NIST officially kills Pancake Theory. "Most of the world's structural engineers" scurry to defend latest official bunk.
Someone very astute here posted this earlier, but I think it bears reiterating.
Pancake Theory is officially dead.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
QUOTE
“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). 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.”
QUOTE
"...the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns..."
QUOTE
“NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.” “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.”
QUOTE
“The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse…”
- Gangster's blog
- Login to post comments
Yet you'll notice...
that the NIST spokesman in the PM book still explains the huge dust expulsions by way of the pancake theory. So NIST simply has two mutually exclusive theories (although the new "theory" is more like a simple assemblage of words than it is a theory), and it simply pulls out whichever one is useful to explain away each phenomenon they face.
The argument is over. Those who deny are living in Wonderland, and I just don't have the energy to engage them anymore. Anybody who has been exposed to the evidence and still believes the OGCT at this point is a lost cause. Move along...move along...
Absolutely.
Exactly my sentiments, Mr.
Thank you and thanks to whoever posted this new NIST "theory" here originally.
Regards,
gangster
Look at
Gordon Ross' Site for an excellent exposé of NIST's newest FAQ.
They could as well have published one sheet, on which in big, fat letters there'd be written:
UNCLE!
NIST seriously lacks imagination
NIST reported that its findings do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
* the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
* the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Wouldn't these discrepancies be very easy to artificially create? Can't you just see a control room of black-ops demo guys on WTC 7 with wireless switches calculating which floors to pull first? How hard would it be to contrive a collapse that begins at the impact area? or a top down collapse?
you're an idiot. just wanted
you're an idiot. just wanted to let you know that.
1) controlled demolitions are ALWAYS (as in 100%) started from the base of the building and gravity does the rest.
2) explosives planted at the the impact would've already blown up...uhhh...when the plane hit them!!!!
3) and as in stated in 1, CD's are ALWAYS started at the base of a building. trying to start a "top down collapse" would achieve nothing since the top of the building wouldn't have enough mass or velocity to collapse the rest. eventually stabilty would overcome and everything would just topple off to the side leaving more than half the WTC standing.
Wow, they are admitting a LOT!!!
QUOTE
“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). 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.”
They basically are saying, we do not support the ONLY method that has been explain on how every floor was brought to the ground.
But we know why the collapse started.
Thats what they're saying? They don't know why the entire collapse happened, they just know why it started (Because that's all the NIST investigation was meant to do).
i was thinking the same
i was thinking the same thing. the pancake theorists are finally debunk, oficially. by the same source it originally came from. great news. we no longer have to waste time with those crazy pancake conspiracy nuts.
"Video evidence also showed
"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. "
No evidence of explosions? Yet we have video and testimony of massive damage done to the lobbies and underground floors at or around the impact time. But notice they caveat that they have no evidence of explosions "as the top began their downward movement...".
Its' easy to say "we didn't find any evidence" when you don't look.
columns and floors remain connected?
So all those steel beams that were violently thrown outward had floors attached to them and were being pulled inward?
Uh...yeah...right...
Yeah right, is right.
47 steel box columns where ripped apart by whatever kind of collapse they are referring? I don't think so. They were cut and exploded, there is no other explanation for what everyone saw.
We all heard what the firemen said... i don't know who they were talking to; "It came down like, boom boom boom boom boom boom boom... like one of those controlled demolitions..." Everyone knows now.
“Since the stories below
“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.”
Maybe I should take up drinking...
Dr Wood's paper showing how
Dr Wood's paper showing how pancaking defies physics must have had something to so with NIST's 'change of heart'
You're right!
They refer to Dr. Wood in this article:
The U.S. government's 9/11 pancake theory has no merit whatsoever - and their experts refuse to discuss it
Regarding building 7, it
Regarding building 7, it states:
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. 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.
What missing is important....
What is missing is of interest. NIST says the pancake theory is not what happened, that instead the building buckled inward and that there was no resistance from floors below. But they don't discount at all what could have made these situations occur. The plane/fire myth will be the next idea to fall. The fact that they leave room for why no resistance was presented leaves room for explosives, just like what they are doing with WTC 7.
Some truths amidst lies.
Sorry, but the NIST guys fail miserably in telling us how 47 steel box columns where cut at 45 degree angles at the bottom of the WTC or how they were subsequently ripped to shreds. Sorry guys, fire didn't do that. They admit to seeing a chemical reaction, (like thermate), yet say that after 4 seconds it stopped. Wow. Why was there molten metal burning for weeks afterwards guys? The kerosene? Sorry, that was burned up in the initial plane explosion. And what of the madrid fire that burned for 10 hours? There was a fucking crane STILL STANDING at the top. I hate these guys. Liars and supporters or terrorists. How can they sleep at night?