pancake theory challenge

[marky 54]

this is the type of thing we should focus on or at least be united, if my thinking below is wrong please say.




the pancake theory challenge:

pancaking- when one floor collapses it hits the next with enough force to collapse that floor and so on causing global collapse.

each floor squashed the contents inbetween each floor including steel beam support columns on each floor. over 80 or so floors that is a lot of beams that would be severly bent or buckled.

can anyone find beams that show signs of pancaking? other than straight beams or slightly bent beams.

i expect there may be a few beams but intrested in how many we can find.
i suspect we wont find enough to support the pancaking.

can anyone help?

[andyb]

Was it not FEMA who came up with the Pancake Theory prior to NIST taking over the 'investigation'? I'm certain that NIST dismissed the pancake theory for the Progressive Collapse theory. To my non-engineering mind, both do not explain adequately the phenomena seen in the collapse

[Snowygrouch]

The pancake theory is now officially discredited.

Apparently there are very few failed floor joints; hence if the floors didnt fail then you cant possibly have a pancake collapse!

NIST states that 20% of the floor joints failed in the impact area due to the damage from the aircraft.

FEMA invented the pancake theory which was then refuted by NIST (amusingly enough written by more or less the same people!).

NIST then state that the CORE colums shrank because they were weakened through fire (heat causes metals to expand but we'll gloss over that point), that caused the floor above to be lower because the core colums shrank (yes those massive girders several inches thick SHRANK enough to pull the floor above which pulled the walls in).

Creep under heat will of course occur over time (creep is basically very slow shrinking or stretching under load). However I`m totally unconvinced that creep would be enough to do that to those columns in that time at that temperature.

I could go on but its all nonsense basically.

Oh and for the computer models they turned the WHOLE building just above and just below the impact zone into solid parts!!!! (to save computer calulation time). THATS going to be representative isnt it! OMG.

C.

REFS: NIST NCSTAR 1, page 150>155.

[Patrick Brown]

Yes I also am aware that it was FEMA that put the idea of pancaking on the table in an attempt to account for the dramatic collapse of the towers. Unfortunately 911 Investigators pointed out that the north tower (WTC 1 the tower with the radio mast) shows that the core columns must have been compromised rather than the flooring joists. Video footage shows the radio mast of the north tower moving a second or so before any movement is perceived at the roof of the tower. The NIST report needed to account for this so they changed the official story to the core columns failing due to damage and heat.

Watch the radio mast move before the top of the tower:


Link

I'm not sure about evidence for the lack of floor joist failing as I figure it would have been a bit of a mess after the collapses. We would also expect many floor joists to be twisted and bent. The number of floor joists that were needed to fail may have been minimal as it was their weight, together with the concrete, impacting the floors below that could have started a domino effect.

Unfortunately collapsing floors makes it's difficult to account for the explosive nature of the collapse not to mention the speed. We would expect each floor to slow the collapse and therefore diminish the kinetic energy which, according to some physicists calculations, may have even arrested the collapse. We might also expect to see external damage below the impact zone such as windows being blown out as floors pancaked but we see no evidence for this. The lack of evidence for pancaking and NIST postulating that the failure of core columns was the reason for collapse supports controlled demolition. The CD theory suggests that the core columns were weakened with slow reacting thermite (this reduces audible explosions) prior to the initiation of collapse. Once the core was weakened a series of computer controlled devices were detonated (radio detonators) to facilitate the controlled collapse of the towers.

Notice that there is no evidence of collapse below the impact zone:


We also have evidence through eyewitness statements and video footage of explosion before the collapse of the twin towers and building seven. Explosive devices may have been used to break up the floors in the basements of the towers so as to provide a void for the majority of the debris to fall into. There is also evidence for explosions on the video footage shot by Rick Segal and my own research of low frequency peak events suggests that explosives were used prior to collapse.

[marky 54]

which ever way the towers collapsed im amazed at how many unbent columns there are. i just thought it may point to more evidence they didnt collapse as we were told.

did nist tell use how the buildings collapsed after the point of collapse? i thought they only went upto the point of collapse, and didnt explain after there. am i wrong?

[Snowygrouch]

This is what they have to say about the collapse. Quite interesting...