. |
Please show me where I said evidence isn't important. | Quote: | | there must be a reason you think my points above are wrong other than just waffling about truth movement this truth movement that, what evidence leads you to believe anything ive said in this thread is wrong for example, im always willing to look at things and admit when im wrong, you can assume what ever you please about people here it dosnt point out where people are wrong, only evidence can do that |
What leads me to believe you are wrong? You are just some conspiracy theorist watching google video telling me how buildings should collapse. How could I possibly be expected to care? You aren't offering a study or model to back up an alternate theory, or to show how the current theory can't work. You're just saying, based on your own total lack of any relevant expertise, that looking at google video was enough to convince you that you noticed things qualified, experienced engineers missed. | Quote: | | i dont dismiss everything NIST say either thats just you telling me that as usual. |
Really? How about the collapse initiation. What do you think of their model for that? | Quote: | | if they had an explaination for those things i'd gladly accept them if they address everyones concerns as im sure lots of others would |
If they address the concerns of the entire worldwide 911 conspiracy movement with its infinite assortment of theories and questions? Democracy doesn't mean consensus. | Quote: | | but again people are just ignored and then people like you turn up with no evidence and just try to prove people wrong by using ridicule or discrediting the movement etc rather than proving wrong any evidence. |
My point is perfectly valid. People go to internet forums and demand the truth. They demand that NIST have a hotline to answer any question they can dream up. They all agree amongst themselves how a building collapse should look.
But why don't they get some actual studies done? Why don't they hire real experts and do real studies? You are so desperate for answers yet you won't even lift a finger to get any. The obvious answer is that the troof movement isn't looking for answers, they are looking for questions. No I cannot convince you the collapse was the right number of seconds to fit your nonexistant theory and analysis, but who cares? Who will ever care?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
