New(?) 911 bad science

[Wolverine]

NIST FAQ

Nice, thanks for sharing.

I wonder how long it will take for this to be twisted or misrepresented, though (if it hasn't happened already):

NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

[nomuse]

Two-edged sword, innit?

If NIST declines to consider an explosives-involved hypothesis, then the CT's will accuse them of hiding from the truth.

If NIST does look into it, no matter how briefly, then the CT's will point to that as evidence that the "explosives hypothesis" (as if it even deserves that term), has merit.

[Kelfazin]

This is something I hadn't thought of before.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom,

Every video or TV show I've seen over the years of professional demolition always shows the ENTIRE building falling at the same time, or collapsing from the bottom up. One particular example is when the British TV show Top Gear put an old Toyota truck on top of a building that was subsequently demolished. The truck survived the explosion, and when the dust cleared the truck was on top of the rubble. But when you watch the video of the towers fall, the structure below the crumbling building is intact and the failures work their way downwards. The two types of destruction look nothing alike.

[PhantomWolf]

The two types of destruction look nothing alike.

Shhhh, don't let the CT's know, their entire argument is based on "It looked like one so it was one."

[Laguna]

The two types of destruction look nothing alike.

Shhhh, don't let the CT's know, their entire argument is based on "It looked like one so it was one."

Yes, keep quiet.
The whole thing is, that the roaming conspiracies were planted by the government to prevent people, *** enough to believe them, from doing other things than "looking for evidence" and thereby doing harm to someone else.
Rather let them run around in circles screaming 'conspiracy' than letting them run around in public.

[Tolls]

Quoting the NIST page.

"
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.
"

Have I got the concept of pancaking wrong then? I thought it was simply the failure of lower floors when the upper ones hit them?

[Donnie B.]

Quoting the NIST page.

"
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.
"

Have I got the concept of pancaking wrong then? I thought it was simply the failure of lower floors when the upper ones hit them?

I wondered about that too. I speculate that the term "pancaking" has some specific technical meaning in civil engineering circles that doesn't apply to the WTC collapses.

(It certainly wouldn't apply to the collapse of WTC7 in any case, but of course that's never been suggested.)

One context in which I've heard the term "pancaking" is in the collapse of floor stacks during lift-slab construction. In this technique, a steel structure is erected, then floors are poured at ground level and jacked up and fixed into their final positions. Improper jacking techniques can cause the floors to collapse, ending up in a pile that looks a bit like a stack of pancakes. Certainly the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses did not occur in that specific way, nor did they leave a pancake-like stack of floors at the bottom. Perhaps that's what NIST was saying.

[Laguna]

A pancaking collape means that the floors collapse in total and hit the floor beneath without damage. So one floor is falling as one single piece on the one below. I the case of the WTC the floor broke apart while falling.

[Tolls]

Ah, cheers you two.
That makes sense now.
So I have been using the term incorrectly...I hate it when that happens.

[Laguna]

Ah, cheers you two.
That makes sense now.
So I have been using the term incorrectly...I hate it when that happens.

I guess most of us where a little too sloppy when using that term.

[phunk]

I believe that what they are saying is that any pancaking that happened was a result of the global collapse, not the cause.

[Kelfazin]

The two types of destruction look nothing alike.

Shhhh, don't let the CT's know, their entire argument is based on "It looked like one so it was one."

Poking around online I found a website named ImplosionWorld. They have a pretty cool site that includes a lot of pictures. They also have a section of demolition videos. I just looked at a bunch of picutes, and all the videos. Not a single one shows a building that is intact at the middle and base WHILE the top is collapsing. In fact the closest one I could find where the top even crumbles before it hits the ground is the video of the Southwark Towers. And on that one both towers crumble from their base to the top all at the same time.

The only way for the CT's to continue to claim CD brought down the towers would be to say They™ pre-planted explosives in the exact area where the planes hit, and then blew those floors first in order to make it appear as if the buildings fell from the fire. And because it is "impossible for a building to fall from fire alone and no other building in the history of man has ever fallen because of fire alone" then They™ would also have to have planted explosives on every floor below the impact zone and blown those floors at exactly the right time to continue the charade.

Those demo people must be amazing. I bet they're actually Navy Seals or something....

[Kelfazin]

Or maybe even Ninja's!

[sts60]

A pancaking collape means that the floors collapse in total and hit the floor beneath without damage. So one floor is falling as one single piece on the one below. I the case of the WTC the floor broke apart while falling.

Building collapses, at least for emergency personnel, generally get classified as pancake, lean-to, or V-type, referring to what happens to the floors. Pancaking means the floors wind up more or less stacked up on top of each other, relatively intact as Laguna2 stated. In a lean-to collapse, the floor basically falls on one side with the other side staying more or less in place. A V-type, of course, means the floor basically falls in the middle, leaving "lean-tos" on either side.

I recall seeing an image of a large building in Mexico City which pancaked in a complete collapse during an earthquake. But I was at a condo fire where the interior floors pancacked while the outer walls remained almost intact. I guess there might have been some "pancaking" going on at WTC except, as already discussed, there wasn't enough left intact to even really classify it.