Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
watch the video and stop it at the times I mention and tell me I'm seeing pancaked floors. forget all the reports and Issac Newton and tell me what you see

Sorry but you can watch it all day, and ignore physics, and tell yourself anything.

I have watched the collapses many times in my 10 years of debating this.

IF you watch the collapses, and see the top tilting, doesn't that tell you something? How can a tilting mass put a symmetrical downward force in order for pancake collapse to happen?

Oh and BTW you have no idea what you're talking about, for someone who wants to tell me I'm wrong you have very little understanding of what you're arguing. This is from the NIST WTC FAQ...

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). 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.

www.nist.gov...

So you're saying NIST is wrong? Maybe you're on the wrong side because you sure ain't helping the argument for the NIST hypothesis. NIST didn't even attempt to explain the collapses, because they couldn't without sounding like idiots. Pancake collapse does not happen to steel framed buildings, and even if they did the collapse could not be global because there is more resistance in the structure than there is weight to overcome that resistance. That is how high rise buildings are designed, yet you all ignore that also.

edit on 5/10/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Oh good googa-mooga. Seriously ANOK?

It has been explained to you countless times in the past about what NIST meant. NIST stated that "pancaking" was not the INITIATOR of the collapse. Allow me to highlight your quote properly:

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). 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.

IS that better? The original idea was that floors pancaking initiated collapse. Now it was found to be false. The failure of the exterior columns bowing in is what initiated collapse. You do know what "initiated" means, correct? The floors did end up pancaking AFTER initiation.

Heh its like deja-vu with you ANOK
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by NorEaster


Oh boy. Yes, it was a tube in tube design. The floors were suspended between the interior columns and the exterior columns. By themselves, the floors would not be able to withstand the impact of 15-30 floors landing on them. You really should do some actual research into the WTC designs. Each floor was held up by nothing more than trusses and seat tabs, with 5/8" bolts.

reply to post by ANOK


Can you show us other buildings that have the WTC's exact design methods as well? You, floors held up by floor trusses and being suspended in between the interior and exterior columns?

Originally posted by DeeKlassified


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!

You mean thousands of tons of steel just turned into dust? Where are you pulling this rubbish from? All that steel and all of those floors went all the way through to the bottom. Nothing turned into dust, save for the fireproofing, drywall and sheetrock, and some concrete. But the steel beams, floor trusses, and floor pans all stayed inside, plunging through the building, taking out floor after floor. A growing mass of debris accelerating only meeting token resistance.

Originally posted by ANOK

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

Explain how a bunch of floor tabs supporting a floor segment that is suspended between interior and exterior columns is suppose to offer enough resistance to stop 15+ floors dropping on top of it. And then the floor below it is now facing the mass and acceleration of 16 floors.

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".

I do not think the archticts and engineers were expecting to have the dynamic loading of 15+ floors (and the remnants of a 767) dropping on the floor either. If that were the case, then they would have skipped the truss supported floors and went with welded steel I-beams supporting the floors. However, that alone would have prevented any collapse.

ANOK, do you remember why firefighters have an old saying about trusses and truss supported roofs? "Never trust a truss".

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
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?

This is the ONLY thread that has been STARTED in the past five days. It is the only thread eligible..... Silly.

Hi everyone :-)

Sorry to chime in, I don't usually join these fights anymore but....

It's this particular design that designers are being taught not to ever use again.

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

...this is such a weak argument.

Skyscrapers since 1960s utilize the tubular designs, innovated by Bangladeshi-American structural engineer Fazlur Rahman Khan. This engineering principle makes the buildings structurally more efficient and stronger.

Source: Wikipedia

Why have the The Petronas Twin Towers or the Jin Mao Building, which feature the very same tube-in-tube design, not been evacuated and torn down immediately; why has Fazlur Khans entire Architecture of Chicago style not been revised, if it is so clear that this design is responsible for the never-before-seen catastrophic failure of the WTC Twin Tower architecture?

Another thing that stuck out was this quote from NIST:

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.

There you have the whole truth, in plain view. Let me point it out for you:

This MECHA- NISM...

Still doesn't ring a bell?

Mechanism (engineering), rigid bodies connected by joints in order to accomplish a desired force and/or motion transmission

...a desired force or motion! It was never desired for the entire mass of the two buildings to move 200 metres in less than 15 seconds each. If you argue the towers went mechanic, you have a lot of explaining to do. For example: were they designed as some sort of bear trap? As in: a relatively small input energy (plane crash, less than 5 GJ) was supposed to trigger a large energy output (more than 500 GJ)? And do you realise - before any domino references are drawn - that for such a mechanism to run smoothly, it has to be well lubricated and nothing must go wrong or else the motion is stopped (as can be seen in botched-up CDs and many domino destruction videos)?

And on page four we had another gem from the sorts "but the WTC architecture was so unique!!11!onetyone!":

Can you show us other buildings that have the WTC's exact design methods as well? You, floors held up by floor trusses and being suspended in between the interior and exterior columns?

No, seriously, see aforementioned links, google Fazlur Khan or Architecture of Chicago, or explain why this little fella isn't on his way to the scrap yard yet : )

[T]he office tower [...] bears an eerie resemblance to those fallen twins in New York, one so striking that executives would joke that the architect who designed all three buildings had simply shrunk his blueprints.

Source: NY Times

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

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?!

You seem to be under the MISTAKEN opinion that everything turned to dust , Do YOU have a list of what all that dust you saw on the videos could be, please take the time to compile a list of all the materials in the towers that would produce dust in the collapse lets see how many you can come up with

The CONCRETE in each floor slab weight 600+ tons alone then you have steel decking/trusses office equipment ventilation equipment etc etc.

Also your floor or two comment how many floors above the impact point on the North and South towers it wasn't a floor or two!!!

reply to post by Akareyon

all your examples were built prior to 9/11 and you have to remember the lower section floors AND the upper section components were coming down together acting like a zipper releasing the outer walls in large sections which is clearly visible in the op video.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

Firstly, you evade my question: if this very design is as vulnerable as you seem to believe it is, why haven't these buildings been evacuated and demolished?

Secondly: The Burj Khalifa, tallest man-made structure in the world, was built from 2004 to 2010 (after 9/11, according to my calendar).

The tower is designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, which also designed the Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower) in Chicago and the new One World Trade Center in New York City. The Burj Khalifa uses the bundled tube design, invented by Fazlur Rahman Khan.

Source

So...?

reply to post by Akareyon


Those buildings are NOT the same as WTC Towers.

Here is a picture of the Petronas Towers being built



Can you identify the materials used to construct the TUBES!!!

The Jin Mao Tower



Can you indetifiy the material used to make the CORE!!!

Last but not least the Burj Khalifa



Can you indetifiy the material used to make it!!!

Now actually research buildings before you compare them to the Towers.

reply to post by Akareyon

if this very design is as vulnerable as you seem to believe it is, why haven't these buildings been evacuated and demolished?

You can't force someone to demo their own building if it meets the code put inplace at the time of construction.
You can force them to upgrade the building.

One building in NYC was retro fitted at night over a period of months because the design could not withstand high wind. A student discovered the flaw(s) whild studing the plans not the origional designers.

So yes if there were another WTC design out there the odds are they would add measures to strengthen the design.

reply to post by wmd_2008
*sigh* It's always the same. First, it's the planes, and when you prove that claim wrong, it's the fires, if you prove that claim wrong, it's the massive weight, if you prove that claim wrong, it's the "unique" structure and if you prove that claim wrong, the difference is in the materials being used - instead of steel only, those towers are made of steel mixed with concrete so that's why nobody worries about all the other skyscrapers built using Khan's tubular design. Because, you know... steel is such a brittle material, and so quick to catch fire. Sure. Before 9/11, nobody knew you aren't allowed to use steel if you need a solid structure.

What about the BOK then, or the Aon Center? True, built before 9/11. Yet, still not evacuated.

And what about the Minsheng Bank Building, China World Trade Center III, the New York Times Tower - ALL of them steel-framed... and built... lo and behold - AFTER September 11th, 2001! Damn, architects and engineers too lazy to learn from history, to dumb to comprehend what YOU understood a long time ago - that you're not allowed to build a high-rise building without a concrete frame?

Wait, let me guess, they're not the SAME again because... just because... yeah, that's it, they're not tall enough. Because relativistic phenomena like global inevitable progressive gravitational collapse/implosion/compression/explosion only show in steel buildings taller than 350 metres, right?

No, seriously, what is it this time?

And as you've been so kind and generous to give me advice about research, let me return the favor: how about you spend a minute or two reading up why those other buildings I mentioned before are made of concrete instead of steel only?

Hint: is has nothing to do with steel being of lesser quality ; )

PS ² samkent: yeah, I heard that story. According to the article I read back then, they were afraid the towers could tip (what's the english word for that?), as any good building would under extreme stress, not that they could collapse straight down in a gravitationally driven self-compression, right?

reply to post by Akareyon


ITS TUBE IN TUBE design those other buildings were not tube in tube here is a picture of the WTC Towers during construction.



The core was the inner steel tube the walls the outer steel tube the floors were suspended between them so the buildings you showed Petronas, Jin Mao and Burj Khalifa are NOT the same design or using the same materials may be if you work on buildings like this you would have an idea what you were talking about!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

I see your WTC under construction and raise you my NYT Tower under construction:




It says "deny ignorance" in the header, not "deny the facts" ;-)

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by wmd_2008

I see your WTC under construction and raise you my NYT Tower under construction:




It says "deny ignorance" in the header, not "deny the facts" ;-)

edit on 13-5-2013 by Akareyon because: better pic

It's you that's in denial during construction look at the floor design at the walls



NOT the same not supported by trusses suspended from cleats

So what about your other examples I take it you have never been on a building site or know anything about design my first job on leaving school in the design/drawing office of a structural steelwork company!!!

Know one said that steel in steel tube design was bad it's the WTC use of floors suspended the way they were that was the problem

reply to post by Akareyon


Have you seen the way they designed the floor structures? Are they light steel trussed floors, with corrugated steel pans topped with a light concrete cover? Are they suspended between the exterior and interior columns?

The WTC had a unique design that helped cause the collapses to progress the way they did. Yes there are many different versions of "tube-in-tube" out there, but the WTC's was the most unique. Also as it turned out, the most dangerous.

reply to post by Akareyon


Its funny how single tracked you can be, and so many in the Truth Movement are. We never said its just one thing, but a whole combination of things! It is a combo of the plane crash, the fires from the plane, the fires that moved around, the fireproofing knocked off, the damage, the design of the structures, time, etc. Why do you assume that we say its only one thing? We do no such thing! We have been saying forever that it was numerous reasons why they fell the way they did.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
I take it you have never been on a building site

or know anything about design

I was raised on a building site with a design over 500 years old, but I'm always glad to learn something new about what I know nothing about.

my first job on leaving school in the design/drawing office of a structural steelwork company!!!

God help me if I ever set a foot into one of your buildings :-)

Know one said that steel in steel tube design was bad

Noone ever! Except for those two quotes from this very thread that I included in my first post, for example.

It's the WTC use of floors suspended the way they were that was the problem

So, now it's neither the steel frame that's responsible for the failure, nor the tubular design, but it's the oh-so-unique way those light-weight floors were suspended between the outer columns and the core, both of which would have supported their own weight five times over, that caused the utter destruction of these two skyscrapers.

It all makes so much more sense now... ;-)

Originally posted by Akareyon

It's the WTC use of floors suspended the way they were that was the problem

So, now it's neither the steel frame that's responsible for the failure, nor the tubular design, but it's the oh-so-unique way those light-weight floors were suspended between the outer columns and the core, both of which would have supported their own weight five times over, that caused the utter destruction of these two skyscrapers.

It all makes so much more sense now... ;-)

Explain to me exactly where are the floors suppose to hold their weight five times over, when they had 15+ floors moving down in a dynamic loading scenario, not a static load?