Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

Originally posted by waypastvne

NIST also said this:

Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerat- ing mass on the floors directly below led to
overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subse- quent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mecha- nism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the collapsing towers.

www.aws.org...

NIST said a lot of rubbish, based on what they were told to write. There is no way they could draw the conclusions they did with the limited investigation they did!

When they prove they did a complete job weighing up ALL the evidence, only then could their 'findings' be taken seriously. Like I have said, and what you amateur 'debunkers' do not grasp, is that their report is just a 'hypothesis', just a guess based on the LIMITED evidence they say they looked at.

So it's up to you to put all your faith/belief in a report that is not even complete or thorough, and potentially corrupt. But then millions people believe in God, another entity that cannot be proved.

'truthers' as you ignorant debunkers call us, are just doing the job that NIST failed to do!

Originally posted by waypastvne

NIST also said this:

Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerat- ing mass on the floors directly below led to
overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subse- quent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mecha- nism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the collapsing towers.

www.aws.org...

Ah so this is where you lot get the potential energy argument you were spewing out at one time.

Kinetic energy is energy due to an objects motion. It is a measurement of work done. The only work being done in the collapses, according to NIST, is trusses sagged pulling in columns, causing the floors to progressive collapse. The kinetic energy of a dropping floor would not be particularly massive in context of the rest of the structures resistance.

Again I will point out factor of safety, which is 3-4 for steel framed building components. This is done to ensure a building can hold the weight it is designed to hold over it's service lifetime.

Calculation

There are several ways to compare the factor of safety for structures. All the different calculations fundamentally measure the same thing: how much extra load beyond what is intended a structure will actually take (or be required to withstand). The difference between the methods is the way in which the values are calculated and compared. Safety factor values can be thought of as a standardized way for comparing strength and reliability between systems.

The use of a factor of safety does not imply that an item, structure, or design is "safe". Many quality assurance, engineering design, manufacturing, installation, and end-use factors may influence whether or not something is safe in any particular situation.

Factor of safety

Factor of safety = Material strength/Design load*

*Design load being the maximum load the part should ever see in service.

By this definition, a structure with a FOS of exactly 1 will support only the design load and no more. Any additional load will cause the structure to fail. A structure with a FOS of 2 will fail at twice the design load.

Again components in steel framed building have an FoS of 3 or 4. Do I have to do the maths for you?

Originally posted by ANOK
The kinetic energy of a dropping floor would not be particularly massive in context of the rest of the structures resistance.

Except for the fact that, after initiation, it was at least 12 floor + hat truss + mast coming down. Quite massive kinetic energy. It would crush your head like a melon.

Again I will point out factor of safety, which is 3-4 for steel framed building components. This is done to ensure a building can hold the weight it is designed to hold over it's service lifetime.

Again I will point out the dynamic loads, which were, according to mathematical models, in the magnitude of 60x the static load. Oi, another concept in physics you don't understand.

The rest of your post just continues to be based on your massive lack of understanding of physics. Try googling "Dynamic load". You already tried googling "Catenary action" and although you kind of failed, you did find something about tensile forces. It seems to me that you are showing progress.

reply to post by NorEaster


then what is it we see standing plain as day after the initial collapse in the video?

reply to post by -PLB-


Each floor was designed to take the weight of many floors, otherwise the building would collapse by itself!

There is no way 12 floors crushed over 100! Physically impossible without some kind of extra assistance.

12 years on and debunkers still haven't grasped basic physics yet.

Also, if the NIST report supposedly stands up, then why have some of you debunkers been on conspiracy theory websites for all these years? Surely there is no need to be here if the NIST report is as you believe it to be?

reply to post by DeeKlassified



Another person that doesn't understand dynamic loads, and doesn't know the difference between a floor an the support structure.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Each floor was designed to take the weight of many floors, otherwise the building would collapse by itself!

There is no way 12 floors crushed over 100! Physically impossible without some kind of extra assistance.

wasn't the "extra assistance" presented when the planes punched big holes in the sides? what was holding up the supports above the holes? how much load got transferred to the remaining supports and were they designed to handle that much unbalanced stress? You are thinking about this wrong as if the upper and lower sections were solid blocks with no defects. Did you even watch the video and notice the core standing there? If the core was still there (albeit for a couple seconds after the initial collapse) that means it wasn't crushed; shooting a hole in your idea of what went down. Another piece of evidence which puts a hole in your "crush" theory are the huge sections of the skin falling away still connected many floors high. This also shows there was no crushing or "pancaking". The exterior skin sections fell away the way they did because of all the individual, falling, pieces of debris from the upper floors taking out the floors like a zipper. Once the ball got rolling the upper mass was not falling solid and level, it broke up into pieces and acted like a shot gun blast with gravity doing all the work.

reply to post by DeeKlassified

Each floor was designed to take the weight of many floors, otherwise the building would collapse by itself!

No each floor was designed to support the exact same amount of weight. With the exception of the machinery floors.

It was called a tube in tube construction. If one floor was overloaded to the point of failure the overload would punch through each floor below it.

Because of 911 designers no longer use tube in tube designs.

Originally posted by samkent
No each floor was designed to support the exact same amount of weight. With the exception of the machinery floors.

It was called a tube in tube construction. If one floor was overloaded to the point of failure the overload would punch through each floor below it.

and it's not even the floors themselves holding anything, they just keep the exterior and core columns rigid and perfectly balanced over top of one another. these people are not thinking of this correctly, it's plain as day.

I think they are thinking WTC had a lattice work of steel throughout the building.

Originally posted by ANOK
The kinetic energy of a dropping floor would not be particularly massive in context of the rest of the structures resistance.

you have to stop thinking of it that way. it wasn't a floor dropping flatly and balanced over top of the one below it. it was all the components of the upper section raining down like a shotgun blast. that's what I meant when I said good luck quantifying that with calculus.

you keep using the term "the structures resistance" which is a nonsense term which shows your difficulty in quantifying what stresses were applied to whatever at each point of impact which you will never be able to begin to know. So your theory flies off the page into ambiguously vague pseudo-physics and you start calling people dumb. You really are making yourself out to sound like a moron and it's up to you whether or not you can swallow your pride and admit you are completely wrong and are actually the very definition of what is wrong with this kind of stonewalling thought process.

Originally posted by samkent
I think they are thinking WTC had a lattice work of steel throughout the building.

Some seem to think they were built like pyramids

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Some seem to think they were built like pyramids

How ironic you should say that.

Believe it or not buildings ARE built like pyramids, well the core is.

The columns tapered all the way up the building. They get thinner as they go up because of weight. More mass is needed at the bottom of the columns because they have to hold the weight of more floors.

So when the floors pancaked they would be collapsing though an increasing resistance. There is simply no way for the floors falling to gain enough energy to continue until complete.

How do explain where the massive truss hat went to? Shouldn't it be sitting somewhere on top of the rubble pile if what you say is correct?



Once again ignorance of building structure blows another OSer argument.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

Another person that doesn't understand dynamic loads, and doesn't know the difference between a floor an the support structure.

I understand the construction of he towers! I just don't understand yours and NIST's fake physics/calculations!

NIST have fooled you, but if you cannot realise that by yourself then just carry on chatting rubbish for another 12 years, it's your time you're wasting, not mine!

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by ANOK
The kinetic energy of a dropping floor would not be particularly massive in context of the rest of the structures resistance.

you have to stop thinking of it that way. it wasn't a floor dropping flatly and balanced over top of the one below it. it was all the components of the upper section raining down like a shotgun blast. that's what I meant when I said good luck quantifying that with calculus.

you keep using the term "the structures resistance" which is a nonsense term which shows your difficulty in quantifying what stresses were applied to whatever at each point of impact which you will never be able to begin to know. So your theory flies off the page into ambiguously vague pseudo-physics and you start calling people dumb. You really are making yourself out to sound like a moron and it's up to you whether or not you can swallow your pride and admit you are completely wrong and are actually the very definition of what is wrong with this kind of stonewalling thought process.

Where do you guys pluck all this rubbish from! No wonder 12 years down the line you are still trying to sell NIST's rubbish.

So a floor or two caved in as the top section fell, but then the top section detached and the weight was no longer crushing any floors, but the rest of the building still disintegrated into dust, with no more weight pushing down on the remaining 100 floors!?!

How does it magically turn itself into dust with nothing to crush it?! Do yo realise the force required to turn 100 floors into dust?!

Seriously, give the NIST joke physics a rest, I'm embarrassed for you!

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by DeeKlassified

 

Each floor was designed to take the weight of many floors, otherwise the building would collapse by itself!

No each floor was designed to support the exact same amount of weight. With the exception of the machinery floors.

It was called a tube in tube construction. If one floor was overloaded to the point of failure the overload would punch through each floor below it.

Because of 911 designers no longer use tube in tube designs.

What a load of cobblers, see my other comment on this page where I mention about 100 floors cannot be crushed into dust by nothing!

NIST is a fairytale, plain and simple. Do you understand what a 'HYPOTHESIS' IS?!

BTW, why is this thread stickied in the "Most-Flagged Threads Started In The Past Five Days" section of the 9/11 forum?!

It has 3 flags in total, there are other threads that have more flags in the last 3 days.

Debunkers' threads never get many flags for obvious reasons, but they do seem to get stickied a lot in the "Most-Flagged Threads Started In The Past Five Days" section of the 9/11 forum?!


Is there some kind of bias going on here or what?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


How is the buildings resistance nonsense? Saying that is nonsense.

If you don't understand that bolted and welded steel systems offer resistance to collapse, then you are more confused than anyone could be.

Buildings are designed with resistance as one of the most important elements in design. That is why we have Factors of Safety, to ensure the resistance of buildings components is enough to resist collapse from the weight it has to carry over it's lifetime.

When designing a building they have to take into account loading and resistance to that loading. It's called "Load and Resistance Factor Design".

Originally posted by samkent
Because of 911 designers no longer use tube in tube designs.

Do you have any proof of this?

Tube design is the most common high-rise building design since the 60's.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by NorEaster

 

then what is it we see standing plain as day after the initial collapse in the video?

Dude, that's the weakest argument I've ever encountered. That wisp of steel that swayed for a moment and then collapsed doesn't prove anything other than the real-life implementation of that center core sequential blast and clear strategy - while ultimately effective as all hell - wasn't laboratory perfect in the field. So what. Nothing remained standing. Period. A progressive collapse - if the lack of a three-section stacked design structure hadn't been in place to make such a collapse impossible - would have left a pile of crushed and mangled floors, furniture and whole bodies three times the height of the rubble pile, and there would never have been that volcanic pyroclastic flow (composed of pulverized concrete, gypsum, plastic, wood and human remains dust) that we all saw swallow lower Manhattan as a direct result of each of the three WTC building drops.

Your tiny nothing observation is exactly that - nothing. It means nothing and it indicates nothing. You guys seem to get all excited when you suddenly discover this disgusting smudge on our nation's image around the world. The fact that a majority of our own citizens know that a new investigation is warranted and desperately needed, yet the media and the government and the Wall St. jackals that own both refuse to ever even allow mention that fact, makes the rest of the human beings on this planet shake their heads and pity us in the same way neighbors pity a family of abuse victims that defend the bastard who abuses them.

It's disgusting, and that's why I stay away from it. It's not exciting or progressing anywhere. The lies are getting more and more threadbare, and it's become more and more obvious to everyone who actually cares that this nation is a nation of cowards who'd rather duck and hope that the other guy gets it than stand up to the people perpetuating this new level of abuse and criminality that the 9/11 Attacks announced to be the new normal.

They robbed you of over 7 trillion in 2008. They'll be back again. They know that it's okay to take what they want from you and that you'll do nothing more than have a telethon or a prayer vigil or turn their latest crime into what you've turned the 9/11 Attacks into - a parlor guessing game.