• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal

tanabear said:
"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."

"Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."
Click to expand...
Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?
 
Yup. I read it again and nowhere does any of this even imply that the collapse was initiated by pancaking. And, I checked Panoply_Perfect's question was indeed (bolding mine):
Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article?
Click to expand...
So Tanebear how did your post answer the question? I suspect reading comprehension is becoming a lost art.
 
Last edited:
CptColumbo said:
Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?
Click to expand...

The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.
 
tanabear said:
The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.
Click to expand...
Do you know the difference between the floors and the trusses? This is a serious question, please answer.
 
Last edited:
Panoply_Prefect said:
Did Popular Mechanics promote the FEMA "Pancake-theory" as a cause for collapse initiation as suggested by this article? Source given is:
Click to expand...
You answered this question with:

tanabear said:
"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."

"Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."
Click to expand...
I posted asking.

CptColumbo said:
Where in there does it say that the collapse was initiated by pancaking?
Click to expand...
Meaning, if you intention in posting those two quotes was to answer Panopoly, you failed to do so since neither quote mentioned the collapse initiating with pancaking.

tanabear said:
The collapse was initiated by a pancaking????? The initiation has been theorized either to be truss failure or column failure. The failure of the floor trusses creates a chain reaction of floors falling on top of each other, which eventually causes the entire tower to be destroyed. This is known as the pancake collapse theory.
Click to expand...
So, as twinstead wrote, your reading comprehension is not very good.
 
I believe the pancake theory surfaced in FEMA chapter 2 (someone correct me if Im wrong). As I understood it FEMA theorised that progressive pancaking was the cause of the collapse, while NIST rejected this. I can see that PM suggest that progressive pancaking was the cause of the collapse either.


/S
 
Last edited:
I am absolutely appalled that Jones is passing off this CRAP, as a technical, peer reviewed article "published in the literature."

THE VERY FIRST item cites the May 2002 Preliminary report from NIST mentioning diesel, BUT ignores the later update and in fact most recent UPDATE discounting this theory. As such, this letter is not scholarly, and in fact is grossly misleading.

The second item ignores the fact that any modeling of a plane hitting the Towers DID NOT account for fuel. I call this intellectual dishonesty.

Need I go on? This vanity piece that Jones paid to publish is intellectual fraud.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Do you know the difference between the floors and the trusses? This is a serious question, please answer.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of the difference. Explain why it is a serious question.

CptColumbo said:
You answered this question with:

I posted asking.

Meaning, if you intention in posting those two quotes was to answer Panopoly, you failed to do so since neither quote mentioned the collapse initiating with pancaking.

So, as twinstead wrote, your reading comprehension is not very good.
Click to expand...

That is because pancaking is the result of truss failure. It is an effect not a cause. What is meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking
"??????
 
From the NIST WTC faq (my bolding):


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.
Click to expand...


NIST is talking about what initiated the collapse, not the subsequent events.


(...)the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else,
Click to expand...




Now, did Jones actually get to pick peer-reviewers for this article? And what new insights does Jones, or truthers, draw from this text?
 
Last edited:
tanabear said:
Yes, I'm aware of the difference. Explain why it is a serious question.



That is because pancaking is the result of truss failure. It is an effect not a cause. What is meant by the phrase, "the collapse initiating with pancaking
"??????
Click to expand...
in·i·ti·ate verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to begin, set going, or originate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initiating
 
deep44 said:
As for whether or not a fee was paid - I'm not sure; however, I wouldn't be surprised, considering it is an open access journal. How else would you suggest they pay to host and maintain the website + cover general operational costs?
Click to expand...

An example of a peer-reviewed open access journal that does not charge for publication is:

Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research

There are 1,120 open access journals listed at the Directory of Open Access Journals (doaj.org), go and take a look and see how many charge ridiculous fees for publication.
 
Cardboard tube model is to WTC 1 & 2 construction

as

Paid-to-publish-'peer' Journal is to Real Professional Technical Journals.
 
Epic Fail!

JamesB said:
I guess the 911 blogger people read JREF religiously:

(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)
Click to expand...

http://911blogger.com/node/15081
Click to expand...

I saw that, but I read too quickly and assumed they meant you'd have to pay in order to read the article. That is common.

Paying to have it published, not so much. I've never heard of such a thing in my life -- at least, in legitimate journals. You know you're in trouble when you have to put up a disclaimer on a site frequented by your unquestioning supporters...

Like others have noted, the "review process" here is also highly irregular. That explains the combative and speculative nature of the text. This is nothing like any journal article I've ever seen, either.

Regarding the actual content, all I saw was a list of questions and corrections to NIST's wording that we've all seen for years. I don't openly disagree with much of the content, in fact every single one of these issues is something I discussed in my whitepaper, many in more depth.

The big difference is, I didn't have to shell out $600 to publish my whitepaper. ;)

Honestly, this is a supremely pathetic move on the part of Dr. Jones. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.
 
Last edited:
hey mods why did you merge these two threads. This deserves a new thread for sure. 911 truth movement hits a mainstream journal and you merge the thread with an old one????? Come on now........sad imo
 
R.Mackey said:
I saw that, but I read too quickly and assumed they meant you'd have to pay in order to read the article. That is common.

Paying to have it published, not so much. I've never heard of such a thing in my life -- at least, in legitimate journals. You know you're in trouble when you have to put up a disclaimer on a site frequented by your unquestioning supporters...

Like others have noted, the "review process" here is also highly irregular. That explains the combative and speculative nature of the text. This is nothing like any journal article I've ever seen, either.

Regarding the actual content, all I saw was a list of questions and corrections to NIST's wording that we've all seen for years. I don't openly disagree with much of the content, in fact every single one of these issues is something I discussed in my whitepaper, many in more depth.

The big difference is, I didn't have to shell out $600 to publish my whitepaper. ;)

Honestly, this is a supremely pathetic move on the part of Dr. Jones. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.
Click to expand...

Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?
 
Sizzler said:
Why is it pathetic? Care to expand?
Click to expand...

certainly. "After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year" they had to PAY to get published in a journal that even allowed them to peer review their own work before submission.

That's like paying a stripper to be your prom date, if you ask me. Yeah, it looks good, but it cost you out the ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom