WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

[28th Kingdom]

and ive already dealt with your claim that a non-pancake collapse cant build up mass

You're exactly right about that. But, not according to NIST...because in this non-pancake collapse:

"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." NIST FAQ 6 - Sounds like a build up of mass to me.

...I see trees of green...red roses two...

 

[28th Kingdom]

After the collapse started, the whole mass struck lower floors, each floor adding to the collapsing mass. This is often called pancaking.

Well, I think we're finally starting to get somewhere. Great post.

 

[Horatius]

"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..." NIST FAQ 2

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom..." NIST FAQ 2

Besides the clear Doublethink that I have pointed out before...I would like someone to tell me how the collapses could have progressed from the top to the bottom, without a pancaking of the floors?

"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." NIST FAQ 6

What are they describing if not a pancaking of the floors? How is the increasing falling mass in this progressive collapse from top to bottom, not a pancake collapse? What are the progressively falling floors from top to bottom doing if not pancaking? Where are the falling floors disappearing to as the collapse progresses from top to bottom? If they are not stacking, than where are they going?

"Pancake collapse" has a specific meaning in engineering circles. You can't go mixing casual usage with technical usage, much as you might like to.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/usr/module2a.pdf

This shows a few types of different floor collapses, although I'm sure it's not comprehensive.

If you feel like spending a bit of money, and actually learning something, this link:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m53mw68vl0814657/

has an article on "Classification of Collapsed Buildings for Fast Damage and Loss Assessment".

Classification entails determining which of several different types a given thing may be. Thus, classifying collapsed buildings implies there must be more than one type of collapse.

Here's another one that discusses different types of collapses:

http://www.ipf.uni-karlsruhe.de/Projekte/SFB461/C5/publications/Stockholm01.pdf

They also note this:

high rise collapse patterns,
first symbol is an additional attribute which can be used with the other symbols

So it seems they recognize that collapse patterns in high-rises are different than in low-rise buildings.

Don't you get tired of being ignorant? It took longer to type this than it did to find the info.

 

[Horatius]

And while we're at it, since you seem to have run away from your last thread, I'll just repeat what Arkan_Wolfshade had to say there, here:

Enough is enough. You have come to a forum for skeptics, critical thinkers, debunkers, and scientific process with your posts. You have been posting here for a number of months. It is time for you to make a decision.

If you truly believe that the events, as described by the 9/11 Commission report and other official sources, to be incorrect (either intentionally, or by error), then get your act together. On these forums you have been provided with ample information on how to investigate, gather evidence, corraborate evidence, and present it in a scientifically, and logically, valid manner. Use these tools to put together a case that holds up to scrutiny.

If, on the other hand, you put together these theories because you are bored, dislike the current administration, enjoy mental masturbation, or other reasons; then shut up.

Regardless of which of the above is true (you believe exactly what you state, or not) you actions are an insult to people who died on that day, and those that have died since then in taking action to try to ensure the safety of the US and its allies. You slander and libel against people. If your theories are correct you do a disservice by failing to present them in a manner that can truly bring injustice to light; and if your theories are incorrect, you are spreading disinformation.

In short, put up or shut up. Either make a coherent; scientifically and logically valid, argument or go chase UFOs, bigfoot, or some other bogeyman.

-AW

 

[28th Kingdom]

"Pancake collapse" has a specific meaning in engineering circles. You can't go mixing casual usage with technical usage, much as you might like to.

Why don't you just spell out the definition of a pancake collapse for me, since I am spelling out my points for you.

 

[babazaroni]

Why don't you just spell out the definition of a pancake collapse for me, since I am spelling out my points for you.

The NIST says that pancaking did not initiate the collapse. This means that a floor failing did not start the collapse.

What they do say is that the inward bowing columns finally gave way.

Now the whole mass pancaked onto the lower floors in the laymen definition of pancaking.

 

[Horatius]

Why don't you just spell out the definition of a pancake collapse for me, since I am spelling out my points for you.

I'm not an engineer, so unlike you I won't presume that my knowledge is sufficient to provide a correct and comprehensive definition. What I am, is an educated person who knows how to find enough information to allow me to make at least a reasonable judgement of when I hear BS or not, and who knows how to judge the quality of a reference.

And so far, all you've "spelled out" is a lot of quibbling over definitions of terms you haven't even done the most rudimentary research on.

Do a bit of reading and then get back to us. As I've said before, we get sick of doing your homework for you.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You're exactly right about that. But, not according to NIST...because in this non-pancake collapse:

"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." NIST FAQ 6 - Sounds like a build up of mass to me.

...I see trees of green...red roses two...

yes, its your claim that a non-pancake collapse cannot build up mass

your claim, however, is incorrect

a pancake collapse refers to the failure of the connections between the floor trusses and the columns (as per your own quote that you mined)

in the WTC it was the columns that failed, it makes no specifications of where the floors can or cant fall

Why don't you just spell out the definition of a pancake collapse for me, since I am spelling out my points for you

i already have a few time, see above for number 3

 

[stateofgrace]

"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..." NIST FAQ 2

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom..." NIST FAQ 2

Besides the clear Doublethink that I have pointed out before...I would like someone to tell me how the collapses could have progressed from the top to the bottom, without a pancaking of the

Why do you do this, can you not read, do you come here for English lessons or something

Here is the full quote from which you have again cherry picked

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. 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.

Is this clear ?

"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." NIST FAQ 6

What are they describing if not a pancaking of the floors? How is the increasing falling mass in this progressive collapse from top to bottom, not a pancake collapse? What are the progressively falling floors from top to bottom doing if not pancaking? Where are the falling floors disappearing to as the collapse progresses from top to bottom? If they are not stacking, than where are they going?

Again you simply cherry pick, so again another English lesson.

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. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
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.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Please stop your silly nonsense by trying to think you are smarter than NIST, you are not. You are just somebody who reads far too many conspiracy theories.

Now go to your thread that was going to change the world and address the questions that many people have taken the time to ask you.

Here it is waiting just for you.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70262&page=57

PS...........

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.

 

[28th Kingdom]

yes, its your claim that a non-pancake collapse cannot build up mass

your claim, however, is incorrect

a pancake collapse refers to the failure of the connections between the floor trusses and the columns (as per your own quote that you mined)

in the WTC it was the columns that failed, it makes no specifications of where the floors can or cant fall

Originally...NIST claimed a pancake collapse, but then they changed their story, right? Originally, they said the trusses failed, and caused the floors to pancake on themselves, right? Then they changed their story and said that the trusses remained attached to the perimeter columns causing them to bow in to the point of failure, right?

Where did these 200 world elites in the field of sciences, get this new idea or theory? Was it from a Popular Mechanics article?

Have I made the point, yet?

 

[babazaroni]

And two more posts awaiting response 28K:

DoubleThink debunked

Exploding collapse debunked

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally...NIST claimed a pancake collapse, but then they changed their story, right? Originally, they said the trusses failed, and caused the floors to pancake on themselves, right? Then they changed their story and said that the trusses remained attached to the perimeter columns causing them to bow in to the point of failure, right?

Where did these 200 world elites in the field of sciences, get this new idea or theory? Was it from a Popular Mechanics article?

Have I made the point, yet?

pancake collapse was FEMA's hypothesis, and NIST took this as their working hypothesis, through their testing they determined that not only did it not happen, it was impossible in a structure such as the WTC, so their conclusions were different than their hypothesis

that is something most people like to call "science" but you truthers truly live in a different reality

 

[Horatius]

pro·gres·sive Pronunciation (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.


col·lapse Pronunciation (k-lps)
v. col·lapsed, col·laps·ing, col·laps·es
v.intr.
1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
2. To break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function: a monarchy that collapsed.
3. To fold compactly: chairs that collapse for storage.
v.tr.
To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
n.
1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.
2. An abrupt failure of function, strength, or health; a breakdown.
3. An abrupt loss of perceived value or of effect: the collapse of popular respect for the integrity of world leaders.


Progressive Collapse

The destruction of the World Trade Center towers has heightened concern about the progressive collapse of buildings. Ironically, engineers disagree on the definition of this phenomenon, and many argue that the factors surrounding the 2001 terrorists attacks were too extraordinary to classify the Twin Towers' failure as progressive collapse.

"Progressive collapse is a nebulous term," says engineer Shankir Nair, SVP with Chicago-based architect Teng. "Any collapse is progressive in that one thing fails, something else fails, and so on." Nair says that a significant problem results only if the subsequent failure is "disproportionate."

Jon Magnusson, CEO of structural engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, recalls that attendees at a 2002 workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Science & Technology had difficulty agreeing on a definition of progressive collapse. "The only thing that everyone could agree on was that the World Trade Center performed very well in resisting progressive collapse," he says, noting that one of the towers held despite the loss of two-thirds of its columns on the side impacted by a jetliner. "Its collapse was progressive, but it didn't fit the traditional definition," he says.

What Is Progressive Collapse?

Although there is no single, uniform definition of progressive collapse in the structural engineering design community, the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) standard ASCE 7–02 defines “progressive collapse” as “the spread of an initial local failure from element to element that eventually results in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it.” In less technical terms, the idea of progressive collapse is often thought of as the domino effect.

v. snow·balled, snow·ball·ing, snow·balls
v.intr.
1. To grow rapidly in significance, importance, or size: problems that snowballed by the hour.
2. To throw snowballs.
v.tr.
1. To cause to grow or increase rapidly.
2. To throw snowballs at.

Would you be happier if we called what happened a "Snowballing Collapse"? Or how about if we just snowballed you.

Seriously, this stuff isn't hard to find. You should try it sometime.

 

[28th Kingdom]

pancake collapse was FEMA's hypothesis, and NIST took this as their working hypothesis, through their testing they determined that not only did it not happen, it was impossible in a structure such as the WTC, so their conclusions were different than their hypothesis

that is something most people like to call "science" but you truthers truly live in a different reality

No, actually....NIST kept to the pancake theory, all the way up until early 2005, when they stole their final theory from a Popular Mechanics article. 200 of the brightest minds in the world...conducting years of research and testing...and all they can come up with is an impossible collapse from the WTC Towers i.e. Pancake Collapse

Don't kid yourselves...the NIST is not composed of a theory rendered from years of research and study from 200 of the brightest minds in the world...it's a simple exercise in plagiarism of ideas, stolen from a Popular Mechanics article. No wonder there are so many conflicting details in the report. They probably kept most of the data from the pancake collapse theory...and then just added some crap on top of it.

 

[Horatius]

pancake collapse was FEMA's hypothesis, and NIST took this as their working hypothesis, through their testing they determined that not only did it not happen, it was impossible in a structure such as the WTC, so their conclusions were different than their hypothesis

that is something most people like to call "science" but you truthers truly live in a different reality

Yes, damn them for using science and evidence and experiments and simulations to learn something new! Don't they know once you have a theory, you're supposed to stick with it no matter how psychotic that may be?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No, actually....NIST kept to the pancake theory, all the way up until early 2005, when they stole their final theory from a Popular Mechanics article. 200 of the brightest minds in the world...conducting years of research and testing...and all they can come up with is an impossible collapse from the WTC Towers i.e. Pancake Collapse

Don't kid yourselves...the NIST is not composed of a theory rendered from years of research and study from 200 of the brightest minds in the world...it's a simple exercise in plagiarism of ideas, stolen from a Popular Mechanics article. No wonder there are so many conflicting details in the report. They probably kept most of the data from the pancake collapse theory...and then just added some crap on top of it.

and im sure you can provide ample evidence of this, right?

 

[28th Kingdom]

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

 

[Mercutio]

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Thank you for so conveniently debunking your own point. Yes, as you have quoted here, "pancaking" is used in the non-technical sense of "a significant portion of a floor collapsing".

Thank you for making it clear that they mean something different than you are claiming they do.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

and? is this evidence that NIST stole their theory from PM?

at any rate pancaking floors =/= pancake collapse

a pancake collapse is a failure of the connections between the floor trusses and the columns (BTW this is the 4th time i told you this)

floors can stack up (like pancakes) just fine with a failure of the columns themselves (and thats pretty much what happened)

 

[28th Kingdom]

Thank you for so conveniently debunking your own point. Yes, as you have quoted here, "pancaking" is used in the non-technical sense of "a significant portion of a floor collapsing".

Thank you for making it clear that they mean something different than you are claiming they do.

Sir,

Please send me a credible link to a site that defines a pancake collapse, as sagging trusses causing outer columns to bow in.

Thank you.