Originally posted by ANOK
You are only assuming that the capacity was reached. Even IF it was and the collapse started to pancake, as in ALL other pancake collapses it could
not be complete, leaving the majority of the mass outside the footprint.
So you can waffle on all day about loading, you do, it makes no difference as it is already considered when we talk about the laws of motion.
ANOK, where exactly was the majority of the mass outside the footprint? Can you point out the floor trusses, concrete slabs, steel decking outside
the footprint? The floors started pancaking after collapse was initiated by the exterior columns buckling. The top began its descent, causing the
floors below to start pancaking onto each other.
You keep ignoring 'equal opposite reaction' and 'momentum conservation' laws. Include those correctly in your assessment, and see if it
This from someone who cant even get what NIST correctly, and needs to be reminded every time.
Again, a statement based on a misunderstanding of how collapses work. You seem to assume a failure of floors would cause a complete collapse, without
addressing the physical laws involved. Of course this is because NIST claimed that very thing, but your problem is they didn't explain how the
collapse actually happened, and your attempts to fill in the holes is based on nonsense, not real physics. Why does NIST not support your claims,
have you asked them that? You only support pancake collapse because you have nothing else, no one has offered an alternative for you parrot as fact.
Pancake collapse has been proven impossible, no one has offered an alternative excuse, NIST didn't even attempt to offer an excuse. You have nothing
to stand on but hollywood physics and misunderstandings of reality.
Well ANOK, the floors failed inside the tube. What was going to hold up the rest of the tower? Wishful thinking? Even after the top section is
bulldozing its way down to the ground?
What physical laws? Anok, the floor's resistance was overwhelmed by the falling mass. 30 floors impacting one floor will cause that floor's
connections to fail. Why? Sheering forces sheered off the connections. Apparently, those floor truss seats were not designed to withstand the dynamic
loading of 30 floors impacting it at once. And then the floor below is dealing with the mass of 30 + 1 floors impacting it, with the new momentum
gained from that new floor section. There were NO blast marks on any of the recovered samples ANOK. None on the seat areas. None on the truss
remains. No thermite either. Strange.
And here you go again, talking about how pancaking was impossible, about how NIST does not support pancaking, well my GOD, ANOK, your sheer ignorance,
or I dont know what to call it, cause if I did, I'd violate T&C protocols, is mind numbing. Do I really need to go over with you again, for what
seems like the billionth time, about what exactly NIST said about pancaking? But hey, best to ignore facts when they mess with your illusions and
fantasy world delusions, right? But for posterity's sake, I will repost it again, along with a definition of "initiate". That way, some ATS reader
will know exactly what is going on, and will not be misled by your attempts to hide the facts and directly misquote NIST.
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.
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… 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.
You know, I'd rather take the words of some actual professionals, who know what they are doing in their field, rather than the words of someone who
cant even get a quote or the main idea of a paragraph right. NIST states that pancaking did not start the collapse. The floors pancaked after the
collapse had started. Get at least that fact straight before you start trying to tackle something more complicated like the laws of physics. If you
cant even read something simple correctly, and correctly deduce what is being stated in the article, then how are you suppose to go on and try to tell
others about something even more complex?
Oh I almost forgot, the definition:
past participle, past tense of in·i·ti·ate (Verb)
/u]1. Cause (a process or action) to begin: "initiate discussions".
1. a person or thing that initiates
to initiate: to cause or facilitate the beginning of : set going
edit on 7/24/2011 by GenRadek because: minor mistakes